Through two experiments, this study examines the relationship between linguistic choice and attribution perception in organizational crisis. Experiment 1 demonstrated that abstract (vs. concrete) language in crisis news elicited higher attribution and lower purchase intentions. Experiment two showed that preventable (vs. victim) crisis led to higher usage of abstract language in describing and commenting on the crisis. Also, abstract language use in describing and commenting on the crisis mediates crisis clusters’ effect on purchase intentions. Furthermore, attribution of crisis responsibility mediated crisis cluster and in-group/out-group’s effects on abstract language use in describing and commenting on the crisis. The findings empirically connect two attribution theory-rooted theories: linguistic category model and the situational crisis communication theory.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057
2.
BordenJ. (2016). Effects of national identity in transnational crises: Implications of social identity theory for attribution and crisis communications. International Journal of Communication, 10, 377-397. Retrieved from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3941
3.
ClaeysA. S.CaubergheV.VynckeP. (2010). Restoring reputations in times of crisis: An experimental study of the situational crisis communication theory and the moderating effects of locus of control. Public Relations Review, 36, 256-262. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.05.004
4.
CoombsW. T. (2015). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
CoombsW. T.HolladayS. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, 279-295. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_04
6.
CoombsW. T.HolladayS. J. (2010a). An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 321-340. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1304_03
7.
CoombsW. T.HolladayS. J. (2010b). Examining the effects of mutability and framing on perceptions of human error and technical error crises: Implications for situational crisis communication theory. In CoombsW. T.HolladayS. J. (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp. 181-204). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
8.
CoombsW. T.HolladayS. J. (2016). Digital naturals and crisis communication. In CoombsW. T.FalkheimerJ.HeideM.YoungP. (Eds.), Strategic communication, social media and democracy: The challenge of the digital naturals (pp. 54-62). New York, NY: Routledge.
DuxburyS. W.FrizzellL. C.LindsayS. L. (2018). Mental illness, the media, and the moral politics of mass violence: The role of race in mass shootings coverage. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55, 766-797. doi:10.1177/0022427818787225
11.
EdwardsD.PotterJ. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 100, 23-41. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.23
12.
FiedlerK.BluemkeM.FrieseM.HofmannW. (2003). On the different uses of linguistic abstractness: From LIB to LEB and beyond. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 441-453.
13.
FiedlerK.SeminG. R. (1988). On the causal information conveyed by different interpersonal verbs: The role of implicit sentence context. Social Cognition, 6, 21-39. doi:10.1521/soco.1988.6.1.21
14.
FiedlerK.SeminG. R. (1992). Attribution and language as a socio-cognitive environment. In SeminG. R.FiedlerK. (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 79-101). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
FiedlerK.SeminG. (2009). Language in Applied Contexts. In SeminG.FiedlerK. (Eds.), Applied Social Psychology (pp. 91-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Fischbacher-SmithD. (2013). Paradigm blindness. In PenuelK. B.StatlerM.HagenR. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of crisis management (Vol. 1, pp. 716-719). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
GernigonC.DelloyeJ. B. (2003). Self-efficacy, causal attribution, and track athletic performance following unexpected success or failure among elite sprinters. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 55-76. doi:10.1123/tsp.17.1.55
18.
GorhamB. (2006). News media’s relationship with stereotyping: The linguistic intergroup bias in response to crime news. Journal of Communication, 56, 289-308. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00020.x
19.
HayesA. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
20.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89. doi:10.1080/19312450709336664
21.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
22.
HeiderF.SimmelM. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243-259. doi:10.2307/1416950
23.
HewstoneM. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error?” A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311-335. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420200404
HsuL. H. (2011). Linguistic intergroup bias tells ingroup/outgroup orientation of bicultural Asian Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 853-866. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.06.005
JacksonS.O’KeefeD. J.JacobsS.BrashersD. E. (1989). Messages as replications: Toward a message-centered design strategy. Communication Monographs, 56, 354-384. doi:10.1080/03637758909390270
28.
KleinJ.DawarN. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumer’s attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 203-217. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.003
29.
KimS.SungK. H. (2014). Revisiting the effectiveness of the base crisis response strategies in comparison of reputation management crisis response. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(1), 62-78. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2013.795867
30.
LiuB. F.JinY.AustinL. (2013). The tendency to tell: Understanding publics’ communicative responses to crisis information form and source. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25, 51-67. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2013.739101
31.
LouwerseM.LinK. I.DrescherA.SeminG. (2010). Linguistic cues predict fraudulent events in a corporate social network. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 32, 961-966.
32.
LuJ.ZhangT. (2014). Linguistic intergroup bias in Chinese crime stories: Propaganda model vs. commercial model. Asian Journal of Communication, 24, 333-350. doi:10.1080/01292986.2014.896387
33.
MaassA. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experiential social psychology (pp. 79-122). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
34.
MaassA.CeccarelliR.RudinS. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for ingroup-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512-526. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.512
35.
MaassA.CorvinoP.ArcuriL. (1994). Linguistic intergroup bias and the mass media. Revue de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 31-43. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.512
36.
MalleB. F.GuglielmoS.MonroeA.E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 147-186.
37.
MaassA.MilesiA.ZabbiniS.StahlbergD. (1995). Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or ingroup protection?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 116-126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.116
38.
MaassA.SalviD.ArcuriL.SeminG. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981
39.
McAuleyE.DuncanT.RussellD. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 566-573. doi:10.1177/0146167292185006
40.
MetzlJ. M.MacLeishK. T. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 240-249. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242
41.
MillerD.RossM. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225. doi:10.1037/h0076486
PettigrewT. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461-476. doi:10.1177/014616727900500407
PfefferJ.ZorbachT.CarleyK. M. (2013). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20, 117-128. doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.797778
46.
PreacherK.LeonardelliG. (2019). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm
47.
ReevesB.GeigerS. (2011). Designing experiments that assess psychological responses to media messages. In LangA. (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media (pp. 165-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
RubiniM.MenegattiM.MoscatelliS. (2014). The strategic role of language abstraction in achieving symbolic and practical goals. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 263-313. doi:10.1080/10463283.2014.985501
49.
RubiniM.MoscatelliS.AlbarelloF.PalmonariA. (2007). Group power as a determinant of interdependence and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1203-1221. doi:10.1002/ejsp.391
50.
SchultzF.UtzS.GoritzA. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37, 20-27. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001
51.
SeihY. T.BeierS.PennebakerJ. W. (2017). Development and examination of the linguistic category model in a computerized text analysis method. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 343-355. doi:10.1177/0261927X16657855
52.
SeminG. R. (2008). Language puzzles: A prospective retrospective on the linguistic category model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 197-209. doi:10.1177/0261927X07313664
53.
SeminG. R.FiedlerK. (1988). On the causal information conveyed by different interpersonal verbs: The role of implicit sentence context. Social Cognition, 6, 21-39. doi:10.1521/soco.1988.6.1.21
54.
SeminG. R.FiedlerK. (1989). Relocating attributional phenomena within a language-cognition interface: The case of actors’ and observers’ perspectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 491-508. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420190602
55.
SeminG. R.FiedlerK. (1992). The inferential propertoes of interpersonal verbs. In SeminG.R.FiedlerK. (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 58-78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
56.
SeminG. R.RubiniM.FiedlerK. (1995). The answer is in the question: The effect of verb causality on locus of explanation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 834-841. doi:10.1177/0146167295218006
57.
ShaverK. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113. doi:10.1037/h0028777
TajfelH. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.
60.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
61.
TaylorD. M.JaggiV. (1974). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in a South Indian context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 162-171. doi:10.1177/002202217400500202
62.
ValentiniC. (2015). Is using social media “good” for the public relations profession? A critical reflection. Public Relations Review, 41, 170-177. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.009
63.
Vignal LambretC.BarkiE. (2017). Social media crisis management: Aligning corporate response strategies with stakeholders’ emotions online. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26, 295-305. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12198
64.
WeinerB. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
65.
WeinerB. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)–emotion–action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186-200. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.39.2.186
66.
WeinerB. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1_6
67.
WeinerB. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45, 28-36. doi:10.1080/00461520903433596
68.
WeinerB. (2014). The attribution approach to emotion and motivation: History, hypotheses, home runs, headaches/heartaches. Emotion Review, 6, 353-361. doi:10.1177/1754073914534502
69.
WeinerB.AmirkhanJ.FolkesV. S.VeretteJ. A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naïve theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 316-324. doi:10.1177/1754073914534502
70.
ZhangX.BordenJ.HwangJ. (2017, May). Categorizing crisis: The linguistic categorization model in organizational crisis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
71.
ZhangX.KimS. (2017). An examination of consumer-company identification as a key predictor of consumer responses in corporate crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25, 232-243. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12147
