Shaping Attributions of Crisis Responsibility in the Case of an Accusation: The Role of Active and Passive Voice in Crisis Response Strategies

Abstract

This study examines how both the content (i.e., denial vs. apology) and the verb voice (i.e., active voice vs. passive voice) of a crisis response affect the public's perception of crisis responsibility and, subsequently, the reputation of an organization accused of wrongdoing. The results of two experiments first show that an apology results in higher responsibility attributions than denial, which, in turn, adversely affects an organization's reputation. When we consider the verb voice of the message, a crisis response that is constructed in the passive voice reduces responsibility perceptions more than the active voice, leading to less reputational damage. An interaction effect shows, however, that this result only holds true for a passive denial strategy and not for apologies. As such, when an organization needs to deny an accusation, it seems wise to construct the message in the passive voice in order to strengthen the denial and effectively protect the organizational reputation.