This study advances our theoretical knowledge of how organizational crises and crisis communication affect reputation. Prior research solely emphasizes the importance of organizational crisis responsibility in this process. Three experiments show that stakeholders' empathy toward the organization provides a second explanation. The first two experiments demonstrate that victim crises not only inflict less reputational damage than preventable crises because stakeholders consider the organization less responsible for the events, but also because they are more likely to empathize with the company. The third study shows that empathy can also explain the outcomes of crisis communication. An apology arouses empathy among stakeholders and subsequently increases reputation repair, unlike denial. The role of empathy in the crisis communication process has implications for both theory and practice.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Through focus group discussions in which members of the public discuss audiovisual crisis responses, this study explored which aspects of crisis communication that received much prior attention actually matter in shaping public perceptions and in what ways. The findings align with evidence-based guidelines in the sense that apologies, emotions, and nonverbal behaviors are important in shaping public perceptions. However, simply applying recommended strategies may not be enough to repair reputations. Crisis communication strategies must be put to practice in such a way that shows empathy for victims, while the speaker appears both competent and sincere. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF AUDIOVISUAL CRISIS RESPONSES 1 "Say It Like You Mean it": An Exploration of how Members of the Public Perceive Audiovisual Crisis ResponsesIn the last three decades, experimental studies expanded the predictive ability of crisis communication theory. Research has shed light on the causal effects of distinct aspects of crisis communication such as content, channels, tone, and nonverbal behaviors on post-crisis reputation (e.g., Claeys et al., 2010;Coombs & Holladay, 2009;De Waele et al., 2018;van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). In reality, however, each of these separate dimensions is joined together in an actual crisis response. After years of research on the distinct effects of