Corporate apology and crisis communication; The effect of responsibility admittance and sympathetic expression on public anger relief

Thinking styles affect reactions to brand crisis apologies

“…This research contributes to the brand crisis literature, being among the first to consider how the remedial solution framing can enhance people’s evaluation of the brand and decrease the perceived negative impact resulting from the brand crisis. We build on and extend this work by comparing two types of remedial solution framing in response to the crisis: a remedial solution framed in “why” or “how” terms, since prior studies, especially in management, have traditionally treated a remedial solution as a strictly dichotomous phenomenon where victims either receive it or not (Orenstein, 1999; Chung, 2011; Conlon and Murray, 1996; Fehr and Gelfand, 2010). Importantly, we also connect the effects of the remedial solution framing with recent work considering how their thinking styles impact people’s responses to negative publicity information about a brand (Monga and John, 2008).…”

“…Based on the apology definitions and results from many studies, a remedial solution appears to be a very critical component of any effective apology (Orenstein, 1999; Chung, 2011; Conlon and Murray, 1996; Fehr and Gelfand, 2010). However, a neglected omission from this research stream on apologies is how the remedial solution is conveyed in terms of “why” and “how” framing (Roschk and Kaiser, 2013).…”

“…Chung (2011) also concludes that a helpful corporate apology commonly includes: responsibility, sympathy, compensation, and a promise that it will not happen again. His study further revealed that taking the responsibility and implementing a remedial solution (e.g., proper assurance and compensation) proactively, rather than passively, can better diminish public dissatisfaction.…”