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

Lee, Suman; Chung, Surin

doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.08.006

Cited by 67 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…How can findings from these studies be compared and validity ensured when an “apology” used in one study contains different numbers and types of components than an “apology” used in another study? For example, Schlenker and Darby () examine five components in their research of reactions in undesirable events (i.e., statement of apologetic intent, expression of remorse–sorrow–embarrassment, offer of help to the injured party or restitution to redress damage, self‐castigation, attempts to obtain forgiveness); De Cremer () uses two components in his trust repair research (i.e., taking responsibility and expressing remorse); Lee and Chung () use only one component in their study (i.e., responsibility admittance); and multiple studies simply use the phrase “I want to apologize” as their studied apology (Haesevoets et al., ; Leunissen, De Cremer, & Reinders Folmer, ). The content included in an apology matters and affects the apology's efficacy, and an apology lacking the appropriate components “could be perceived as superficial and insincere to the eyes of the public” (Lee & Chung, , p. 932).…”

Section: The Efficacy Of Apologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies

Lewicki

Polin

Lount

2016

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Violations of trust are an unfortunate but common occurrence in conflict and negotiation settings: negotiators make promises that they do not keep; parties in conflict behave in unexpected ways, escalating tensions and breaking past trust. What often follows these violations is some form of an account, specifically an apology, in an effort to repair that trust. But are some apologies more effective than others? Two studies reported here examine the structural components of apologies. Six components of an apology were defined from previous research and presented to subjects—singly and in combination—in the form of component definitions and in the context of a trust violation scenario. Results indicate that not all apologies are viewed equally; apologies with more components were more effective than those with fewer components, and certain components were deemed more important than others. Moreover, apologies following competence‐based trust violations were seen as more effective than apologies following integrity‐based violations. Implications and future directions for research in the structure of effective apologies are presented.

show abstract

Section: The Efficacy Of Apologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies

Lewicki

Polin

Lount

2016

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, this study advises avoiding litigation by apologizing in such a way that the organization avoids admitting guilt, a recommendation that contradicts the finding that an effective apology in terms of reputation repair should explicitly announce that the organization is responsible (Lee & Chung, 2012). Thus, more research is needed to examine the long-term costs of an apology versus denial, both for those organizations that turn out to be guilty and those that are not.…”

Section: What Can Scholars Do To Bridge the Gap?mentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Scientific Guidelines For Effective Crisis Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, they want to apologize in a way that indeed reduces legal liability but that, according to research (cf. Lee, 2005;Lee & Chung, 2012), will not effectively minimize reputational damage. Similarly, crisis information can be disclosed, but only if the crisis has a large impact and is external, i.e., only when it is inevitable that the crisis will be publicized soon by a third party.…”

Section: It Isn't Always Easy To Convince a Company We Can Produce Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, it is not enough to merely apologize. The organization should explicitly announce that it is responsible for the crisis and take responsibility for any misdeeds (Lee & Chung, 2012).Communication professionals must also consider the importance of timing during crises.Timing refers to the moment at which information acknowledging that a crisis exists is released (Coombs, 2015). Organizations basically can apply two crisis timing strategies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why practitioners do (not) apply crisis communication theory in practice

Claeys

Opgenhaffen

2016

Journal of Public Relations Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty-five in-depth interviews with Belgian crisis communication practitioners were conducted to examine the gap between theory and practice. Crisis communication has become an important research area within public relations. Several studies have resulted in theories and guidelines regarding the effective use of communication during organizational crises.Unfortunately, these findings are not always put into practice. This study examines to what extent public relations practitioners apply theory in practice during crises and why. The findings offer an opportunity to formulate potential ways in which we can bridge the scholar-practitioner divide in public relations, through guidelines for both scholars and practitioners. Why practitioners do (not) apply crisis communication theory in practiceCrisis communication research has offered a number of clear and useful theoretical guidelines to put into practice. Many of these guidelines stress the accountability of organizations in crisis (cf. Coombs, 2015). Situational Crisis Communication Theory (Coombs, 2007), for instance, indicates that an organization that is blamed for a crisis should communicate crisis response strategies that express acceptance of responsibility. Research on crisis timing strategies similarly stresses the importance of open and responsible communication and shows that organizations should steal thunder (Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). That is, they should self-disclose incriminating information instead of trying to conceal it (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2012). Research illustrates, however, that while offering a full apology might be the most effective crisis response strategy when responsibility attributions are high, the most frequently employed strategies are bolstering and denial ). In addition, literature suggests that practitioners acknowledge the value of stealing thunder, but rarely selfdisclose crises (Kline, Simunich, & Weber, 2009;Ulmer, 2012). As such, a gap exists between theoretical guidelines and crisis communication practice. This study aims to explore the roots of this gap to formulate solutions to bridge the divide.We first discuss potential causes and solutions for the so-called scholar-practitioner divide, or rigor-relevance gap, based on insights from aligned fields (cf. Kieser, Nicolai, & Seidl, 2015). Then we examine this divide in the context of public relations and, more specifically, crisis communication. A brief overview is given of the most widely supported guidelines in the crisis communication literature. In addition, the few studies that examined the extent of the divide in crisis communication and literature that attempts to bridge it are discussed. Finally, we discuss an exploratory study that conducted 25 in-depth interviews with Belgian communication professionals between February and May 2015. The findings indicate which factors limit the practical application of crisis communication theory, according to senior public relations practitioners. These insights allow us to look ahead and explore how we can furth...

show abstract

“Say It Like You Mean It”

Schoofs¹,

Claeys²,

Köppen³

2022

The Handbook of Crisis Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

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

Cited by 67 publications

References 4 publications

An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies

An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies

Why practitioners do (not) apply crisis communication theory in practice

“Say It Like You Mean It”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About