The Effects of Using Positive Emotions in Post-Crisis Response
Communication by Nonprofit Organizations
Student: Zühre Orhon (ID:10335552)
Master’s Thesis Corporate Communication Graduate School of Communication
Master Communication Science
Supervisor: mw. dr. A. C. (Anne) Kroon
Abstract
Studies show that emotions in crisis response strategies play a role in managing organizational reputation within the corporate sector. These studies show the effects of negative emotions. However, positive emotions can also be used in post-crisis
communication, especially by nonprofit organizations (NPOs) to keep their (monetary) existence. Although the literature on the effects of positive emotions within crisis response strategy is scarce, this study aimed to take a closer look at the effects of positive emotions on organizational reputation, as well as the possible consequences for the intentions to donate. This study has assessed different emotions (i.e. relief vs. gratitude vs. no emotions) on the organizational reputation and the possible indirect effects on the intention to donate. Additionally, the moderating effects of skepticism on the organizational reputation when considering different of crisis clusters (victim vs. regret) were considered. An experiment (N = 125) was executed to study these effects. Interestingly, the prior attitude towards NPOs results far often in significant effects compared to using emotions as part of crisis response strategy. Finally, skepticism moderates the indirect effect of gratitude on the intention to donate that is mediated by organizational reputation, but there were none for the emotion relief. Implications of these findings were discussed further.
Keywords: crisis response strategy, nonprofit organizations, crisis cluster, emotions, crisis communication, reputation.
Introduction
Emotions in corporate communication can impact how the public interprets and responds to crisis situations (Kim, 2016; Kim & Cameron, 2011; Nabi, 2003). So, many studies focus on the role of emotions in post-crisis communication (Choi & Lin, 2007; Grappi, Romani & Bagozzi, 2015; Jin, Pang & Cameron, 2007; Kim & Cameron, 2011; van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014; Wesseling, Kerkhof & Van Dijk, 2007). However, these studies examine the effects of negative emotions only (i.e. regret, shame and anger). Although positive emotions can also be used in crisis communication, academic literature about this topic is limited and little is known about the extent to which positive emotions can affect
organizations. Thus, further research is needed to identify the key findings. Therefore, this study will take the opportunity to explore the possible effects of positive emotions in crisis communication.
Emotions go together with crisis situations, and they are experienced by both the public and the involved organization (Coombs & Holladay, 2005). During a crisis, the public will gather information through the news media (Coombs, 2007). This information is able to form the reputation (Fombrun & Van Riel, 2004). However, a change in organizational reputation can affect the relationship with the stakeholders (Lange, Lee & Dai, 2011). One example is the crisis that Oxfam1 was involved in. To prevent such situations, it is important to manage reputation by encouraging positive attitude towards the organization (Lyon & Cameron, 2004).
Most studies focus on crisis communication strategies within the corporate sector (Coombs, 2007; Grappi et al., 2015; Jin et al., 2007; Kim & Cameron, 2011). Like Oxfam, other NPOs (nonprofit organizations) also deal with crisis situations. The very existence of NPOs depends on public donations (Beldad, Snip & Van Hoof, 2014). If not handled
1
Oxfam endured serious consequences after a story about using prostitutes in Haiti emerged ("Oxfam scandal: Thousands cancel donations", 2018). One of these being monetary loss and reputational damage. BBC News website reported that approximately 7000 people stopped donating money and that this lead to a situation where the people who were in need of this money were not met with the expected help from the organization.
carefully, a crisis situation can threaten the existence of the organization. Besides, NPOs are defined by the norms and values of society (Hafsi & Thomas, 2005). Thus, the public needs to be convinced that the organization is operating ethically and honestly (Sisco, 2012). Contrarily, a corporation is mainly driven by its return on investments. Meaning the organizational existence is not threatened as much compared to NPOs. Maintaining a positive reputation can help to guarantee income and the existence (Sisco, 2012). As reputation can be affected by emotions in crisis communication, it is critical to explore this process for NPOs. This research aims to contribute to the expanding academic knowledge on this topic, and it can hopefully provide new insights to develop effective crisis response strategies.
This study will focus on two positive emotions (i.e. gratitude and relief) in an
experimental setting to test the effects on NPOs reputation. Gratitude is as a virtue that has positive effects on the receiver of the message, it signs prosocial behavior and contributes positively to consumer-brand related relationships (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons &
Larson, 2001; McCullough & Tsang, 2004; Raggio & Folse, 2009). Although having a positive impact on the organizational attitude, gratitude has not been studied in relation to crisis communication. Another positive emotion that can easily be integrated into post-crisis communication is relief. For example, by expressing how grateful and/or relieved the organization is that the crisis was limited or that further escalation could be prevented. Besides, Van der Meer and Verhoeven (2014) mentioned that relief and gratitude are worth studying when the effects of positive emotions on organizational reputation is considered.
Another important aspect in crisis response strategies is the organizational
responsibility. Coombs' Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) (2007) dissects three crisis clusters (i.e. victim, accidental and preventable) that attribute responsibility to a crisis situation. The aim of this study is to explore the effects of positive emotions combined with the most opposite attributions for crisis situations (i.e. victim and preventable). First, because the organizations’ intention to engage in certain activities causing the crisis situation is different. Secondly, the reputational threat is placed against each other due to the nature
of the cluster. Crisis clusters might deliver interesting outcomes while studying the effects of emotions in crisis communication. The accidental cluster is left out due to the limited time frame.
Skepticism of the public regarding organizational reputation is another interesting factor (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Mohr, Eroǧlu & Ellen, 1998). The perception that the
organization acts to save its image rather than the greater good can affect the organizational reputation. The public might distrust the intentions and sees the organizational motives (i.e. emotions as crisis response strategy) as a way to affect the organizational attitude (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006). However, NPOs need to be perceived as warm and kind by the public to manage their reputation (Aaker, Bohs & Mogilner, 2010). Thus, as suggested before by Van der Meer and Verhoeven (2014) using positive emotions in crisis
communication might help to achieve this goal during crisis situations. Besides, understanding the mechanisms within SCCT and the role of positive emotions in crisis communication will help to improve and/or execute existing strategies by reputation managers of similar organizations. That is why following research question is made:
What are the effects of using positive emotions (i.e. relief and gratitude) in crisis
communication relative to non-emotional crisis communication on the reputation of NPOs and the intention to donate, and to what extent is this influenced by the type of crisis cluster (i.e. victim and preventable) and skepticism?
Theoretical Framework Situational Crisis Communication Theory
SCCT (Coombs, 2007) plays an important role in literature when discussing crisis communication. This theoretical framework describes the key factors of particular crisis events that can influence the stakeholders’ attitude towards the crisis situation and the organizational reputation, that is defined as the overall evaluation of an organization by its
public (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). SCCT outlines how reputational threat with post-crisis communication strategies can be minimized. Based on the situation, rational crisis response strategies (i.e. denial, diminish and rebuild) are preferred (Coombs, 2007), because
communication can used to effectively protect the reputational assets during a crisis event (Coombs & Holladay, 2005).
Two positive emotions are selected for the study: gratitude and relief. Fredrickson (2004) defines gratitude as an emotion that arises when one sees that the other party (e.g. organization) intentionally acts to improve the wellbeing of individuals. So, when
organizations show gratitude, this might indicate the caring nature of the organization. As mentioned earlier, gratitude is a virtue and it positively affects consumer-brand relationships (McCullough et al., 2001; McCullough & Tsang, 2004; Raggio & Folse, 2009). This is in line with the perceived warmness of NPOs to manage relationships with its stakeholders (Aaker et al., 2010). Relief is also another positive emotion that can lead to the perceived warmness of an organization, because expressing this emotion leads to a more positive reputation (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014).
Emotions and Organizational Reputation
Emotions and emotional reactions are an inseparable part of crisis events (Coombs & Holladay, 2005). They can help to guide the public response to a crisis event (Kim &
Cameron, 2011). Nabi (2003), calls this processing of messages the "emotion-as-frame perspective" (p. 230) and adds that emotions have a framing function of events, where the repetition of particular emotions with ideas or events can form the way how the public interprets and responds to the event. Many researchers have studied the type of emotions people experience during or after a crisis (Choi & Lin, 2007; Grappi et al., 2015; Jin et al., 2007; Kim & Cameron, 2011; Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014; Wesseling et al., 2007). But these were mainly the use of negative emotions (i.e. regret, shame, and anger) by
organizations. However, positive emotions can also be used to sustain organizational reputation during a crisis situation.
An earlier study by Choi and Lin (2007) explored the differences between rational and emotional appeals of crisis response strategies. The results showed that messages with emotions resulted in a more positive crisis evaluation compared to rational messages. Note that specific emotions were not distinguished. Van der Meer and Verhoeven (2014) also studied the role of emotions in corporate crisis communication. However, they have analyzed two specific emotions: shame vs. regret as compared to no emotions. This was because the emotions suit the crisis response strategies rebuild and diminish (Coombs, 2007). Their results illustrate that crisis response showing shame or regret affects reputation more positively as compared to crisis response without emotions. However, showing no emotions might have indicated the low involvement of the organization. This could cause the
organization to be perceived as cold. However, NPOs are usually perceived warm (Aaker et al., 2010). That is because NPOs seem to signal trust which in turn is important for the organizational reputation (Aaker, Fournier & Brasel, 2004). When an organization is seen as warm, they are associated with perceptions of kindness, honesty and trustworthiness (Aaker et al., 2010). Positive emotions like gratitude and relief can be used to express these
perceptions. Reputation signals trust, which is part of being warm as an organization. When this happens, people can count on the organization that it will do what is necessary and this can help to repair relationships when mistakes are made (Aaker, Fournier & Brasel, 2004). Therefore, it is assumed that organizational reputation will be positively affected when positive emotions in crisis communication is used, as compared to no emotions.
H1: Expressing positive emotions (i.e. relief and gratitude) in crisis response communication leads to a more positive organizational reputation compared to not expressing emotions in crisis communication.
SCCT theory distinguishes three clusters within crisis communications: the victim, the accidental and the preventable cluster (Coombs, 2007). Within the victim cluster, the
organization has become the victim of the crisis. The public is not attributing responsibility to the organization for the event and reputational threat is mild. In the accidental cluster, organizational actions might be the cause for the crisis. Although the intentions were good, accidental actions caused the crisis. Because the event is accidental, responsibility cannot entirely be contributed to the organization. The reputational threat is moderate. In the
preventable cluster, the organization has knowingly taken risk or has violated the law causing the crisis. In this cluster responsibility as well as the reputational threat is the highest.
Congruent to common sense, emotions were found impacting the way the crisis was framed and perceived (Coombs & Holladay, 2005; Nabi, 2003). Positive emotions (i.e. gratitude and relief) are expected to help with this. However, the public wants to count on the organization to perceive it as warm (Aaker et al., 2010). It is expected that when the
organization is the victim, the public might assess the organizational reputation more positive as compared to when the organization is at fault for the crisis. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H2a: Positive effects of relief on organizational reputation is more pronounced when the organization is attributed to the victim cluster as compared to the preventable cluster.
H2b: Positive effects of gratitude on organizational reputation is more pronounced when the organization is attributed to the victim cluster as compared to the
preventable cluster.
Interaction Effects
Skepticism addresses how an organization makes an effort to manage its reputation rather than acting for the greater good. It is defined as the degree of how the public distrusts the organizational intentions, who might use means to affect the attitude towards the
naturally shifts to distrust others (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Pirsch, Gupta & Grau, 2007). This concept, however, is usually used in combination with cynicism, which is the distrust that emerges when a person believes that others' behaviors are based on their egocentric motives (Mohr et al., 1998). One important difference between them is that skepticism depends on the situation, whereas cynicism can be seen as part of one's
personality. Thus, skepticism towards organizations might also appear in a certain context.
Generally, people assess those who do good (bad) things, as good (bad) people (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). However, these perceptions can change when suspicions of motives are felt, leading to changes in perceptions of others (Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1993). People usually attribute positive motives to companies that improve their reputation, but research suggests that these attributions will not occur when suspicion towards the good intentions arise (Hilton et al., 1993). Especially when the organizational intentions are driven by other projected objectives. It is not surprising to expect that the public is aware of
organizations that engage in activities solely to improve reputation (Yoon, Gürhan‐Canli & Schwarz, 2006). Even if there is no specific research on the non-profit field about the moderating role of skepticism, research in the profit sector did find the results, and it is still valuable to extend it to NPOs. To do this, the following is expected:
H3a: Positive effects of relief on organizational reputation is more pronounced for skeptic people as compared to less skeptic people.
H3b: The positive effects of gratitude on organizational reputation is more pronounced for skeptic people as compared to less skeptic people.
Mediating Effects Organizational Reputation
NPOs are dependent on donations from the public to exist (Beldad et al., 2014). When a crisis event affects the organizational reputation of an NPO, it might also influence the behavior of the public. This could affect the monetary income of the organizations. As Beldad et al. (2014) have shown, organizational reputation is important for NPOs, because
this can play an important role in the intentions to donate to charitable organizations. Another previous study that supports this finding, is done by Meijer (2009). This research also shows that the intention to donate to an NPO is positively affected by the organizational reputation. Therefore, it can be concluded that maintaining a positive reputation, especially during a crisis situation, is important for NPOs to make sure that the monetary income will not decline or stop completely.
Beldad et al. (2014) state that when a negative event regarding an organization takes place, it will impact how the public behaves towards donating money to charitable
organizations. Additionally, an NPO that is involved in a crisis situation has somehow disappointed the public by getting caught up in such a situation and this thus leads to a negative reputation of the organization (Sisco, 2012). Because reputation is an important factor for the intention to donate (Beldad et al., 2014; Meijer, 2009), it is expected that a damaged organizational reputation will lead to a lower intention to donate. That is why the following hypothesis for the mediation of the relationship between crisis response
communication and the intention to donate by organizational reputation is formed: H4a: The relationship between using relief in crisis response communication and the intention to donate is positively mediated by the organizational reputation.
H4b: The relationship between using gratitude in crisis response communication and the intention to donate is positively mediated by the organizational reputation.
As a result of the proposed hypotheses, a conceptual model to illustrate the relations between the variables was developed (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
Method Design and Procedure
An online experiment was designed to answer the research question. This experiment has a factorial 3 (emotions: relief vs. gratitude vs. non-emotional) x 2 (crisis cluster: victim vs. preventable) between-subject design. There were six conditions in total and the participants were assigned randomly to one of the six conditions.
The experiment was conducted through the online survey software Qualtrics. The respondents were gathered through a convenience sample, so the experiment was
distributed to family, friends, colleagues, classmates and other people within the network of the researcher. Respondents were free to choose when and where to take part in the experiment.
The online experiment (see Appendix A) was divided in three sections. In the first section, the aim of the study, the estimated time to complete the questionnaire and informed consent were presented. The second section contained the questions for this research. This started with questions assessing the attitude and skepticism towards NPOs, and the intention to donate money to NPOs in general. After this, the participants were randomly assigned to one fictive news article containing one of the six experimental conditions (i.e. Victim x Relief, Victim x Gratitude, Victim x No Emotion, Preventable x Relief, Preventable x Gratitude, Preventable x No Emotion). After reading the article, the participants were asked questions to measure the reputation of Stichting Punt and their intention to donate money to this charity. Finally, demographic questions were asked. The final section of the study aimed to debrief the participants, and the participants were asked if they wanted to opt-in to win a gift voucher before stopping the questionnaire.
Respondents
Of all the participants 53.6% (N =125) were female. Their age ranged from 18 to 66 years, and the average age was 32.58 years (SD = 11.50). In addition, 61.6% of the
participants had completed their education in HBO or University level. Finally, 88.8% of all participants stated that they have donated money to a charitable organization at least once before.
Randomization Check
The experiment consisted of six conditions. A few randomization checks were conducted to test whether the participants that were assigned to the conditions have similar demographic characteristics. Before this, the assignment of participants to each condition was controlled. Table 1 shows that the participants were assigned evenly to the six conditions as intended (Appendix C).
A Chi-Square Test was conducted to check the randomization of gender. Results show that the participants’ gender is not significantly different when compared over the six conditions, χ2 = 3.641, p = .602.
Finally, a One-Way ANOVA was used to check if the means for both age and
education level were distributed evenly for all the conditions. Results show that the means for age (F(5, 119) = .16, p = .977) as well as education level (F(5, 119) = .45, p = .816) did not significantly differ amongst the experimental conditions. This means that the demographic characteristics of the participants were divided to each group evenly. Please view Table 1 for further details (Appendix C).
Stimulus Material
The experiment was about 6 news articles describing a crisis situation in which the fictional foundation named “Stichting Punt” where money and clothes can be donated was placed. These types of non-profit organizations are familiar for most people, and their goals and activities are clear. Besides, using an existent non-profit organization might prime the opinion of respondents.
Emotions were manipulated by adding expressions of relief and gratitude in organizational communication. This was done by taking the study of Van der Meer & Verhoeven (2014) as an example. For each condition, the organizational response expressed the feelings of relief or gratitude or no emotions. For the relief condition, the manipulation was done by expressing this emotion specifically within the article. Relief was delivered with the following sentences: "In that sense, we're very much relieved as an
organization", and “Fortunately, we have colleagues at the administration who have reported this in time”. For the gratitude condition, the manipulation was executed in a similar way. Examples are: "Our gratitude as an organization is great" and “We are grateful that
colleagues have reported this in time”. In addition, each title of all the conditions were made to express the emotions specifically. Such as: “Stichting Punt in Amsterdam expresses gratitude after reports of fraud”, and “Stichting Punt in Amsterdam expressed relief after the robbing crisis”. As for the no emotion condition, there were no emotional words or
expressions describing the event. The articles in this condition consisted of informative text only. A main title was: “Stichting Punt in Amsterdam is in crisis after robbing incident” and the no emotion condition was expressed with “The police are now investigating, and they will ensure safety of the building so that we can get back to work soon”. Please refer to Appendix B for the news articles.
Factor 2: Crisis Clusters
The crisis cluster was manipulated by changing what the crisis is about following Sisco (2012). In the preventable cluster, it is clear that the crisis happened due to the lack of organizational administration. The organization emphasizes that this could have been prevented with better supervision of the activities. One example is: ''This crisis, which the foundation could have prevented with better controls...''. The news articles in this cluster describe a crisis situation where the chairman of the foundation smuggled money that is intended for those in need. Within the victim cluster, the organization is described as the victim due to external factors that caused the crisis situation. The crisis situation in this cluster was that the foundation was robbed. For example: ''As a result, not only the people
who need these clothing items are victims but the foundation as well''. Furthermore, the titles and the reply of the organization were adapted based on the cluster and the emotions. The introduction for each article was the same over all the conditions. An overview of the news articles can be found in Appendix B.
Measures
The variables in this study were measured with multiple items. These items were assessed with a 7-point Likert-scale, ranging from (1) 'completely disagree' to (7) 'completely agree'. Table 2 illustrates the descriptive statistics of the main concepts, and Table 3 shows the factor loadings of all the items below (Appendix C).
The moderator skepticism towards the organization was measured with four items based on the study of Van Reijmersdal, Tutaj, and Boerman (2014), who at their turn have based their scale on the previous study by Gupta and Gould (1997). Examples of the items are: ''Stichting Punt is dependable'' and ''Stichting Punt is commercial''. Cronbach’s’ Alpha for this variable was 0.90 (M = 3.68, SD = 1.28) without deleting the items. Meaning that the four items that were used to assess skepticism towards NPO’s is reliable.
Organizational reputation was measured using the Organizational Reputation Scale (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). The original scale consists of ten items, however, due to the length of the survey this is reduced to five. Besides, van der Meer and Verhoeven (2014) showed that these five items were reliable to measure organizational reputation. It is worth mentioning that the selection of these items was based on the highest Cronbach's alpha for each item (Coombs, 1998). Examples of the items are: ''Stichting Punt is dishonest'' and ''I believe in what Stichting Punt says''. Cronbach’s’ Alpha for this variable was 0.84 (M = 3.86, SD = .504) without deleting the items, after reverse coding certain control items. Meaning that the five items that were used to assess the organizational reputation is reliable.
The dependent variable intention to donate was measured with three items that were used in a study by Coyle and Thorson (2001). This item is mentioned to be a good indication for behavioral intentions, such as donating money to charitable organizations. The variable
was assessed with three items. Examples of the items are: ''It is likely that I will donate money to charitable organizations'' and ''I will not donate money to charitable organizations''. The Cronbach’s’ Alpha for this variable was 0.93 (M = 3.14, SD = 1.45) without deleting the items, and after reverse coding the last item. Meaning that the three items that were used to assess the intention to donate is reliable.
The general attitude towards NPOs was measured before the experimental material was shown. This was done to see whether there will be any differences within the groups when the participants are exposed to the experimental materials and thus are controlled for this variable. The 'attitude towards NPOs' was assessed using five items based on Webb, Green, and Brashear (2000). Examples of the items are '' The money that is given to
charities, is spent on good causes'' and "I have a positive image of charitable organizations''. These items were measured with a 7-point Likert-scale. The Cronbach’s’ Alpha for this variable was 0.85 (M = 4.90, SD = 1.10). Meaning that the five items that were used are reliable to assess the attitude towards NPOs.
In addition, intention to donate money to charitable organizations before being exposed to the experiment was also measured. This was measured with three items that were used in a study by Coyle and Thorson (2001). These items are mentioned to be a good indication for behavioral intentions, such as donating money to charitable organizations (Coyle & Thorson, 2001). The variable was assessed with three items. Examples of the items are: ''It is likely that I will donate money to a charitable organization'' and ''I am planning to donate money to a charitable organization''. The Cronbach’s’ Alpha for this variable was 0.94 (M = 4.96, SD = 1.61) without deleting the items, after recoding the third item. Meaning that the three items that were used to assess the intention to donate is reliable as well.
Manipulation Check
A manipulation check was run with a separate sample. People were asked to state whether they were able to recognize the emotional state of the news articles and the crisis clusters (N = 25).
The first manipulation check tested if the crisis response strategy (relief vs. gratitude vs. non-emotional) was recognized as intended by the participants. The question was: ''Which emotion is used by the organization while describing this crisis situation?''. Respondents were able to choose between the following multiple-choice options: pride, gratitude, relief, content, no emotion/other.
The second test was to check whether the crisis clusters (i.e. victim vs. preventable) measured how the participants perceived the responsibility of the crisis event. The following question was used for the test: ''To what degree is the organization responsible for the occurrence of this crisis event?". Participants answered this with the help of a 7-point Likert-scale, that ranged from (1) 'completely agree' to (7) 'completely disagree'. Respondents in both conditions were able to attribute the right crisis cluster to the news article that was selected.
Results Manipulation check
The results of the test showed that the participants were able to recognize both the emotions relief and gratitude in 84% of the cases. In 70% of the cases, the participants were also able to recognize no emotion conditions. Thus, it can be stated that the manipulation of the emotional crisis response was implemented as intended. Please refer to Table 4 for details (Appendix C).
Similar results were found for the crisis cluster. A median split was performed to test whether the participants were able to determine the crisis cluster correctly. One-Sample T-test shows that the articles with the victim cluster (M = .64, SD = .49) indicated less responsibility for the occurrence of the crisis event (t (24) = 6.53, p < .005, 95% CI [.44, .84]), compared to the preventable cluster (M = .68, SD = .48) that also significantly attributed responsibility for the crisis event (t (24) = -3.36, p < .005, 95% CI [-.52, -.12]). This means that the articles within the preventable cluster indicated more responsibility for the crisis event than the articles within the victim cluster. For details, please see Table 5 (Appendix C).
Direct Effects of Crisis Response Strategies
The first hypothesis (H1) states that expressing positive emotions by an NPO in their crisis response strategy leads to a more positive organizational reputation, compared to when the NPO is not expressing any emotions in their crisis communication. To test this, a Univariate ANOVA was conducted within the crisis cluster (victim) displaying different
emotions (positive emotions vs. no emotions) as the independent variable, the organizational reputation as the dependent variable, and the attitude towards NPOs as a control variable. Results showed that the model using emotions as parts of crisis response communication within the victim cluster was significant (F (1, 38) = 2.09, p = .003, R2 = .25). One-way analysis of variance showed that the effect of using emotions was not significant (F (1, 86) = .28, p = .601). Meaning that there is not a significant difference between the respondents that were exposed to the crisis response strategy with emotions (M = 5.30, SD = 1.09) and the respondents that were exposed to the crisis response strategies with no emotions (M = 5.13, SD = .96). Thus, the hypothesis was not supported. Although the emotional state was not found significant, the prior attitude towards NPOs was significant (F (23, 86) = 2.48, p = .001). A post-hoc correlation test showed that prior attitude towards NPOs was strongly positively correlated to organizational reputation (R2 = .50, p< 0.05).
Another Univariate ANOVA was carried out for the preventable cluster. Results showed that the model using emotions as part of crisis response communication within the
preventable cluster was significant (F (1, 38) = 2.21, p = .001, R2 = .27). One-way analysis of variance showed that the effect of using emotions was not significant (F (1, 86) = .01, p = .993). The preventable cluster does not influence the way in which emotions affect the organizational reputation. So, the hypothesis was not supported. Again, the prior attitude towards NPOs was found significant (F (23, 86) = 1.96, p = .014) as shown in Table 6 (Appendix C).
The second hypothesis states that the positive effects of positive emotions on the
organizational reputation is more pronounced when the organization is attributed to the (H2a) victim cluster, as compared to the (H2b) preventable cluster. To test this, an independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the two groups of positive emotions (relief vs. gratitude) that were attributed to the crisis clusters (victim vs. preventable). Results indicated that there was not a significant preference for victim cluster (M = 5.21, SD = .96) over
preventable cluster (M = 5.06, SD = 1.20) when relief was used (t (123) = .63, p = .532, 95% CI [-.32, .62]). There is no difference between the clusters when the organizational reputation is measured. Thus, H2a was rejected. However, the positive effects of gratitude on
organizational reputation was more pronounced for organizations within the victim cluster (M = 5.11, SD = 1.00 ) as compared to the preventable cluster (M = 5.20, SD = 1.01), (t (123) = .40, p = .687, 95% CI [-.38, .57]). Results showed that the effects of gratitude within the victim cluster was more pronounced and has thus confirmed the hypothesis.
Mediation Effects
The mediation effect of organizational reputation between the crisis response strategies (positive emotions vs. no emotions) and the intention to donate was assessed with the PROCESS model 7 (Hayes, 2012). Here, crisis response strategies were used as the
independent variable, organizational reputation as the mediating variable, intention to donate as the dependent variable. Attitude towards NPOs, gender and age were used as the control variables.
The third hypothesis postulates the interaction effect of crisis response strategies (relief vs. gratitude) and skepticism on the organizational reputation (see Figure 2 in Appendix D). Results showed there was no significant direct effect of relief on organizational reputation (b = -.01, p = .990) as shown in Table 9 (Appendix E). This is also supported by the results of H1. However, skepticism showed a significant direct effect on organizational reputation (b = -.22, p = .025). This means that the more skeptic the person is, the less positive the
significant positive effect on organizational reputation (b = .28, p = .007). Thus, for each unit increase in prior attitude towards NPOs, the organizational reputation will also increase by .28. Furthermore, gender (female = 0, male = 1) showed significant results on organizational reputation (b = -.30, p = .059). Thus, being male decreases the organizational reputation by .30. These results in Table 8 (Appendix E) showed that the expected moderation did not happen. Hypothesis 3a is not supported. A full display of these results can be found in Appendix E.
The results for H3b showed that there was significant direct effect of gratitude on organizational reputation (b= .02, p = .036) (Table 10, Appendix E). In addition, emotions were strengthened by skepticism. So, the more skeptical a person is towards NPOs, the less emotions will impact the organizational reputation and vice versa. Furthermore, both prior attitude towards NPOs (b= .25, p = .016) and gender (b= -.33, p = .037) showed significant results for the effect on organizational reputation. In conclusion, H3b was supported.
The results for the relationship between using positive emotions in crisis response communication and the intention to donate showed that the direct effect of relief on the intention to donate was not significant (b= -.14, p= .591). Thus, H4a was not supported. There was however a significant direct effect of organizational reputation on the intention to donate (b= .35, p = .014) (see Figure 2 in Appendix D).
The final results for gratitude showed that a significant moderation effect exists (b= .45, p < .005). Moreover, the direct effect of the emotion gratitude does not stand (b= .25, p = .328)
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Organi
zat
ion
al
re
p
u
tat
ion
Low Skepticism High Skepticism(see Table 12 in Appendix E), as there is an indirect effect of gratitude on the intention to donate through organizational reputation and this is moderated by skepticism (Figure 3, Appendix D). Again, prior attitude towards NPOs showed significant effects for the intention to donate (b= .34, p = .009). Gender and age showed no significant results. In conclusion, H4(a, b) was supported. Other results for the control variables can be found in Table 10 and 11 (see Appendix E).
Discussion
Damaged reputation can impact the monetary income of NPOs, such as donations, which the organizations are largely depended on (Beldad et al., 2014). Earlier studies have shown that emotions have positive effects on reputation and how a crisis situation is
assessed (Choi & Lin, 2007; Claeys et al., 2013; Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). A positive reputation implies warmth related judgements (Aaker et al., 2010). Warmth includes attributions such as trustworthiness and honesty. This in turn signals that organizations can be counted on, as they will act for the goodwill of the stakeholders and thus is prepared to repair the relationship when this is damaged due to a mistake (Aaker et al., 2010).
That is why this study aimed to explore the possible positive effects of positive emotions (i.e. relief and gratitude) relative to non-emotional crisis communication on the reputation of NPOs and the intention to donate. In addition, it is studied to what extent this relationship is influenced by the type of crisis cluster (i.e. victim and preventable) and skepticism. To answer this research question, an online experiment with 3 (emotions: relief vs. gratitude vs. non-emotional) x 2 (crisis cluster: victim vs. preventable) between-subject design was executed. Contrary to the expectations, communicating positive emotions as part of crisis response strategy does not always affect the reputation of NPOs, as compared to not expressing emotions. However, there were some remarkable results for the emotions relief and gratitude, but also for external factors such as prior attitude towards NPOs and skepticism. These findings will be discussed below.
Positive and No Emotions in Crisis Response Strategies
Results show that there are remarkable findings between different emotions and crisis clusters. First, expressing positive emotions (i.e. relief and gratitude) as part of crisis
communication does not affect the organizational reputation as compared to expressing no emotions. In addition, there were no differences between the crisis clusters (i.e. victim and preventable). Although using emotions is not important to change the organizational reputation, prior attitude towards NPOs does play a significant role. Albeit an interesting outcome, the first results do not support the first hypothesis.
An explanation for the insignificant effects of using positive emotions vs. no emotions in crisis communication, could be due to not being able to recognize the no emotion condition as intended and as easily as the emotional conditions. This was partially shown in the
manipulation check of the smaller sample (N = 25). Only 70 % of the respondents were able to recognize the no emotion condition. In contrast, the positive emotions were recognized by 84% of the respondents. If the crisis response strategy was not perceived in the actual experiment, then it might explain why it is hard to indicate the main effects between the two conditions.
More specifically, the effects of relief in the victim cluster does not affect the organizational reputation more than when this emotion is expressed in the preventable cluster. However, gratitude seems to work better within the victim cluster as compared to the preventable cluster to improve the organizational reputation. This can be explained by the very definition of gratitude as an emotion. Gratitude is perceived when the individual sees that the other party (i.e. NPO) is intentionally trying to improve the wellbeing of others
(Fredrickson, 2004). Besides, gratitude can also positively affect the consumer-brand related relationships (McCullough et al., 2001; McCullough & Tsang, 2004; Raggio & Folse, 2009). Additionally, people will attribute the crisis responsibility less to the organization when this is in the victim cluster (Coombs, 2007). Thus, placing gratitude in this crisis cluster is a good combination to manage organizational reputation during a crisis situation.
Mediation Effects on Intention to Donate
It was expected that due to the interaction effect between positive emotions (relief and gratitude) and skepticism on the organizational reputation, communicating emotions would cause the organizational reputation to be more pronounced for skeptic people compared to less skeptic people. This interaction effect on reputation was not apparent for the emotion relief, but it was apparent for the emotion gratitude. Thus, when the NPO expresses gratitude in their crisis communication, this will directly affect the organizational reputation. Plus, there is an interaction effect of skepticism when gratitude is expressed in crisis communication for organizational reputation. Thus, skepticism enhances the effects of gratitude on reputation. Interestingly this effect does not occur when the emotion relief is used. However, skepticism and prior attitude towards NPOs does show direct effects on the organizational reputation when relief as crisis response strategy is used, but there is no moderation effects of skepticism for relief.
Another interesting finding is that in this relationship between gratitude and
organizational reputation, the prior attitude towards NPOs as covariate seems to improve the reliability of the model. Additionally, being a male means that the organizational reputation will be assessed lower than when the person is female. These differences in effect of skepticism between gratitude and relief could be explained due to the difference in how the public trusts in the intention of the organization. When an organization tries to save its
reputation, the public might start distrusting the intentions and can perceive these motives as a way to affect their attitudes and to save its own image only (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990;
Becker-Olsen et al., 2006, Mohr, Eroǧlu & Ellen, 1998). Hence the distrust of the public might get triggered when the organization is shown that its working hard to manage the reputation. And this results in the effects of skepticism and prior attitudes towards NPOs on
organizational reputation that the results have shown here.
Finally, the results looked for a mediated effect of the organizational reputation
between positive emotions and the intention to donate. No mediation effect was found for the emotion relief, but there was a mediation found for gratitude. This mediation was also
moderated by skepticism. Again, prior attitude positively affects the intention to donate as covariate improving the model. Like earlier, the effects of skepticism and prior attitude on the intention to donate could be explained by the same reason why people score the
organizational reputation lower. Distrusting the intentions of the organization might cause the public to be skeptical and act on these feelings, rather than being affected by the crisis response strategy (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006, Mohr, Eroǧlu & Ellen, 1998). Literature shows that monetary income of NPOs can be affected if the reputation is damaged (Beldad et al., 2014). Thus, these findings, albeit partially, confirm the assumption that organizational reputation mediates the intention to donate money to charitable
organizations.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to explore and if possible, fill the academic gap regarding the effects of emotions in crisis response strategy on organizational reputation of NPOs. The current study shows that there are other external factors that can affect the organizational reputation while studying emotions as a strategy. There are instances when certain positive emotions can change these effects. What is more, a lack of emotion can also be seen as a sign. An emotionless organizational response might imply the lack of involvement, and coldness of the organization. This remains therefore as an interesting topic to be explored in the future. Especially the effects of other positive emotions can deliver different outcomes with other types of positive emotions such as love, enjoyment, inspiration and enthusiasm. Furthermore, the context (e.g. different stakeholders’ emotions) and content could also be considered to be different. For instance, expressing highly charged positive emotions during a very negative situation, can be seen as insensitive, and may cause the organization more damage. In this study, a relatively mild crisis situation such as a robbery was the context. However, a more severe crisis situation might call for other positive emotions to approach the situation. In conclusion, more research is needed to map the possible effects of expressing
different positive emotions by organizations in different situations and possibly through different channels.
A second thing to consider is the use of non-verbal communication, such as images or live facial expressions and tone of voice. Although, non-verbal communication is important for transferring emotional information (Mehrabian, 1971), exploring the effects of verbal expression of positive emotions as crisis response strategies might result in interesting outcomes. This study was based on non-verbal communication such as news articles, but they did not contain any images or other types of visual content. A rich medium (i.e. including video fragments) might help the organization to express the intended emotions and give it a more human touch (Daft & Lengel, 1986). What is more, showing a more humanized side of an organization might help to decrease the negative emotions towards the organization when its responsible for its own crisis situation. This might help with managing the relationship of its stakeholder (Kelleher, 2009), because the public can attribute the responsibility of the crisis event to the organization depending on the situation (Coombs, 2007).
Furthermore, the effects of the prior attitude towards NPOs is remarkable. In each condition, the prior attitude towards NPOs has shown that there is somehow a certain constant attitude towards organizations, in this case charities. Even though the charitable organization was fictive, the effects still occurred. This naturally leads to the conclusion that future research should take a closer look at this phenomenon. For instance, by comparing more known NPOs and less known organizations. And or, measuring if there are any differences between the types of nonprofit organizations. In this study a small local (fictive) NPO was used. Results might or might not be different when the organization is more known. Besides, other factors such as the main purpose and scale of the organization was not taken into account. These might also be interesting factors to consider in future research.
Limitations
It is important to acknowledge the limitation of this study for future references. First, the study only tested two positive emotions. The insignificant results do not necessarily mean that
other positive emotions in crisis communication will lead to similar results. There are different positive emotions that still need to be studied such as appreciation. It is recommended to elaborate on other emotions to test the differences in effects, because there are results showing that positive emotions help to manage organizational reputation (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014).
Second limitation was the research sample. Since the research is about the
reputation of NPOs, it might be interesting to target a specific group with different lifestyles. For instance, involvement with NPOs can be different when social demographics are taken into account. Previous studies did show that older people are more likely to help out NPOs, furthermore, females and people with one or more children were also more likely to donate money (Lee & Chang, 2007).
Third limitation was the experimental material. There were only two types of mild crisis conditions and one type of NPO. Results cannot be generalized for the all nonprofit sector. Besides, a more severe crisis situation might elicit different reactions.
Additionally, it might be interesting to setup a research where the effects of positive crisis communication in corporate and nonprofit sector can be compared in relation to prior attitudes and skepticism towards the organizations. This might give communication
practitioners meaningful insights on how the public reacts to different type of organizations during crisis situations.
Literature
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of marketing research, 34(3),
347-356.
Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224-237.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A (2004), “When Good Brands Do Bad,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (6), 1–18.
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation.
Organization Science, 1(2), 177-194.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived
corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of business research,
59(1), 46-53.
Beldad, A., Snip, B., & Van Hoof, J. (2014). Generosity the second time around:
Determinants of individuals’ repeat donation intention. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 144-163.
Carroll, C. E. (2004). How the mass media influence perceptions of corporate reputation:
Exploring agenda-setting effects within business news coverage (Doctoral
dissertation).
public's images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate reputation
review, 6(1), 36-46.
Choi, Y., & Lin, Y. (2007). Communicating risk: The effects of message appeal and
individual difference on risk message processing. In Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Communication Association San Francisco, CA.
Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a
better understanding of the situation. Journal of public relations research, 10(3),
177- 191.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The
development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate
reputation review, 10(3), 163-176.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). Exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect
and crises. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe and C. E. J. Hartel (eds.), The Effect of
Affect in Organizational Settings (pp. 271-288). New York, NY: Elsevier.A
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational
assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management
Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165-186.
Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management science, 32(5), 554-571.
Durrant, R., Wakefield, M., McLeod, K., Clegg-Smith, K., & Chapman, S. (2003). Tobacco
in the news: an analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues in Australia,
2001. Tobacco Control, 12 (suppl 2), ii75-ii81.
Fombrun, C. J., Van Riel, C. B., & Van Riel, C. (2004). Fame & fortune: How successful
companies build winning reputations. FT Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds. The
psychology of gratitude, 145, 166.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological
bulletin, 117(1), 21.
Grappi, S., Romani, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). Consumer stakeholder responses to
reshoring strategies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4), 453-471.
Gupta, P. B., & Gould, S. J. (1997). Consumers' perceptions of the ethics and acceptability
of product placements in movies: Product category and individual differences.
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 19(1), 37-50.
Hafsi, T., & Thomas, H. (2005). Strategic management and change in high dependency
environments: The case of a philanthropic organization. Voluntas: International
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modelling [White paper]. Retrieved
from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf
Hilton, J. L., Fein, S., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Suspicion and dispositional inference.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 501-5 12.
Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). Integrated crisis mapping: Towards a publics-
based, emotion-driven conceptualization in crisis communication. Sphera Publica,
7(7), 81-96.
Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age
of discontent and disillusion. Jossey-Bass.
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations
outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of communication, 59(1), 172 188.
Kim, Y. (2016). Understanding publics’ perception and behaviors in crisis communication:
Effects of crisis news framing and publics’ acquisition, selection, and transmission
of information in crisis situations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(1),
35-50.
Kim, H. J., & Cameron, G. T. (2011). Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and
response. Communication Research, 38(6), 826-855.
Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of
management, 37(1), 153-184.
Lyon, L., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A relational approach examining the interplay of prior
reputation and immediate response to a crisis. Journal of public relations research,
16(3), 213-241.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages (Vol. 8, No. 152, p. 30). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Meijer, M. M. (2009). The effects of charity reputation on charitable giving. Corporate
Reputation Review, 12(1), 33-42.
McCullough, M. E., & Tsang, J. (2004). Parent of the virtues? The prosocial contours of
gratitude. The psychology of gratitude, 123-141.
McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a
moral affect? Psychological bulletin, 127(2), 249.
Mohr, L. A., Eroǧlu, D., & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of
skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers' communications. Journal of
consumer affairs, 32(1), 30-55.
Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions
differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure
consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of consumer psychology, 7(2),
159-186.
Oxfam scandal: Thousands cancel donations. (2018). Retrieved 15 October 2019, from
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43121833
Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (2009). Gratitude works: its impact and the mediating role
of affective commitment in driving positive outcomes. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 37(4), 455.
Sisco, H. F. (2012). Nonprofit in crisis: An examination of the applicability of situational
crisis communication theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(1), 1-17.
van der Meer, T. G., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2014). Emotional crisis communication. Public
Relations Review, 40(3), 526-536.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Tutaj, K., & Boerman, S. C. (2013). The effects of brand placement
disclosures on skepticism and brand memory. Communications - The European
Journal of Communication Research, 38(2). doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0008
Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development and validation of scales
to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations.
Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28(2), 299-309.
organisatiecrisis: Differentiële effecten van spijt en schaamte. Jaarboek Sociale
Psychologie 2006, 539-549.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan‐Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of
consumer psychology, 16(4), 377-390.
Appendix A: Survey (Dutch) Beste deelnemer,
Dit onderzoek gaat over het gebruik van emoties in crisiscommunicatie. De duur van het onderzoek is ongeveer … minuten. De antwoorden zijn anoniem en ze worden alleen voor academische doeleinden gebruikt. Dit onderzoek is bedoeld om kennis rondom het gebruik van emoties in organisatie communicatie uit te breiden.
Het onderzoek bestaat uit een krantenartikel en een vragenlijst. Ook zullen er enkele persoonlijke vragen worden gesteld. Als je de vragenlijst volledig hebt ingevuld, kun je je inschrijven om een cadeaubon (t.w.v. €10 bij Pathé, Bol.com of H&M) te winnen.
Je kunt het onderzoek op ieder moment stoppen. Voor vragen over anonimiteit, het afbreken van het onderzoek en het onderzoeksrapport kun je contact opnemen met Z. Orhon
(masterthesiscw@gmail.com).
Voor klachten of andere opmerkingen kun je contact opnemen met de Commissie Ethiek van de afdeling Communicatiewetenschap. Gevestigd te Amsterdam op Roeterseilandcampus, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV, Amsterdam; +31 (0)20 525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
Ik hoop je hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd. Alvast bedankt voor je deelname en veel plezier met het invullen van de vragenlijst.
Succes!
Zuhre
Ik ben 18 jaar (of ouder) en ik accepteer de voorwaarden.
Stop met de vragenlijst.
De volgende stellingen gaan over goede doelen. Geef bij de onderstaande stellingen aan in hoeverre je hiermee eens/oneens bent.
Alg. Attitude tegenover NPOs (Webb, Green and Brashear, 2000) Helemaal mee oneens Oneens Beetje mee oneens Noch eens noch oneens Beetje mee eens Mee eens Helemaal mee eens
Het geld dat aan een goed doel wordt gedoneerd, wordt ook goed gebruikt.
Het geld dat aan een goed doel wordt gedoneerd, wordt verspild. (R)
Ik heb een positief beeld van goede doelen.
Een goed doel is vaak in staat om mensen te helpen die het nodig hebben.
Goede doelen hebben nuttige functies in de maatschappij.
Geef bij de onderstaande stellingen aan in hoeverre je hiermee eens/oneens bent.
Intentie om te doneren
(Coyle & Thorson, 2001) Helemaal mee oneens Oneens Beetje mee oneens Noch eens noch oneens Beetje mee eens Mee eens Helemaal mee eens Het is waarschijnlijk dat ik geld zal doneren aan een goed doel. Ik ben van plan om geld te doneren aan een goed doel.
Het is niet
waarschijnlijk dat ik geld zal doneren aan een goed doel. (R)
Geef bij de onderstaande stellingen aan in hoeverre je hiermee eens/oneens bent. "Goede doelen zijn ..."
Scepticisme (Van
Reijmersdal, Tutaj & Boerman, 2014) Helemaal mee oneens Oneens Beetje mee oneens Noch eens noch oneens Beetje mee eens Mee eens Helemaal mee eens Commercieel Bedrieglijk Niet geloofwaardig
Misleidend
-Introductie Experiment -
Je krijgt nu een krantenartikel over Stichting Punt te lezen. Dit is een organisatie die kleding en geld inzamelt om mensen in Nederland te helpen. Het gaat dan vooral om (eenouder-)gezinnen die het financieel zwaar hebben. Ze ontvangen eens per kwartaal een
kledingpakket en een bepaald bedrag ter ondersteuning. Stichting Punt is afhankelijk van donaties. Ondanks dat de gemeente Amsterdam een kleine bijdrage levert, is dit net genoeg voor de basiswerkzaamheden. Bij Stichting Punt werken alleen vrijwilligers. Ze krijgen enkel een vergoeding voor de uitgaven die in het belang van de stichting zijn gemaakt.
Op de volgende pagina lees je een krantenartikel dat over de Stichting gaat. Lees deze zorgvuldig door en ga daarna meteen door naar de vragen. Er zijn hier geen goede of slechte antwoorden.
- Experimentele Materiaal - Conditie 1: Victim x Relief
Conditie 2: Victim x Gratitude Conditie 3: Victim x no-emotion
Conditie 4: Preventable x Relief Conditie 5: Preventable x Gratitude Conditie 6: Preventable x no-emotion
Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens/oneens bent met de stellingen na het lezen van het krantenartikel. Reputatie Stichting Punt (Coombs, 1998; van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014) Helemaal mee oneens Oneens Beetje mee oneens Noch eens noch oneens Beetje mee eens Mee eens Helemaal mee eens Stichting Punt houdt zich bezig met het welzijn van de mensen. Stichting Punt is oneerlijk / vertelt niet de waarheid. (R)
Ik vertrouw er niet op dat Stichting Punt de waarheid over het incident vertelt. (R)
Over het algemeen geloof ik wel wat Stichting Punt zegt.
Stichting Punt houdt zich niet bezig met het welzijn van de mensen. (R)
Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens/oneens bent met de stellingen na het lezen van het krantenartikel. Intentie om te doneren Stichting Punt Helemaal mee oneens Oneens Beetje mee oneens Noch eens noch oneens Beetje mee eens Mee eens Helemaal mee eens Het is waarschijnlijk dat ik geld zal doneren aan Stichting Punt. Ik ben van plan om geld te doneren aan Stichting Punt. Het is niet
waarschijnlijk dat ik geld zal doneren aan Stichting Punt. (R)
Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens/oneens bent met de stellingen na het lezen van het krantenartikel. "Stichting Punt is … " Scepticisme (Van Reijmersdal, Helemaal mee oneens Oneens Beetje mee oneens Noch eens noch Beetje mee eens Mee eens Helemaal mee eens
Tutaj & Boerman, 2014) oneens Commercieel Bedrieglijk Niet geloofwaardig Misleidend -Persoonlijke Data- 1. Wat is je geslacht? Man Vrouw 2. Wat is je leeftijd?
3. Wat is je hoogst voltooide opleiding?
Basisonderwijs VMBO MAVO MBO HAVO VWO HBO WO/ Universiteit
4. Ik heb wel eens geld gedoneerd aan een goed doel.
Ja
Nee
-Debriefing - Beste deelnemer,
Bedankt voor je deelname aan dit onderzoek. Je hebt zojuist een vragenlijst ingevuld na het lezen van een krantenartikel over Stichting Punt. Dit was een van de zes artikelen waarvoor je random bent aangewezen. Het onderzoek is namelijk een experiment waarin de mogelijke effecten van positieve emoties op het gedrag en houding van de deelnemers wordt getest. De personen, gebeurtenissen en de genoemde stichting zijn dus ook fictief van aard. Mocht
je naar aanleiding van dit onderzoek vragen hebben, kun je contact opnemen met Zuhre Orhon (masterthesiscw@gmail.com).
Laat hieronder je e-mailadres achter als je een van de drie cadeaubonnen wilt winnen. Je krijgt in maart bericht als je bent geselecteerd.
Appendix B: Experimental Material (Dutch) Condition 1: Victim x Relief
Stichting Punt te Amsterdam uit opluchting over crisis wegens plundering
Stichting Punt in Amsterdam is de afgelopen nacht geplunderd. De dieven hebben naast kledingpakketten ook de computers van de stichting meegenomen. Hierdoor zijn niet alleen de mensen die behoefte aan deze kledingstukken hebben slachtoffer, maar ook de stichting zelf. De voorzitter van Stichting Punt zegt hier het volgende over:
''Stichting Punt is gisteravond helaas geplunderd door een groep. Toen ik hoorde dat onze computers en kledingpakketten waren meegenomen, moest ik meteen aan de mensen denken die op onze hulp rekenen. Gelukkig is de schade alleen beperkt tot deze spullen, omdat de kluis met het donatiegeld niet is gevonden. Dit betekent dat we de mensen nog steeds van hulp kunnen voorzien. In die zin zijn we als stichting erg opgelucht.''
Condition 2: Victim x Gratitude
Stichting Punt te Amsterdam uit dankbaarheid na melding van fraude
Stichting Punt in Amsterdam is de afgelopen nacht geplunderd. De dieven hebben naast kledingpakketten ook de computers van de stichting meegenomen. Hierdoor zijn niet alleen de mensen die behoefte aan deze kledingstukken hebben slachtoffer, maar ook de stichting zelf. De voorzitter van Stichting Punt zegt hier het volgende over:
''Stichting Punt is gisteravond helaas geplunderd door een groep. Toen ik hoorde dat onze computers en kledingpakketten waren meegenomen, moest ik meteen aan de mensen denken die op onze hulp rekenen. Ik ben dankbaar dat de mensen die deze plundering zo snel mogelijk bij de politie hebben gemeld. Zonder hen hadden de dieven meer tijd gehad en was de schade niet beperkt gebleven. Bovendien heeft de politie dankzij deze melding snel kunnen handelen om de verdachten op te sporen. Onze dankbaarheid als stichting is groot.''
Condition 3: Victim x Non-emotional
Stichting Punt te Amsterdam in crisis na plundering
Stichting Punt in Amsterdam is de afgelopen nacht geplunderd. De dieven hebben naast de kledingpakketten ook de computers van de stichting meegenomen. Hierdoor zijn niet alleen de mensen die behoefte aan deze kledingstukken hebben slachtoffer, maar ook de stichting zelf. De voorzitter van Stichting Punt zegt hier het volgende over:
''Toen ik hoorde dat onze computers en kledingpakketten waren meegenomen, moest ik meteen aan de mensen denken die op ons hulp rekenen. De politie heeft laten weten dat ze twee verdachten hebben opgepakt. De politie doet nu onderzoek en zal voor de veiligheid van het pand zorgen, zodat we snel weer aan het werk kunnen.''
Condition 4: Preventable x Relief
Stichting Punt te Amsterdam is opgelucht dat collega's fraude hebben gemeld Stichting Punt in Amsterdam heeft vanmorgen bekend gemaakt dat de voorzitter Jan van Bast is ontslagen. Het bestuur van de stichting heeft dit vanmorgen bekend gemaakt. Dit besluit is genomen nadat er vorige week bekend werd dat de voormalige voorzitter declaraties bij de stichting heeft ingediend die achteraf persoonlijke uitgaven bleken te zijn. Deze crisis, die de stichting met betere controles had kunnen voorkomen, heeft ook de mensen geraakt die financieel afhankelijk zijn van de stichting. De nieuwe voorzitter Anton Weerts zegt hier het volgende over:
''Toen ik hoorde dat de donaties die we hebben opgehaald voor persoonlijke uitgaven zijn gebruikt, moest ik meteen aan de gezinnen denken die op ons rekenen. De stichting neemt de volledige verantwoordelijkheid hiervan op zich en zal de nodige stappen nemen om een vergelijkbare situatie in de toekomst te voorkomen. Gelukkig hebben we collega's bij de administratie die hier tijdig een melding van hebben gedaan. Hierdoor heeft het bestuur snel stappen kunnen nemen om de schade te beperken. Daarnaast zijn we
opgelucht, omdat de financiële schade tot nu toe mee lijkt te vallen. Het ging namelijk niet om grote sommen en de periode was beperkt tot de afgelopen drie maanden.''
Condition 5: Preventable x Gratitude
Stichting Punt te Amsterdam bedankt collega's die fraude hebben gemeld
Stichting Punt in Amsterdam heeft vanmorgen bekend gemaakt dat de voorzitter Jan van Bast is ontslagen. Het bestuur van de stichting heeft dit vanmorgen bekend gemaakt. Dit besluit is genomen nadat er vorige week bekend werd dat de voormalige voorzitter declaraties bij de stichting heeft ingediend die achteraf persoonlijke uitgaven bleken te zijn. Deze crisis, die de stichting met betere controles had kunnen voorkomen, heeft ook de mensen geraakt die financieel afhankelijk zijn van de stichting. De nieuwe voorzitter Anton Weerts zegt hier het volgende over:
''Toen ik hoorde dat de donaties die we hebben opgehaald voor persoonlijke uitgaven zijn gebruikt, moest ik meteen aan de gezinnen denken die op ons rekenen. De stichting neemt de volledige verantwoordelijkheid hiervan op zich en zal de nodige stappen nemen om een vergelijkbare situatie in de toekomst te voorkomen. We zijn dankbaar dat de collega's hier tijdig een melding van hebben gedaan. Zonder hen zouden we hiervan nooit op de hoogte zijn. Bovendien hebben we hierdoor ook snel kunnen handelen en de schade kunnen beperken. Onze dankbaarheid is groot.''
Condition 6: Preventable x Non-emotional
Stichting Punt te Amsterdam in crisis wegens fraude voorzitter
Stichting Punt in Amsterdam heeft vanmorgen bekend gemaakt dat de voorzitter Jan van Bast is ontslagen. Het bestuur van de stichting heeft dit vanmorgen bekend gemaakt. Dit besluit is genomen nadat er vorige week bekend werd dat de voormalige voorzitter declaraties bij de stichting heeft ingediend die achteraf persoonlijke uitgaven bleken te zijn. Deze crisis, die de stichting met betere controles had kunnen voorkomen, heeft ook
