A spokesperson as the “face” of an organization in crisis:
The effects of expressed guilt on corporate reputation
Student Name: Tom de Groot
Student Number: 10556176
Supervisor: Joost Verhoeven
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science
University of Amsterdam
Master’s Thesis
28 June 2018
ABSTRACT
Organizational crises are often very emotionally charged events. Whereas quite some
previous research has investigated emotional responses of stakeholders to a crisis, precious
little is known about the effects of expressed emotion by (spokespersons of) organizations,
while reacting to a crisis, on corporate reputations. The present study investigates to what
extent and how the expression of the emotion guilt in organizational crisis responses affects
corporate reputation. This is studied by means of a 2 (guilt message framing versus rational
message framing) x 2 (deny crisis response strategy versus rebuild crisis response strategy)
between-subjects factorial experimental design with 178 participants. Although, against
expectations, no direct positive effect of guilt message framing on corporate reputation was
found, an indirect effect of guilt message framing on corporate reputation was found via
perceived sincerity. In addition, an alignment between expressed guilt and crisis response
strategy was found to be important, but trait forgiveness in respondents appeared not to play a
significant role in the interaction between perceived sincerity and corporate reputation.
Keywords: crisis communication, emotions, message framing, corporate reputation, crisis response strategies.
Introduction
Although crises are very often emotional events, emotion has only recently been incorporated
into crisis communication research (Jin, 2009). The majority of the studies on emotions and
crisis communication focused on the emotional responses of stakeholders to a crisis rather
than the expression of emotions by organizations in their communication about a crisis (e.g.
Mcdonald, Sparks, & Glendon, 2010; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2012). However, a crisis may
of a crisis, organizational members may be under psychological pressure, media pressure and
time pressure and simultaneously experience emotional tumult (Van der Meer & Verhoeven,
2014). Under these conditions, unintentionally, a spokesperson may express his or her
inherent emotions.
According to Christensen and Cornelissen (2011), “parts of activities or the voice of
single individuals (e.g., managers) are taken to stand for or represent the whole organization”
(p. 385). The same might be true for spokespersons who represent an organization during a
crisis situation and express emotions over what has happened. In this way, a spokesperson
embodies the organization.Whereas spokespersons might choose to suppress emotions in
their communication about a crisis, expressing emotion in their crisis response strategies is a
better alternative since people tend to have more positive behavioural intentions towards an
organization when a corporate crisis message contains intensive emotional appeals as
compared to when a corporate crisis message contains no emotional appeals (Kim &
Cameron, 2011). Until now, not much is known about how the expression of emotion in crisis
response strategies by organizations can affect corporate reputation (Claeys, Cauberghe, &
Leysen, 2013). Corporate communication practitioners and researchers alike have long
overlooked the importance of emotional appeals in crisis communication (Van der Meer &
Verhoeven, 2014). The well managed expression of emotions by spokespersons, however, is
able to protect an organization’s reputation (Read, 2007).
The expression of the emotion guilt, in specific, could play a crucial role in protecting an organization’s reputation during a preventable crisis, in which the organization is blamed
for what has happened (Coombs, 2007). Previous studies have shown that guilt, “arguably the most exemplary moral emotion” (De Hooge, Nelissen, Breugelmans, & Zeelenberg, 2011, p.
462), stimulates prosocial behaviour toward a victim (Ketelaar & Au, 2003; Nelissen, Dijker
protect and enhance relationships by punishing wrongdoings and restore inequities
(Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatheron, 1994; Leith & Baumeister, 1998). The behaviour
following guilt is interpreted as behaviour motivated out of concern for other persons
(McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001; Sheikh & Janoff-Bulman, 2010), and is
commonly linked to the stimulating of transgressors to think about how their actions influence
the well-being of other people (Haidt, 2003; Smith, 1759). In the case of a preventable crisis,
in which the organization has purposefully placed stakeholders at risk (Coombs & Holladay,
2002), expressing guilt in crisis responses may play a central role in restoring stakeholders
trust and repairing corporate reputations.
Previous research has shown that how an organization acts after a crisis, through its
crisis response strategy, goes a long way toward protecting their reputation (Coombs &
Holladay, 1996, 2008). Crisis response strategies pertain what management says and does
after a crisis, and form three groups based upon perceptions of accepting responsibility for a
crisis: denial, diminish, and rebuild (Coombs, 2006). In the present study, the deny crisis
response strategy and rebuild crisis response strategy will be employed in order to examine
the importance of alignment between crisis response strategy and expressed emotion. These
two crisis response strategies will be studied because rebuild is the most effective strategy
(Coombs, 2007; Kim, Avery, & Lariscy, 2009), whereas deny is the least effective (Coombs,
2007; Kim et al., 2009), yet the most often used strategy (Kim et al., 2009).
The key objective of this study is therefore to investigate the impact that guilt framed
crisis communication messages (compared to rationally framed crisis communication
messages) after an airplane crash due to negligence have on corporate reputation. Whereas
previous studies on emotional crisis communication have used fictional organizations, the
present study uses an existing organization, namely KLM (the flag carrier airline of the
crisis communication. An online experiment was conducted in order to fill in the gap in crisis
communication research regarding the impact of expressed guilt.. The research question is as
follows:
RQ: “To what extent and how does the expression of the emotion guilt in organizational crisis responses affect corporate reputation?”
Theoretical background
The theoretical background of this study starts with discussing the significance of protecting
corporate reputation. After that, crisis communication, chiefly based on Situational Crisis
Communication Theory (referred to as SCCT in the remainder of this paper) by Coombs
(2007), will be outlined. Third, the supposed impact of the expression of emotion/guilt in
crisis communication messages by organizations on reputation will be discussed. Fourth, light
is shed on the importance of perceived sincerity of crisis communication messages. Finally,
trait forgiveness (tendency to forgive) as a possible moderator between perceived sincerity
and corporate reputation will be discussed.
Corporate reputation
As reputation affects actions and outcomes, it is crucial for managers to find ways to shape
and manage reputation (Clardy, 2012). According to Wartick (1992), a reputation is an
aggregate evaluation stakeholders produce about to what extent an organization is meeting
stakeholder expectations based on its past behaviour. The failure of an organization to meet
expectations can be very problematic for organizations (Reichart, 2003). Reputations are
widely acknowledged as valuable, intangible assets that may permit firms to charge higher
(Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Reputations develop through information stakeholders receive
about an organization (Fombrun & van Riel, 2004). Stakeholders receive this information
through interactions with the organization, mediated reports about the organization, and
second-hand information from other people (Coombs, 2007).
Organizational crises can be seen as the ‘moment of truth’ for reputations because they
are able to seriously harm stakeholders emotionally, physically and/or financially (Coombs,
2007). Stakeholders include employees, suppliers, customers, communities, financiers, NGOs,
environmentalists, governments, media, critics and others (Fassin, 2009). Striking examples
of organizational crises are plane crashes, ethical misdeed, financial frauds, and medical
failures. Crises tend to hurt reputations because they give stakeholders reasons to think
negatively about an organization (Coombs, 2006).
Crisis communication
Although the vast majority of crisis communication literature (e.g., Benoit, 1997, 2005, image
repair theory; Bradford & Garrett, 1995; Cameron, Pang, & Jin, 2008, contingency theory;
Coombs, 2007, SCCT) has discussed various response strategies, the crisis response strategies
that are employed by arguably most researchers are Coombs’ (2007) SCCT strategies.
SCCT offers a framework for understanding how to maximize the reputational
protection abided by post-crisis communication and includes the crisis response strategies
deny, diminish and rebuild. The deny strategy includes ‘attack the accuser’, ‘denial’, and ‘scapegoating’ (Coombs, 2007). The three tactics have in common that they try to remove any
connection between the organization and the crisis (Coombs, 2006). The diminish strategy
includes ‘excuse’ and ‘justification’. Employing a diminish strategy, a crisis manager admits
there is an organizational crisis but tries to change the attributions stakeholders make about it
involves ‘compensation’, and ‘apology’ (Coombs, 2007). Rebuild strategies try to enhance
corporate reputation by offering material and/or symbolic forms of aid to victims of a crisis,
with as goal to take positive actions and offset the crisis (Coombs, 2007).
The level of responsibility for a crisis is decisive for which crisis response strategy is
appropriate to employ (Coombs, 2007). Coombs and Holladay (2002) developed three crisis
clusters based on how responsible the organization is for a crisis, which they refer to as: “attributions of crisis responsibility” (p. 168). These three clusters are: the victim cluster
(natural disasters, rumours, workplace violence, and product tampering/malevolence), the
accidental cluster (challenges, technical-error accidents, and technical-error product harm),
and the preventable cluster (human-error accidents, human-error product harm, organizational
misdeed management conduct, organizational misdeed with no injuries, and organizational
misdeed with injuries).
Emotional crisis communication
Although researchers in psychology have extensively studied how emotions influence
cognitive processing (e.g. Tiedens, 2001; Loseth & Dahl, 2017) and interactions (e.g. Robles
et al. 2016; Vanutelli & Balconi, 2015), it was only recently that the role of emotions was
researched in the field of crisis communication, public relations, and media framing (e.g. Van
der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014; Claeys et al., 2013; Kim & Cameron, 2011).
Emotions are widely viewed as internal mental states representing evaluative, valenced
reactions to events, agents, or objects that vary in intensity (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988).
They are commonly short-lived, intense, and directed at external stimuli (Fiske & Taylor,
1991). Consensus in psychological research suggests that emotion consists of five components, namely: “(a) cognitive appraisal or evaluation of a situation, (b) the
including behavioural intentions or readiness, and (e) a subjective feeling state” (Nabi, 1999,
p. 295). Furthermore, emotions influence important social functions such as ensuring the
social transmission of emotional interpretations of events (Klinnert, Emde, & Campos, 1986),
behaving in a way that influences other people and that may be meant to do so, either
unintentionally, or more strategically (Frijda, 1993), and evoking reactions in others (Frijda &
Mesquita, 1994).
By expressing emotion in crisis communication messages an organization displays its
human face (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). By showing its human face, an organization
may improve relationships with its stakeholders (Kelleher, 2009).The psychological process
of attributing human emotions, traits or intentions to non-human entities is also known as
anthropomorphism (Guthrie, 1993). People anthropomorphize nonhuman agents to achieve
mastery of an otherwise uncertain environment, making it more predictable and
understandable (Waytz & Morewedge, 2010). Furthermore, connecting brands with human
qualities directs stakeholders toward developing emotions parallel to other human
relationships (Kim, Park, & Kim, 2014). By humanizing brands, for instance by expressing
emotion in corporate communication, firms and organizations are thus able to gain stronger
attachments with consumers and stakeholders (Wen & Song, 2017).
Emotions may be expressed through the use of language, non-verbal communication,
such as facial expressions (Ekman, 1993), gestures, and/or posture (Wallbott, 1998). They are
an important form of communication, as they uncover information about the sender (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). The expression of emotion indicates to receivers the sender’s
emotional potential of a situation, whether the sender’s appraisal conformed to the norms or deviated from them, and defines the sender’s social position and role within one’s social
structure (Frijda & Mesquita, 1994). Research in the field of psychology has shown that
estimation of the sender’s intentions and actions toward them (Lewis, 2000; Van Kleef, De
Dreu, & Manstead, 2004).
Guilt is one of the few emotions that requires self-evaluation of the sender (Nabi,
1999). It usually serves a relationship-enhancing function and is characterized by an urge to
heal the situation, and cognitive preoccupation with reckoning ways to make things right so
the guilt may be vanished (Izard, 1977; Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994). Guilt can have
beneficial consequences because it makes people put the concerns of others above their own
(Haidt, 2003). Reparative action inclinations such as confessions, apologies, and attempts to
undo the harm done are targeted at restoring the relationship between the transgressor and the
victim (Caplovitz Barrett, 1995; Lewis, 1971, 1987; Lindsay-Hartz, 1984). When referring to
guilt, it is important to note that no guilt in a legal sense or blame needs to be involved, for
someone to feel and/or express it. Frijda and Mesquita (1994) give the example of the
long-lasting distress caused by having accidently killed a child who suddenly crossed the street in front of the driver’s car: even though it was not the driver’s fault to kill the child, he or she
might feel extremely guilty for the horrible thing that has happened.
Based on the fact that people who receive emotions communicated by a sender use this information to shape an estimation of the sender’s intentions and actions toward them (Lewis,
2000; Van Kleef et al., 2004), it is expected that when an organization expresses guilt in a
crisis response, stakeholders presume that the organization sincerely tries to rebuild the
damaged relationship with them, which will likely result in a less negative corporate
reputation. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Guilt message framing results in a less negative corporate reputation than rational message framing.
Expressing emotion in a crisis response may not only directly influence corporate
reputation (in its function as a piece of information for the public), it may also impact how stakeholders interpret an organization’s crisis response message. Based on the maintaining
and repairing functions of guilt (e.g. Baumeister et al., 1994; Lewis, 1971), as well as the argument that people use received emotion to shape an estimation of a sender’s intentions and
actions toward them (Lewis, 2000; Van Kleef et al., 2004) it is expected that the combination
of expressed guilt and a rebuild response strategy after an organizational crisis will lead to a
less negative corporate reputation. The expressed emotion, guilt, would then be aligned with the organization’s intentions and actions: rebuilding the damaged relationship after their
wrongdoing. The following hypothesis is proposed:
H2a. Guilt message framing in combination with a rebuild crisis response strategy results in a less negative corporate reputation than rational message framing in combination with a
rebuild crisis response strategy.
Van der Meer and Verhoeven (2013) suggested that future researchers should
investigate whether less effective strategies become significantly more efficacious with the
communication of emotion. In the present study, it is however not expected that when guilt is
expressed in combination with a deny crisis response strategy, this will result in a more
positive corporate reputation. This is not expected because a mismatch between
communicated emotion and crisis response strategy might confuse stakeholders, likely
making them question the sincerity of the message’s content as well as the expressed emotion
(Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013). In this case, expressed guilt may not be perceived as
authentic, sincere and trustworthy because no action inclinations such as confessions,
apologies, and attempts to undo the harm are yielded by the organization in order to restore
H2b. Guilt message framing in combination with a deny crisis response strategy does not result in a less negative corporate reputation compared to rational message framing in
combination with a deny crisis response strategy.
On the contrary, and in line with hypothesis H2a., when the expression of guilt is
combined with a rebuild crisis response strategy, this may be perceived as trustworthy and in
sync by stakeholders. Caza, Zhang, Wang, & Bai (2015) found that leaders who were judged
more sincere, were simultaneously judged more trustworthy. Therefore, it is expected that
when the spokesperson expresses guilt in combination with a rebuild strategy, stakeholders
are more likely to believe the crisis message than when the spokesperson expresses guilt in
combination with a deny strategy. The following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. Guilt message framing in combination with a rebuild crisis response strategy results in higher perceived sincerity than guilt message framing in combination with a deny crisis
response strategy.
Perceived sincerity
Case studies by several authors indicate that the positive influence of emotional message
framing can be attributed to an increase in perceived (organizational) sincerity (e.g. Benoit &
Brinson, 1999; Kauffman, 2008; Legg, 2009; Claeys et al. 2013; Caza, et al., 2015). The
communication of emotion(s) can improve the degree to which an organization is perceived as
sincere (Caza et al., 2015) and trustworthy (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Subsequently,
information obtained from a trustworthy sender has a greater impact than information
obtained from an untrustworthy sender (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). Kim (2011), for example,
found that sincerity of a message, in a corporate communication context, can positively impact stakeholders’ evaluations of an organization. A good example of this are corporate
social responsibility (CSR) activities; they are only positive for corporate reputation when
consumers or stakeholders attribute sincere motives to the organization’s CSR actions (Yoon,
Gürhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006).
In relation to the above, Sandlin and Gracyalny (2018) found that positive judgements about a public figure’s reputation related to perceptions of apology sincerity. An attempt to be
forgiven is considered sincere if it is perceived by the recipient as heartfelt and if the emotion
that is expressed appears genuine (Risen & Gillovich, 2007). Based on the assumptions made
in previous research about the impact that perceived sincerity of (emotional) messages has on
forgiveness, trust and reputation, it is expected that the positive impact of expressed guilt on an organization’s corporate reputation may be due to a mediating effect of perceived sincerity.
The following hypothesis is proposed:
H4. The positive effect of guilt message framing on corporate reputation is mediated by perceptions of sincerity.
Trait forgiveness
Forgiveness has been identified as one of the most efficacious instruments of repairing
relationships after a transgression (Adams & Inesi, 2016). Whereas a transgression causes a
debt that the transgressor owes to the victim, forgiveness imparts the victim’s willingness to
renounce that debt and repair the relationship (Exline et al., 2004). A longitudinal study by
Riek, Luna, and Schnabelrauch (2014) showed that guilt forecasts forgiveness-seeking behaviours. Transgressor’s guilt then acts as the key psychological steppingstone between
intent and desires for forgiveness (Adams & Inesi, 2016). Tendency to forgive likely differs
from person to person; whereas some people might forgive others relatively easy for their
wrongdoing, other people might have more trouble with this. Desmet, De Cremer, and Van
extent to which perceived remorse functions as a prerequisite for trust and cooperation. In line
with this, it is expected that the effect that perceived sincerity of the crisis communication
messages in this study have on corporate reputation is moderated by trait forgiveness in
respondents. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. The positive effect of perceived sincerity on corporate reputation is moderated by the trait forgiveness in respondents. Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Methods
Design
This study uses a 2 (guilt versus rational message framing) x 2 (deny versus rebuild crisis
response strategy) between-subjects factorial experimental design to investigate the
hypotheses. Message Framing (Guilt vs. Rational) Corporate Reputation Perceived Sincerity
Crisis Response Strategy (Rebuild vs. Deny)
Trait Forgiveness
Stimuli
The crisis situation involved a fictitious plane crash in Stockholm, Sweden. Four scenarios
manipulated Message Framing and Crisis Response Strategy. Participants read a newspaper
article about the plane crash: 71 people had died when a new Boeing 737 plane of KLM
coming in on Stockholm Arlanda Airport swerved off a runway, crashed, and burst into flames. In the end of the newspaper article it was mentioned that several new Boeing 737’s
had problems with the landing gear, and that flight operators were advised to inspect their
planes. After the newspaper article, participants were exposed to one of the four conditions:
the crisis communication response by the spokesperson of KLM about the airplane crash.
These existed out of a combination of ‘no emotion + deny’, ‘guilt + rebuild’, ‘guilt + deny’, and ‘no emotion + rebuild’. The newspaper article (see Appendix A. for full newspaper
article) existed out of text, and the crisis responses by the spokesperson of KLM (see
Appendix B. for all four crisis responses) existed out of text accompanied with a picture
showing the facial expression of the spokesperson.
Participants and procedure
The participants for this experiment were recruited from the researcher’s own network
through Facebook, WhatsApp and E-mail, resulting in a sample of (N = ) 178 respondents
who fully completed the questionnaire. Participants received a message inviting them to fill in
an online questionnaire in Qualtrics. They were randomly divided across the four conditions.
At the start of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate KLM’s corporate reputation
(pre-crisis). After that, they were exposed to the newspaper article and asked to rate corporate
reputation (post-crisis) again. Finally, they were exposed to the crisis response by KLM and
asked to rate corporate reputation (post-response) one last time. After having read the crisis
well as their personal tendency to forgive. The questionnaire ended with a manipulation check
and demographics (see Appendix C. for the full questionnaire).
Participants had an average age of 26.80 years (SD = 0.75). Furthermore, 51.10
percent of the respondents were male (N = 91) and 48.90 percent were female (N = 87). Most
participants originated from The Netherlands (N = 146), followed by Germany (N = 5), Italy
(N = 5), and France (N = 3). The majority of them, 88.2 percent, went to higher education (HBO/university). In order to check if respondent’s age, gender, level of education and
nationality was comparable between the four conditions, randomization checks were
conducted. First, an One-Way ANOVA indicated that the mean age between the four
conditions was not significantly different: F(3, 174) = 2.03, p = 0,112. Second, three
Chi-Square tests for gender (X2 (3) = 3.32, p = 0.345), level of education (X2 (9) = 4.94, p = 0.839)
and nationality (X2 (54) = 56.80, p = 0.371) indicated that they were not significantly different
between the four conditions either.
Variables
Message Framing (independent variable). In the guilt framed crisis message, the
spokesperson expressed that KLM feels “extremely guilty” for the “horrible” plane crash. The emotion guilt was expressed through language (e.g. explicitly stating to feel “extremely
guilty” as well as using emotional loaded adjectives such as “horrendous tragedy” and
“beloved passengers”) and facial expression. The rationally framed message on the other hand
was more direct and presented the same information in a more straightforward and objective manner (e.g. “incident” instead of “horrible crash” and “passengers” instead of “beloved
passengers”). Besides that, the spokesperson had an expressionless face.
Crisis Response Strategy (moderator). In the deny crisis response strategy, the
responsibility for the incident” and “Boeing failed to deliver us a safe plane”. In the rebuild
crisis response strategy, the spokesperson of KLM used apology and compensation in his
crisis response: “KLM apologises for the crash” and “we will provide professional support”.
Perceived Sincerity (mediator). Perceived Sincerity was measured by asking the
participants to rate the sincerity of the spokesperson’s crisis response. It was measured using a
7-point Likert scale by Aaker (1997). The scales ranged from (1) “Not at all descriptive” to (7) “Extremely descriptive”. The scale had to be filled in for the following traits: (1) honest,
(2) sincere, and (3) sentimental. After a Principal Component Analysis (referred to as PCA in
the remainder of this paper) and Reliability Analysis including the three items to check if the variable is reliable with a Cronbach’s Alpha higher than 0.70 (see results in Table 1.), one
workable variable was computed for Perceived Sincerity. A Descriptives analysis showed that
the new variable has a minimum of 1.00 and a maximum of 6.33 (M = 4.14, SD = 1.18).
Perceived Sincerity was not perfectly normally distributed with a Shapiro-Wilk of p = 0.005.
Trait Forgiveness (moderator). The Heartland Forgiveness Scale by Thompson,
Snyder, and Hoffman (2005) was employed to measure trait forgiveness in respondents. The
scale included items as “With time I am understanding of others for the mistakes they’ve made” and “When someone disappoints me, I can eventually move past it” (see Appendix C7.
for the other two items which were reversed coded). Respondents had to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “Almost always false of me” to (7) “Almost always true of me”,
whether they agreed or not. Before computing the variable Trait Forgiveness, again a PCA
and Reliability Analysis were run including the four items to make sure the variable is reliable
(see results in Table 1.). A Descriptives analysis showed that the newly computed variable has
a minimum of 1.50 and a maximum of 7.00 (M = 4.80, SD = 1.03). As for Perceived
Sincerity, Trait Forgiveness was not perfectly normally distributed with a Shapiro-Wilk of p =
Table 1. Results of PCA and Reliability Analyses
Variable Eigenvalue % of Variance
explained Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha Pre-crisis Corporate Reputation 2.80 (1 factor) 56.03 5 (>0.45) 0.80 Post-crisis Corporate Reputation 2.74 (1 factor) 54.71 5 (>0.45) 0.79 Post-response Corporate Reputation 3.07 (1 factor) 61.37 5 (>0.45) 0.94 Perceived Sincerity 2.05 (1 factor) 68.37 3 (>0.45) 0.76 Trait Forgiveness 2.26 (1 factor) 56.61 4 (>0.45) 0.74
Corporate Reputation (dependent variable). The Organizational Reputation Scale
(Coombs & Holladay, 2002) was used to measure Corporate Reputation. The scale included
items as “KLM is concerned with the well-being of its public” and “Under most
circumstances, I would be likely to believe what KLM says” (see Appendix C2. for the other
three items which were reversed coded). The anchors for the scale ranged between (1)
Strongly disagree and (5) Strongly agree. Pre-crisis Corporate Reputation (M = 3.85, SD =
0.55), Post-crisis Corporate Reputation (M = 3.43, SD = 0.62) and Post-response Corporate
Reputation (M = 3.35, SD = 0.73) were all reliable. In Table 1. you can find the results of the
PCA and Reliability Analyses. It must be noted that results, again, have to be interpreted
carefully because the Shapiro-Wilk was p = 0.000 for all three: the variables were thus not
perfectly normally distributed.
Multicollinearity tests were done to check whether there are no high intercorrelations
Forgiveness). This was done by means of performing a Regression analysis three times using “Collinearity diagnostics”. Since all scores (VIF = 1.00 for Trait Forgiveness, VIF = 1.05 for
Crisis Response Strategy and VIF = 1.01 for Message Framing) were lower than 3.00, no
multicollinearity issues were observed.
Manipulation check
Previous to sending out the online experiment to all participants, a small-scaled test was done
by asking sixteen acquaintances to fill in the questionnaire and note down feedback. This
feedback was then used to improve the questionnaire and create the final version.
A manipulation check was performed in order to find out whether the respondents
were aware of the fact that the crisis communication message they read either included a
Deny Crisis Response Strategy or a Rebuild Crisis Response Strategy and either Guilt
Message Framing or Rational Message Framing. Respondents had to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “Strongly disagree” to (5) “Strongly agree” whether they
(dis)agreed with items as “The spokesperson of KLM used compensation and apology in the
crisis communication message” and “The spokesperson of KLM was emotional and expressed
guilt in the crisis communication message” (see Appendix C8. for the full scale).
An Independent-Samples T-Test was performed in order to find out whether the
manipulation had been successful. The results confirmed that respondents realized that KLM’s spokesperson used a Deny Crisis Response Strategy (M = 3.89, SD = 0.98) instead of
a Rebuild Crisis Response Strategy (M = 1.98, SD = 0.93) in the deny conditions (Levene’s
Test indicated equal variances: F = 0.63, p = 0.430): t(176) = 13.31, p = 0.000, and a Rebuild
Crisis Response Strategy (M = 3.73, SD = 0.93) instead of a Deny Crisis Response Strategy
(M = 2.52, SD = 1.11) in the rebuild conditions (Levene’s Test indicated unequal variances: F
KLM’s spokesperson expressed guilt (M = 3.62, SD = 1.00) instead of no emotion (M = 2.40,
SD = 1.15) in the guilt conditions (Levene’s Test indicated equal variances: F = 2.91, p =
0.090): t(176) = -7.55, p = 0.000, and that KLM’s spokesperson expressed no emotion (M =
3.51, SD = 0.99) instead of guilt (M = 2.55, SD = 1.00) in the rational conditions (Levene’s
Test indicated equal variances: F = 0.08, p = 0.774): t(176) = 6.39, p = 0.000. The
manipulation check was thus successful.
Results
Pre-crisis, post-crisis, and post-response corporate reputation
Because corporate reputation was measured at three different stages in the questionnaire, first
a Paired Samples T-Test was run in order to see whether corporate reputation got significantly
worse after respondents read the newspaper article about the KLM crash in Stockholm
compared to before they read the newspaper article. There was indeed a significant change
between Pre-crisis Corporate Reputation (M = 3.85, SD = 0.55) and Post-crisis Corporate
Reputation (M = 3.43, SD = 0.62): t(177) = 10.35, p = 0.000. After that, a second Paired
Samples T-Test was run including Post-crisis Corporate Reputation and Post-response
Corporate Reputation to see whether corporate reputation changed significantly after
respondents read the crisis response. In Figure 2. you can see that in the ‘no emotion + deny’
condition, Post-response Corporate Reputation was significantly worse than Post-crisis
Corporate Reputation, in the ‘guilt + rebuild’ condition, a distinct (positive) trend toward
significance occurred between Post-crisis Corporate Reputation and Post-response Corporate
Reputation, and in the ‘guilt + deny’ condition and ‘no emotion + rebuild’ condition. The
changes between Post-crisis Corporate Reputation and Post-response Corporate Reputation
Figure 2. Results of Paired- Samples T-Test for Corporate Reputation T1 T2 T3
No motion + deny Guilt + rebuild Guilt + deny No emotion + rebuild
Testing of hypotheses
The conceptual model used in this paper reconciled with model 22 in PROCESS, and so an
analysis was run with the variables Y (Post-response Corporate Reputation), X (Message
Framing – categorical), M (Perceived Sincerity), W (Crisis Response Strategy – categorical),
and Z (Trait Forgiveness). In some cases, additional analyses were run next to the PROCESS
analysis.
Hypothesis H1, against all expectations, has to be rejected because no significant main
effect was found between Guilt Message Framing and Rational Message Framing on
Post-response Corporate Reputation: F(6, 171) = 0.02, B = 0.00, t = 0.02, p = 0.982. In order to
Pre-crisis Corporate Reputation (M = 3.85, SD = 0.55) Post-crisis Corporate Reputation (M = 3.43, SD = 0.62) t(177): 10.35, p = 0.000 Post-crisis Corporate Reputation (M = 3.49, SD = 0.76) Post-response Corporate Reputation (M = 3.13, SD = 0.86) t(43): 3.28, p = 0.002 Post-crisis Corporate Reputation (M = 3.38, SD = 0.54) Post-response Corporate Reputation (M = 3.56, SD = 0.60) t(43): -1.83, p = 0.074 Post-crisis Corporate Reputation (M = 3.42, SD = 0.60) Post-response Corporate Reputation (M = 3.28, SD = 0.68) t(42): 1.31, p = 0.197 Post-crisis Corporate Reputation (M = 3.44, SD = 0.59) Post-response Corporate Reputation (M = 3.42, SD = 0.70) t(46): 0.32, p = 0.754
double check, also an Independent-Samples T-Test was run. Given a violation of the Levene’s
Test for homogeneity of variances, F(1, 176) = 2.79, p = 0.987, a T-Test not assuming
homogeneous variances was calculated. The results indicated that there was no significant
difference between Guilt Message Framing and Rational Message Framing on Post-response
Corporate Reputation: t(1, 176) = -1.34, p = 0.181.
Hypothesis H2a, which predicted that “guilt message framing in a rebuild crisis
response strategy results in a less negative corporate reputation than rational message framing
in a rebuild crisis response strategy”, has to be rejected too. An Univariate Regression using
Split File for Crisis Response Strategy with Post-Response Corporate Reputation as
dependent and Message Framing as independent variable (Levene’s Test: F(1, 89) = 1.80, p =
0.183) was insignificant: F = 1.16, p = 0.284. Hypothesis H2b, which predicted that “guilt
message framing in a deny crisis response strategy does not result in a less negative post-crisis
corporate reputation compared to rational message framing in a deny crisis response strategy”,
is accepted. The Univariate Regression (Levene’s Test: F(1, 85) = 3.68, p = 0.058) indicated
that the differences between the two was indeed insignificant for deny: F = 0.83, p = 0.365.
Hypothesis H3, which predicted that “guilt message framing in combination with a
rebuild crisis response strategy results in higher perceived sincerity than guilt message
framing in combination with a deny crisis response strategy”, is rejected: the results of an
Univariate Regression using Split File for Message Framing with Perceived Sincerity as dependent variable and Crisis Response Strategy as independent variable (Levene’s Test: F(1,
85) = 0.53, p = 0.470) indicated an insignificant difference between deny and rebuild: F =
3.18, p = 0.078.
In regards to hypothesis H4, which predicted that “the positive effect of guilt message
framing on post-crisis corporate reputation is mediated by perceptions of sincerity”, the
Corporate Reputation through perceived sincerity. According to the confidence intervals (CI =
0.08, 0.34) there is a 95 percent chance that there is a positive effect that is higher than 0.00.
Furthermore, both the direct effect of Guilt Message Framing on Perceived sincerity (F(3,
174) = 7.62, B = 0.72, t = 2.99, p = 0.003) and Perceived Sincerity on Post-response
Corporate Reputation (F(6, 171) = 12.85, B = 0.48, t = 2.67, p = 0.008) were significant.
Finally, hypothesis H5, which predicted that the effect of Perceived Sincerity on
Post-response Corporate Reputation is moderated by the Trait Forgiveness in respondents, is
rejected. The PROCESS results indicated that the interaction effect between Perceived
Sincerity, Trait Forgiveness and Corporate Reputation was not significant: F(6, 171) = 12.85,
B = -0.04, t = -0.93 , p = 0.357.
Discussion
The objective of this study was to fill in the gap regarding the effects of guilt message framing
on corporate reputation in times of a preventable crisis. Against expectations, the present
study did not reveal that corporate reputation is (directly) positively affected by a crisis
response in which the spokesperson of the organization expresses guilt. This is in contrast
with recent studies in which was found that the expression of other emotions such as sadness
(Claeys et al., 2013) and shame and regret (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014) can result in
less reputational damage compared to expressing no emotion in a crisis response.
A first explanation for having to reject hypothesis H1 and H2a could be the following: according to Coombs’ (2007) crisis situation model of SCCT, “as stakeholders attribute
greater crisis responsibility to the organization, their perceptions of the organizational
reputation will decline” (p. 168). Even though I argued before that when expressing guilt, no
guilt in a legal sense and/or actual sense of being to blame needs to be involved (the example
respondents attributed more crisis responsibility to the organization when the spokesperson
stated that the organization “feels (extremely) guilty”. In this way, the negative effect of
attributing crisis responsibility to the organization might have liquidated the positive effect of
expressing genuine guilt over what has happened, even when a rebuild crisis response strategy
was employed.
A second, methodological, explanation could be that corporate reputation is often
linked to reputational capital (Fombrun & Van Riel, 2004), which is, just as in a bank account
(Alsop, 2004; Dowling, 2002), accumulated over time. Building up reputation is thus a long
process. Therefore, measuring corporate reputation in a longitudinal study would have been
more appropriate. The scale used in the present study might not give an accurate picture of
what corporate reputation really entails.
A third explanation could be that other factors, not included in the conceptual model,
influenced the expression of guilt on corporate reputation and perceived sincerity (hypothesis
H3). For instance, the fact that persuasion knowledge is active in a public. This knowledge
helps receivers of corporate information how, when and why firms, organizations, or
governments try to influence them (Friestad & Wright, 1994). It is therefore plausible that
respondents felt like the main objective of KLM’s spokesperson behind rebuilding the relationship with stakeholders was to keep the organization’s reputation intact because of
financial reasons, more than sincerely feeling guilty for the many deaths that the airplane
crash caused. Another factor could be that because the spokesperson expressed guilt, respondents made assumptions about his and indirectly the organization’s (since the
spokesperson embodies the organization) character: emotions play a significant part in
determining character (Starkey, 2015). Simultaneously, character is used by a public to make
a judgement about reputation (Mishina, Block, & Mannor, 2012). Because the expression of
Salkovskis, 1991), respondents might have judged the mental and moral qualities of the
spokesperson/KLM as impotent, possibly explaining why expressing guilt did not positively
affect corporate reputation.
In contrast to hypothesis H1, H2a, and H3, it is comprehensible that hypothesis H2b
was accepted, since expressed emotion should be aligned with the type of crisis response
employed (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013). When guilt is expressed in combination with a
deny response, this creates confusion. In this case, it would have been better if the
spokesperson suppressed feelings of guilt and/or expressed another emotion such as sadness
or grief in order to minimize attribution of crisis responsibility but at the same time still show the organization’s human face. However, the strategic suppression of emotions, often referred
to as expressive suppression (Gross & Levenson, 1993), is not an easy task. Expressive
suppression is response-focused and intervenes once the emotion is already under way. It
requires repeated endeavours to manage emotional responses because they continuously ascend, challenging the individual’s resources (Cutuli, 2014). Expressive suppression comes
relatively late in the emotion-generative process, and amends the behavioural aspect of the
emotional response without deflating the subjective and physiological experience of negative
emotion (Cutuli, 2014). Repeated efforts deplete cognitive resources to the damage of social
performances and produce a sense of discrepancy between inner experience and outer
expression of the communicator (Higgins, 1987). Thus, whereas in theory we could argue that
the spokesperson should have suppressed his feelings of guilt and/or express another emotion such as sadness or grief, in practise a spokesperson’s resources might run out during an
impactful situation like an airplane crash resulting in the inability of suppressing inherent
emotions.
Even though no direct effect of guilt message framing on corporate reputation was
perceived sincerity. These results are in line with the research of Claeys et al. (2013), who
found a mediation effect of emotional message framing on reputation via sincerity. According
to Baron & Kenny (1986), one should not continue with the mediation when the main effect
of the independent variable on the dependent variable is insignificant, because chances of
finding a mediation effect are nearly zero. However, more advanced ways to test mediation,
such as Hayes (2013), allow continuing, and with success: even though it might not be
allowed to call it a mediation, still a significant indirect effect was observed. The positive
indirect effect implies that when a spokesperson/organization delivers a crisis response
message that is considered sincere, stakeholders may be more likely to forgive the
organization for its wrongdoing and evaluate its reputation less negatively. Since “sincerity is
a specific element taken into regard by the public when it estimates the overall credibility of a communicator or message” (Claeys et al., 2013, p. 305), the findings of the present study
suggest that organizational credibility is enhanced by the sincere expression of the emotion
guilt.
Even though perceived sincerity had a positive effect on corporate reputation, this was
not moderated by trait forgiveness in respondents. In this kind of situations, when a variable
no longer has an effect on the dependent variable, a ceiling effect often is the explanation.
However, the mean trait forgiveness was not exceedingly high. Thus, sincerity was likely
important to most respondents, no matter how forgiving they are.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Comparable experiments on emotional crisis communication done in the past (e.g. Kim &
Cameron, 2011; Claeys, 2013, Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014) solely used written texts.
Therefore, in the present study, respondents were exposed to written crisis responses
make the expression of guilt even clearer. When expressing emotion, however, also often
gestures, postures and tone of voice are used (Ekman, 1993; Wallbott, 1998). Whereas I did
not have the means to shoot videos in which a (fictional) spokesperson reads out the crisis
response message, employing such a richer medium including audio-visual features might
give a much more accurate picture of how the expression of a certain emotion can affect
corporate reputation. Even better would be setting up a field experiment, since it has the
advantage that outcomes are observed in a natural setting rather than in contrived setting.
A second limitation is that the present study mainly used participants who were in
their mid-twenties, went to higher education and were collected from the researcher’s own
network. According to Patzer (1996), college students are an acceptable sample when findings
serve as a foundation to be further investigated with other types of participants and/or when
the research handles fundamental questions such as cognitive information processing. Readers
should, nonetheless, keep in mind that the sample is not a perfect representation of the
population.
The third limitation is that the present study let the spokesperson of KLM express only
one emotion. Investigating the impact of guilt was highly relevant, as it is described as
arguably the most exemplary moral emotion (De Hooge et al., 2011) and a crucial mechanism
by which relationships are maintained and repaired (Baumeister et al., 1994): especially the
latter is extremely important in crisis management (Coombs, 2007). Future research, however,
should investigate the impact of the expression of other emotions as well. Until now only
negative emotions such as sadness, anger, regret, shame, and guilt have been investigated in
relation to crisis communication. It would also be interesting to see what happens when
positive emotions such as hope, altruism, relief, or optimism are expressed in crisis
Lastly, even though in Coombs’ (2007) “crisis situation model of SCCT” (p. 166),
emotions are included, he only seems to take into account the emotions that stakeholders
experience during a crisis, and not organizational members. In addition, the present study
expanded emotional crisis communication literature by finding an indirect effect between the
expression of guilt and corporate reputation through perceived sincerity. In earlier research,
Kim and Cameron (2011) argued that credibility perceptions should be considered in crisis
response research as well. It is argued in the present study that organizational credibility,
through perceived sincerity, is enhanced by the expression of the emotion guilt. Future
research should therefore create a more complete conceptual model for SCCT in which also causal relationships between organizational emotions (besides stakeholders’ emotions),
credibility/(emotional) sincerity and corporate reputation or behavioural intentions are
included.
Theoretical and managerial implications
Eisinger and Mills (1968) found that a communicator with an extreme position on the same
side of an issue as the receiver will be perceived as more sincere and competent. Since a
strong reputation can be (partly) based on how competent someone is (Thelwell et al., 2013),
it is useful for corporate communication practitioners to realize that when their expressed
emotions are aligned with the emotions that stakeholders are experiencing, perceived sincerity
and corporate reputation will probably be the strongest.
By expressing emotion in crisis responses an organization shows its human face, and
in doing so might improve its connection with stakeholders (Kelleher, 2009). Expressing
emotion in crisis responses might, however, backfire when stakeholders perceive the
expression of emotion to be insincere (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). Communication
strategic reasons like protecting the reputation: it might be considered as fake and
hypocritical, possibly damaging corporate reputation. One could thus ask him or herself how
strategically the expression of emotion in crisis responses should be approached.
The findings regarding the indirect effect between guilt message framing and
corporate reputation via perceived sincerity could also be used in other fields of
communication (research) such as political communication and persuasive
communication/marketing. Political leaders for example give a lot of speeches about varying
topics. A vast amount of them might be emotionally loaded. The importance of emotional
sincerity on reputation is likely as important for political leaders as it is for corporations.
Caza, et al. (2015) discuss the example of Hillary Clinton, who gave a speech on January 7,
2008 in New Hampshire, in which she was “tearing up” (Breslau, 2008). Her emotional
sincerity appeared to be as important as the emotion itself, drawing much more attention than her speech’s content. The present study provides proof that the sincerity of the expressed
emotion is even more important than the emotion itself. People, working as spokespersons,
politicians or marketers, and who bring out messages to large publics, should bear in mind
that in order to enhance positive reputations, faked expression of emotion should be avoided.
The importance of the findings regarding emotional sincerity also have important
implications for the (research) field of ‘emotional labour': the managing of the
expression/suppression of emotion in the workplace (Wharton & Erickson, 1993). Roles that
specifically require emotional labour, amongst others, include: public administrators, social
workers, doctors, nurses, teachers and service-based jobs such as receptionists and people
who work in hospitality (Guy & Newman, 2004). Previous research (e.g. Schaubroeck &
Jones, 2004) already indicated that employer demands to express positive emotions are related
to health symptoms such as emotional exhaustion, decrease in job satisfaction and burnout.
public would also not desire overly positive and faked emotions from for example store clerks
and waiters/waitresses. If this notion could be further investigated in future
psychological/social research, it could be beneficial for both service providers and service
receivers, and prevent serious health problems among employees.
Conclusion
This study suggests a new (SCCT) conceptual framework of crisis communication theory in
which emotions from the side of the organization as well as emotional sincerity or credibility
are added. It furthermore magnified the body of literature on emotional crisis communication
by providing both theoreticians and managers with implications on expressing guilt in
corporate messages, but nonetheless encourages further research into the expression of
emotion in crisis communication. The apprehension that emotional sincerity is more
important than the expressed emotion itself as well as its implications for
managers/researchers in the field of corporate, political and persuasive communication are
repeatedly stressed. Furthermore a novel insight about emotional sincerity outside the ‘communications spectrum’; in emotional labour, is introduced.
References:
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Adams, G. S., & Inesi, M. E. (2016). Impediments to forgiveness: victim and transgressor attributions of intent and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6), 866-881. doi:10.1037/pspi0000070
Alsop, R. J. (2004). The 18 immutable laws of corporate reputation: creating, protecting,
and repairing your most valuable asset. New York, NY: Free Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243-267. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations
Review, 23, 177-180.
Benoit, W. L. (2005). Image restoration theory. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations: Volume 1 (pp. 407-410). CA: Thousand Oaks.
Benoit, W. L., & Brinson, L. (1999). Queen Elizabeth’s image repair discourse: Insensitive royal or compassionate queen. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 145-156.
doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80159-3
Bradford, J. L., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). The effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to accusations of unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 875-892.
Breslau, K. (2008, January 6). Hillary tears up. Newsweek (Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/85609).
Cameron, G. T., Pang, A., & Jin, Y. (2008). Contingency. In T. Hansen-Horn & B. Neff (Eds.), Public relations: From theory to practice (pp. 134-157). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Caplovitz Barrett, K. (1995). A functionalist approach to shame and guilt. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt,
embarrassment, and pride (pp. 25-63). New York, NY: Guilford Press
Caza, A., Zhang, G., Wang, L., & Bai, Y. (2015). How do you really feel? Effect of leaders' perceived emotional sincerity on followers' trust. The Leadership Quaterly, 26(4), 518-531. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.05.008
Christensen, L. T., & Cornelissen, J. (2011). Bridging corporate and organizational communication: Review, development and a look into the future. Management
Communication Quarterly, 25, 383–414.
Claeys, A-S., Cauberghe, V., & Leysen, J. (2013). Implications of stealing thunder for the impact of expressing emotions in organizational crisis communication. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 41(3), 293-308.
doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.806991
Clardy, A. (2012). Organizational reputation: Issues in conceptualization and measurement.
Corporate Reputation Review, 15(4), 285-303. doi:10.1057/crr.2012.17
Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Management, 12, 241-259. doi:10.1300/J057v12n03_13
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. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, 279– 295.
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, 165-186.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: Clarifying apology’s role and value in crisis communication. Public
Relations Review, 34, 252-257. doi:10.1016=j.pubrev.2008.04.001
Cutuli, D. (2014). Cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression strategies role in the emotion regulation: an overview on their modulatory effects and neural correlates.
De Hooge, I. E., Nelissen, R. M. A., Breugelmans, S. M., & Zeelenberg, M. (2011). What is moral about guilt? Acting “prosocially” at the disadvantage of others. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 462-473. doi: 10.1037/a0021459
De Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2007). Moral sentiments and cooperation: Differential influences of shame and guilt. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 1025-1042. doi:10.1080/02699930600980874
Desmet, P. T. M., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2011). Trust recovery following voluntary or forced financial compensations in the trust game: The role of trait forgiveness.
Personality and Individual differences, 51, 267-273. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.027
Dowling, G. (2002). Creating corporate reputations: Identity, image, and performance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eisinger, R., & Mills, J. (1968). Perception of the sincerity and competence of a
communicator as a function of the extremity of his position. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 4, 224-232.
Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 376-379. Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too
proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 894-912. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.894
Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 113-135. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9677-4
Fiske, T., & Taylor, E. (1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What is in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-259. doi:10.2307/256324 Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel , C. B. M. (2004). Fame & fortune: How successful companies
build winning reputations. New York: Prentice-Hall Financial Times.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model - how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 21(1), 1-31.
Frijda, N. H. (1993). The place of appraisal in emotion. Cognition and emotion, 7, 357-388. Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. (1994). The social roles and functions of emotions. In S.
Kitayama, & H. Marcus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual
influence (pp. 51–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: physiology, selfreport and expressive behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 970-986.
doi:10. 1037//00223514.64.6.970
Guy, M. E., & Newman, M. A. (2004). Women's jobs, men's jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 289-298.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00373.x
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852-870). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review. 94(3), 319-340. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.94.3.319
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: a regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Jin, Y. (2009). The effects of public’s cognitive appraisal of emotions in crises on crisis coping and strategy assessment. Public Relations Review, 35, 310-313. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.02.003
Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2012). Toward a publics-driven, emotion-based conceptualization in crisis communication: unearthing dominant emotions in multi staged testing of the integrated crisis mapping (ICM) model. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 24(3), 266-298. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2012.676747
Kauffman, J. (2008). When sorry is not enough: Archbishop Cardinal Bernard Law’s image restoration strategies in the statement on sexual abuse of minors by clergy. Public
Relations Review, 34(3), 258-262. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.001
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 172-188. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x
Ketelaar, T., & Au, W. T. (2003). The effects of guilt on the behaviour of uncooperative individuals in repeated social bargaining games: An affect-as-information
interpretation of the role of emotion in social interaction. Cognition & Emotion, 17, 429-453. doi:10.1080/ 02699930143000662
Kim, H-S. (2011). A reputational approach examining publics' attributions on corporate social responsibility motives. Asian Journal of Communication, 21(1), 84-101.
doi:10.1080/01292986.2010.524230
Kim, S., Avery, E. J., & Lariscy, R. W. (2009). Are crisis communicators practicing what we preach? An evaluation of crisis response strategy analyzed in public relations research from 1991 to 2009. Public Relations Review, 35, 446-448.
Kim, H. J., & Cameron, G. T. (2011). Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and sadness in the publics’ response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response.
Communication Research, 38(6), 826-855. doi:10.1177/0093650210385813
Kim, K., Park, J., & Kim, J. (2014). Consumer–brand relationship quality: When and how it helps brand extensions. Journal of Business Research, 67(4), 591-597.
Klinnert, M. D., Emde, R. N., & Campos, J. J. (1986). Social referencing: The infant’s use of emotional signals from a friendly adult with mother present. Developmental
Psychology, 22, 427-432.
Legg, K. L. (2009). Religious celebrity: An analysis of image repair discourse. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 21(2), 240-250. doi:10.1080/10627260802557621
Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of
interpersonal conflicts: Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking. Journal of
Personality, 66, 1-37. doi:10.1111/1467- 6494.00001
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Lewis, H. B. (1987). Shame and the narcissistic personality. In D. L. NatJimon (Ed.), The
many faces of shame (pp. 93-124). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 21, 221-234.
Lindsay-Hartz, J. (1984). Contrasting experiences of shame and guilt. American Behavioral
Scientist, 27, 689-704. doi:10.1177/ 000276484027006003
Loseth, V. S., & Dahl, J. (2017). The influence of emotions on cognitive processing, and the importance of retrospective evaluations (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/2483579
McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249-266.
doi:10.1037/00332909.127.2.249
McDonald, L. M., Sparks, B., & Glendon, A. I. (2010). Stakeholder reactions to company crisis communication and causes. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 263-271.
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1982). Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence. Journal of
Economic Theory 27(2), 280-312. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(82)90031-X
Mishina, Y., Block, E.S., & Mannor, M. J. (2012). The path dependence of organizational reputation: How social judgement influences assessments of capability and character.
Strategic Management Journal, 33, 459-477. doi:10.1002/smj.958
Nabi, R. L. (1999). A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory, 9(3), 292-320.
Nelissen, R. M. A., Dijker, A. J., & De Vries, N. K. (2007). How to turn a hawk into a dove and vice versa: Interactions between emotions and goals in a give-some dilemma game. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 280-286.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.009
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Patzer, G. L. (1996). Experiment-research methodology in marketing types and applications. Westport, CT: Quorum books
Read, K. (2007). “Corporate pathos”: New approaches to quell hostile publics. Journal of
Communication Management, 11, 332-347.
Reichart , J. (2003). A theoretical exploration of expectational gaps in the corporate issue construct. Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 58-69.
Reynolds, M., & Salkovskis, P. M. (1991). The relationship among guilt, dysphoria, anxiety and obsessions in a normal population - An attempted replication. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 29(3), 259-265. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(91)90116-K
Riek, B. M., Luna, L. M. R., & Schnabelrauch, C. A. (2014). Transgressors’ guilt and shame: A longitudinal examination of forgiveness seeking. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 31, 751–772. doi: 10.1177/0265407513503595
Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418-433. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418
Robles, T. F., Carroll, J. E., Bai, S., Reynolds, B. M., Esquivel S., & Repetti, R. L. (2016) Emotions and family interactions in childhood: Associations with leukocyte telomere length. Psychneuroendocrinology, 63, 343-350. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.10.018 Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals
differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 206-221.
Sandlin, J. K., & Gracyalny, M. L. (2018). Seeking sincerity, finding forgiveness: YouTube apologies as image repair. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 393-406.
doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.007
Schaubroeck, J. & James, R. J. (2000). Antecedents of workplace emotional labor dimensions and moderators of their effects on physical symptoms. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 21, 163-183.
Sheikh, S., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2010). The “shoulds” and “should nots” of moral emotions: A self-regulatory perspective on shame and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 36, 213-224. doi:10.1177/ 0146167209356788
Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. London, England: Miller.
Starkey, C. (2015). Emotion and character. In Miller, C. B., Furr, R. M., Knobel, A., & Fleeson, W. (Ed.), Character: New directions from philosophy, psychology and
theology (pp 192-214). New York, NY: Ofxford University Press.
Thelwell, R. C., Page, J. L., Lush A., Greenlees, I. A., Manley, A. J. (2013). Can reputation biases influence the outcome and process of making competence judgments of a
