Online Crisis Communication: The Influence of Different Crisis Response
Strategies on Reputation and Account Acceptance
Feike Stegeman
Graduate School of Communication Master Thesis
Student ID: 11096381 Supervisor: dr. J.M. Slevin 30-06-2017
Abstract
Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are used more often by organizations to communicate with their stakeholders in times of crisis. Organizations can use these platforms during crises to get control of the communication concerning the crisis situation and to limit or prevent any negative effects that the crisis can cause. The challenge of communication via new channels is the unfamiliarity of the appropriate behavior. Many organizations are not aware of the proper online behavior and this can be problematic for them. This research focuses on different response strategies that organizations can use during online crisis situations, and the effects that these online response strategies have on the acceptance of the response (account acceptance) and the reputation of an organization. Results showed that using an online rebuild strategy led to the highest account acceptance and reputation. Furthermore, account acceptance had a mediation influence on the relationship between online rebuild strategy and reputation. Since there is not much research available regarding account acceptance, future research can take this into account. Concluding, this study benefits crisis managers and organizations, as they can use the results to choose an appropriate online crisis response.
Keywords: crisis communication, Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), crisis
Introduction
Nowadays, our phones have become so important, if you fall and hear a crack, you pray it is your leg. Mobile phones offer a flexibility to people to use social network sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter more than ever before (Campbell & Park, 2008). The increase in the use of social media among individuals has different consequences for organizations. For example, the communication that organizations have with their
stakeholders has changed (Cho, Schweickart & Haase, 2014; Dijkmans, Kerkhof, Buyukcan-Tetik, & Beukeboom, 2015). Stakeholders are no longer passive participants, but are now active members in the media process. They can comment, ask questions and show their concern to organizations and will receive an answer or information, all via social media (Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy, & Kates, 2007; Hanna, Rohm & Crittenden, 2011).
This type of online communication between organizations and their stakeholders can be used as a tool for crisis communication (Ott & Theunissen, 2015; Roshan, Warren & Carr, 2016). During times of crisis, stakeholders have the need for clarity and fast information. Social media make it possible for organizations to fulfill that need by providing their stakeholders with clear information, minutes after the outbreak of a crisis (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). By communicating clear and consistent information to their stakeholders, organizations can increase the acceptance of their response among the stakeholders. This acceptance level of a response is also called account acceptance (Coombs & Holladay, 2009). However, social media use must be appropriate to create a high level of account acceptance. Since social media is relatively new for many organizations to use, no schedule is available regarding the proper behavior on these online platforms. Therefore, many organizations who are new to social media are not aware of the appropriate online behavior and have problems
using social media strategically. Failure to communicate via social media in the correct manner can intensify a crisis for the organization (Schultz, Utz & Göritz, 2011; Ulmer & Sellnow, 2000).
Dealing with a crisis situation can be a threat to the organizational reputation.
However, if the crisis is handled effectively, positive effects may even result from it (Ulmer & Sellnow, 2000). Since reputation is the most valuable competitive advantage that
organizations can have, it is important for them to maintain a positive reputation (Deephouse, 2000). It is therefore essential for organizations to be aware of their social media use and to understand what the most effective social media approach is during a crisis in order to sustain or build a positive reputation (Dijkmans, Kerkhof & Beukeboom, 2015).
The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) posited by Coombs (1999) focuses on matching crisis response strategies with the right type of crisis in order to protect the organizational reputation (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). However, literature regarding the SCCT and social media use of organizations during crisis situations is still limited.
Nevertheless, this type of research is much needed, since the increase in use of online crisis communication by organizations and their stakeholders (Alexander, 2014; Coombs & Holladay, 2009; Schultz, Utz & Göritz, 2011).
The present study uses the SCCT to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the effects of (1) crisis type and (2) online crisis response strategy on reputation?
RQ2: Is the relationship between online crisis response strategy and reputation mediated by account acceptance?
With knowledge regarding online crisis response strategies, organizations can become aware of how to use social media appropriately in order to protect or even increase their reputation. Moreover, by adapting the SCCT to online crises, this theory can be applied by crisis mangers for online crisis situations and be used to create online responses that will be positive for the account acceptance and reputation of the organizations.
Theoretical Framework
In the theoretical framework an overview of the existing literature is provided and a description of relevant concepts are discussed. In addition, results of previous research are described and the hypotheses are formulated in this section.
Crisis
A crisis can be described as an unexpected and non-routine event that can disrupt organizations, their goals, and operations. It can furthermore change the interactions within an organization and between them and their stakeholders (Schultz, Utz & Göritz, 2011).
Moreover, a crisis can harm the reputation of an organization (Tucker & Melewar, 2005). Reputation is considered as one of the most important competitive advantages an organization can have. It is therefore essential for organizations to limit, prevent or repair any possible reputational damage caused by a crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2007; Deephouse, 2000).
A crisis not only has consequences for an organization, also their stakeholders are affected by it (Pramanik, Ekman, Hessel & Tehler, 2015; Sandman, 2006). When a crisis occurs, stakeholders might be harmed physically, emotionally, and/or financially. Moreover, crises can cause a high level of uncertainty among stakeholders (Ulmer, 2001). This
uncertainty problem can be solved by communication. Information and knowledge sharing with the stakeholders will lower the level of uncertainty and limit the reputational damage or repair the damage that the crisis has already caused (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014; Coombs, 2007). Besides lowering the level of uncertainty, communicating about the crisis gives an organization the possibility to take control and set the tone of the crisis before others do this in a way that will harm the image of the organization (Ritchie, 2004).
If clear information about the crisis is communicated effectively, the crisis can even have positive consequences for an organization (Ulmer & Sellnow, 2002). For example, some organizations saw their reputation increasing after a crisis. The right response must be chosen that matches the demands of the crisis and the situation, in order to achieve reputational improvement. The SCCT can be used by crisis managers to help them selecting the right crisis response with the purpose of receiving a high account acceptance and protecting the
reputation of their organization during different crisis situations (Coombs, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2009).
Situational Crisis Communication Theory
The Situational Crisis Communication Theory is a theory based guide for selecting crisis response strategies (Coombs, 1999). These different response strategies are resources that can be used to protect the reputation of an organization during times of crisis. The theory first predicts the reputational threat of the crisis. Secondly, it suggests the most appropriate crisis response strategy that fits the crisis situation, in order to prevent or minimize
reputational harm. Furthermore, the SCCT provides a framework on how stakeholders will react to a crisis and to the response used by an organization. This provides guidance for
post-crisis communication. Moreover a set of guidelines are provided for managers to assist them in choosing the right crisis response strategy to protect the organizational reputation.
This theory can be applied by crisis managers to understand a crisis. When a crisis is understood, a more suitable response strategy will be chosen to protect an organization from reputational harm (Coombs, 1998; 2006). However, the SCCT is created for traditional crisis communication and does not take online crisis communication into account. In this study the theory will be connected with social media communication. Social media is used increasingly for crisis communication by organizations and crises occur more frequently online. It is therefore important to make an association between this theory and online crisis
communication. By doing this, the traditional knowledge of the SCCT can be applied for understanding online crises and choosing the right online response strategy.
In order to understand the crisis and to evaluate the level of reputational threat that the crisis poses, the crisis situation must be examined. There are three different types of crisis situations and these clusters have a different amount of influence on the threat of the reputation (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). The first type of crises are placed in the victim cluster. In these cases the organization is seen as the victim of the crisis. The organization has a low level of responsibility for the crisis and the reputational threat is therefore low as well. Natural disasters or rumors can be placed in this cluster. Secondly, there is the accidental cluster. Crises placed in this cluster pose a medium threat to the organizational reputation. Crises are seen as unintentional or non-controllable by the organization. The organization thus has a minimal level of responsibility. Technical-error product harm or technical-error accident are crises that can be placed in this cluster. Lastly, there is the preventable cluster. In these cases the organization has a high level of responsibility for the crisis and the level of
prevented by the organization. Crises that are placed in the preventable cluster are human-error accident or human-human-error product harm (Claeys, Cauberghe & Vyncke, 2010; Coombs and Holladay, 2009).
The amount of responsibility attributed to the organization by the stakeholders, and thus the type of crisis, has influence on the reputation of an organization. The greater the perception of responsibility for the crisis is, the lower the organizational reputation will be (Claeys, Cauberghe & Vyncke, 2010; Coombs, 2007). Present study compares the effects of a victim and a preventable crisis with each other. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: The reputation of the organization will be higher when the organization is placed in the victim cluster than when the organization is placed in the preventable cluster.
Besides the different crisis clusters, the SCCT distinguishes multiple types of response strategies. Response strategies are described as what managers say and do after a crisis
(Coombs & Holladay, 2009). The strategies can be used by crisis managers to repair and protect the reputation and to keep the negative effects of the crisis as small as possible. There are three primary crisis response strategies, based on the different crisis clusters described before. These response strategies are denial, diminish and rebuild (Coombs, 2006; 2007).
Firstly, with the denial strategies, organizations who are going through a crisis, actively try to remove any connection between the crisis situation and themselves. Removing the connection that stakeholders have between the organization and the crisis can be
accomplished in different ways. The existence of the crisis can be denied or the accuser of the crisis can be attacked by the organization. If the stakeholders accept that there is no crisis, the organizational reputation cannot be harmed (Coombs, 2007; Dutta & Pullig, 2011). Secondly,
when an organization uses diminish strategies, it argues that the crisis situation is not as harmful as people think it is. These strategies are used to convince stakeholders that the crisis situation is out of the control of the organization. While using these strategies, the connection between the organization and the crisis is decreased, the seriousness of the crisis is
minimized, and any harmful effects are reduced (Hegner, Beldad & Kraesgenberg, 2016) . Since organizations can fail while diminishing the crisis situation, it can be risky using these strategies. Excuse strategies or claims of minimal damage can be used as these responses (Coombs, 2007). Finally, rebuild strategies can be used by an organization to gain a more positive reputation. This can be accomplished by delivering an apology or by delivering a compensation, such as money, to the victims of the crisis. These strategies are generally used when an organization suffers a severe reputational threat (Claeys, Cauberghe & Vyncke, 2010; Liu, Austin & Jin, 2011).
The different response strategies each fit a different crisis situation best. It is the task of the crisis manager to determine what the best response for the crisis situation is (Coombs, 2007). In this study the effects of online diminish and rebuild strategies will be compared with each other. Furthermore, an informative strategy will be used as well. This type of response has little effect on the post-crisis perceptions of stakeholders (Coombs, 1998).
Since previous research has shown that rebuild strategies will lead to more effective reputation restoring than other strategies, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2: The reputation of the organization will be higher when an online rebuild strategy is used, than when other online strategies are used.
However, organizations should not use rebuild strategies in all situations to protect their reputation, since they do not always create positive results for an organization (Jin, Liu & Austin, 2014). When a rebuild strategy is used, for example an apology is given,
organizations take responsibility for the crisis. When a crisis can be placed in the victim cluster and organizations use a rebuild strategy, thus taking responsibility for the crisis, unnecessary harm can be brought to the organization. Organizations should therefore
understand the type of crisis and base their response on the cluster the crisis can be placed in. Previous studies have shown that when the responsibility of a crisis is high, it is best to use rebuild strategies. If there is a lower level of responsibility, diminish or deny strategies are better to use (Claeys, Cauberghe & Vyncke, 2010; Coombs & Holladay, 1996). Hence it is expected that:
H3: The right combination of crisis type and online response strategy will lead to a higher reputation than any mismatched combination will.
Social Media
Even though there is a lot of attention for social media in research, there still is some confusion about the exact meaning of the term. Multiple concepts have been associated with social media. One description of social media used in research comes from Power (2014). According to him, social media make use of mobile and web-based technologies to create interactive platforms that enable people to communicate, share, collaborate, and modify user-generated content. In this study, the description of Boyd (2009) is used for social media. She describes it as the collection of software that enables individuals and communities to gather, communicate, share, and in some cases collaborate or play together.
The possibility to gather, share, and communicate with others by using social media can be seen as opportunities for organizations. For example, these characteristics of social media offer organizations new communication practices. Organizations are now able to reach more stakeholders than ever in a short time period. This can lead to relationship building, reputational benefits, and more engagement and awareness among stakeholders (Briones, Kuch, Liu & Jin, 2011; Schultz, Utz & Göritz, 2011; Waters, Burnett, Lamm & Lucas, 2009). However, these features of social media also create certain challenges for organizations (Gibbs, Rozaidi & Eisenberg, 2013). Social media make it possible for many people to find information about an organization, even information that does not come from the organization itself. Furthermore, online information can stay visible after the original poster has deleted the information. When this is sensitive, a crisis can be caused, that can lead to reputational
damage. Moreover, with the use of social media, organizations can lose the control of
communicative interactions. Especially during times of crisis it is important for organizations to stay in control. The tone of the crisis can be set and reputational damage can be limited by staying in control. At the same time, outsiders are able to set the tone quickly before the organization is able to with the use of social media (Albu & Etter, 2016). When this is not positive for an organization, reputational damage can be the consequence. To prevent or limit the damage of an online crisis, the SCCT can be applied for online crises and used by crisis managers as a guideline to create and choose the right online crisis response strategy (Gibbs, Rozaidi & Eisenberg, 2013).
Organizational Social Media Use
With the increase of social media use of consumers, the use of social media among organizations has increased accordingly. Organizations can use social media to communicate
with their stakeholders, obtain information, and to create brand recognition and brand awareness (Schultz, Koehler, Philippe & Coronel, 2015). The use of social media by
organizations further enables a two-way communication style between an organization and its stakeholders. Moreover, it allows organizations to quickly inform their stakeholders. These characteristics of social media make it appropriate for organizations to use these online platforms during crisis situations to communicate information to the stakeholders (Gruber, Smerek, Thomas-Hunt & James, 2015; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Veil, Buehner & Palenchar, 2011).
Using social media can enhance the reputation of organizations during a crisis, however, it can also have a negative influence on the organizational reputation (Dijkmans, Kerkhof & Beukeboom, 2015). The consequences of social media use for organizations depend partially on the response of the organization. If this is considered appropriate, the reputation of an organization can be protected. Nevertheless, if the response is not accepted or considered appropriate, thus when the account acceptance is low, the reputation will be damaged. Therefore, it is important for organizations to understand social media and the use of it, especially during a crisis, when the reputation of an organization is at stake (Coombs and Holladay, 2008).
Reputation
The reputation of an organization is defined as the perceptions that the stakeholders have regarding the ability of an organization to create value compared to their competitors (Deephouse, 2000). The reputation of an organization is related to the financial performance of that particular organization (Friedman, 2009), but also to attracting outstanding job applicants, customer loyalty, and support in times of controversy (Gray & Balmer, 1998;
Greyser, 1999; Richard & Zhang, 2012). Moreover, reputation is seen as a significant resource that can lead to competitive advantages and a positive reputation can even be the deciding factor for stakeholders to give business to an organization (Deephouse, 2000; O’Rourke, 2004). Since having an advantage over competitors is important for organizations to survive, it is essential for them to have a positive reputation and to maintain and improve their reputation.
A reputation can be formed by the communication of an organization and by their performance (Gray & Balmer, 1998). Furthermore, organizational crises are also important during the reputation forming of an organization. Consequently, there is a link between the reputation of an organization, organizational crises, and communication. Communication can be the cause of a crisis, which can influence the reputation of an organization, and
communication again can be used to fix the crisis and thus repair the reputation. Through communicating with the stakeholders, whether this is via social media or via traditional communicative platforms, the perceptions of the stakeholders concerning the crisis and the organization are affected. By changing the initial negative perceptions into positive
perceptions with communication, the negative effect of the crisis can be reduced. The SCCT shows that by communicating different post-crisis messages to the stakeholders, organizations can improve their reputation or at least limit the harm of the crisis on their reputation if these strategies are considered appropriate (Coombs, 2006; 2007).
Account Acceptance
The level of acceptance of a response or message is called account acceptance (Jin, Liu & Austin, 2014). This refers to the way respondents feel about the response offered by an organization and if they accept that response (Coombs & Holladay, 2008; 2009). If the
account acceptance among stakeholders is high, the response of the organizations is considered more appropriate. If the response is accepted by the stakeholders, the more positive reactions the organization will receive from them. Furthermore, the higher the
account acceptance, the more believable a message is and the more willing stakeholders are to reconcile and thus forgive the organization. Moreover, the perceived ethical image and the reputation of the organization are higher when the account acceptance is high as well (Bradford & Garrett, 1995; Schultz, Utz & Göritz, 2011; Shnabel, Nadler & Dovidio, 2014; Smith & Swinyard, 1982).
Organizations can benefit from focusing on the formation of a high account
acceptance, since this can have a positive influence on their reputation. Previous research has focused on the relationship between message acceptance, trust, and the willingness to
reconcile (Shnabel, Nadler & Dovidio, 2014). The results indicated that the higher the message acceptance, the higher the trust and willingness to reconcile was. During times of crisis this is essential, since the willingness of stakeholders to resolve their problems with the organization can improve the reputation of that organization. Furthermore, according to Smith and Swinyard (1982), a higher account acceptance will lead to a stronger level of believe. It can be assumed that the stronger the believe of the message is, the more positive influence this will have on the perception of the organization and in turn on the organizational
reputation. Moreover, it is likely that if the response is not accepted by the stakeholders, the influence on the reputation is negative. It is thus expected that:
The level of account acceptance depends on the response given by the organization regarding the crisis. The different response strategies given by the SCCT can affect the level of account acceptance on different ways and this again can influence the perceived reputation of the organization (Coombs and Holladay, 2008).
With this in mind, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H5: An online rebuild strategy will lead to a higher account acceptance than other online strategies will.
H6: There is a mediating effect of account acceptance on the relationship between online rebuild strategy and reputation.
For a visualization of the hypotheses, see Figure 1.
Methods
In order to answer the research questions and to test the previous stated hypotheses, an online survey-embedded experiment was conducted. In this study, the respondents were placed into one of six different groups. The respondents from each group read one of the two different crisis situation texts and an online response given by the organization. The two different crisis types used in this survey are victim and preventable, meaning that the organization was either a victim of the crisis or that the crisis could have been prevented by the organization. The online response strategies are informative, diminish, and rebuild. In the informative response, it was merely stated that the organization started an investigation, without giving other information. In the diminish response, an excuse was given for the crisis situation, meaning that the organization claimed that there was no intention of doing any harm. Finally, in the rebuild response, the organization offered their apologies to the affected stakeholders.
Sample and procedures
In this study, 155 respondents participated in a questionnaire. Participation was completely voluntary and anonymity was guaranteed. The respondents were asked to fill in the questionnaire via a post placed on the Facebook account of the researcher. This type of recruiting is called convenience sampling. It is a cost efficient, easy, and quick way to reach respondents. Only respondents older than 18 were asked to fill in this questionnaire. Since the survey was in English, an additional requirement was comprehension of the English language.
The post was placed on Facebook on May 7, 2017. In total, 141 respondents filled in the questionnaire completely. This means that there was a dropout rate of 9.1%. The age of
the respondents ranged from 18 to 58, with an average age of 27.16 (SD = 9.53). 92 women (65.2%) and 49 men (34.8%) filled in the survey. 88.7% of the respondents had a degree in higher education (HBO or university). Facebook was the most popular social media platform among the respondents, 95% of them are active on Facebook. Facebook Messenger (76.6%), Instagram (71.6%), Snapchat (63.8%), LinkedIn (56.7%), and Twitter (18.4%) were used less. Two respondents (1.4%) did not use any social media. 77.3% of the respondents used social media at least once per hour.
Design
An online survey-embedded experiment was conducted to measure the effects of crisis type and online response strategies on the reputation of the organization during a crisis
situation and the effects of those online response strategies on account acceptance. A 3 (online response strategy) X 2 (crisis type) design was used in this experiment. The respondents were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions with Qualtrics. Eventually the division among the conditions was not completely equal, however there were no big differences between the groups. 22 respondents were placed in the first group (victim, informative), 26 in the second group (preventable, informative), 25 in the third group (victim, excuse), 22 in group four (preventable, excuse), 22 respondents were placed in group five (victim and apology) and lastly, 24 respondents were placed in the sixth group (preventable, apology).
The different online response strategies were created by the researcher. However, existing crisis responses of different organizations were used as an example to make the responses believable. Before the respondents read one of the three different online response strategies, they were exposed to background information regarding the crisis situation. These texts were also created by the researcher and based on existing crisis situations of lesser
known cases (See Appendix A for the different crisis situations and online response strategies).
The organization chosen for this research was a fictional organization named Atlantic International Airline. It was chosen to use a fictional organization to make sure that no prior knowledge would influence the results, Moreover, potential bias was excluded with the use of a fictional organization.
Measures
This survey measured different variables. These variables are responsibility, account acceptance, and reputation. The full survey can be seen in Appendix B. All three variables were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 Strongly Disagree to 7 Strongly Agree). Since seven answer possibilities provide balanced answering and more nuanced answer differences, this type of scale was chosen to measure the different variables. The control variables in this study are age, gender, and social media use in hours. An overview of the means, standard deviations, and the Cronbach's Alpha of the variables can be seen in table 1.
Responsibility. To measure the level of responsibility attributed to the organization for the crisis situation, a 3-item scale from Griffin, Babin and Darden (1992) and Coombs and Holladay (1996) was used (M = 4.20, SD = 1.71). The answer possibilities ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The following questions were asked:
“Circumstances, not the organization, are responsible for the crisis”, “The blame for the crisis lies with the organization”, and “The blame for the crisis lies in the circumstances, not the organization”.
A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on the three items. There was one component with an Eigenvalue above Kaiser’s criteria of 1 (2.63). This component
explained 87.7% of the variance. Factor loadings ranged from .89 to .92. Moreover, the Cronbach’s Alpha of the three items was .93. This means that the scale used to measure responsibility is reliable.
Account acceptance. The mediating variable in this research is account acceptance (M = 4.51, SD = 1.28). This is conceptualized as the level of acceptance of the organizational response in the eyes of the stakeholders. The account acceptance was measured using a six-item scale taken from Blumstein et al. (1974), Jin (2010), Park and Cameron (2014), Stewart et al. (2011), and Van der Meer and Verhoeven (2014). The respondents were asked to give their opinion concerning the online response of the organization. Items such as: “The response of the organization was appropriate”, “The response of the organization was sincere”, and “The response of the organization was acceptable” were included in the scale.
A PCA was conducted on the different account acceptance items. This showed that there was one component with an Eigenvalue above 1 (4.22) and 70.3% of the variance was explained by this component. Factor loadings ranged from .89 to .92. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the six items was .92. The scale is thus reliable.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s Alpha.
Note. N =141.
Variable M SD α
Age 27.16 9.53
Gender 1.65 .48
Social Media Use 3.34 1.10
Responsibility 4.20 1.71 .93 Account Acceptance 4.51 1.28 .92
Reputation. The reputation of the organization was measured with a 15-item scale from Walsh, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Each item was followed by a 7-point Likert response format. The scale included items such as: “Atlantic International Airline has employees who treat their customers right” and “Atlantic International Airline seems to treat its people well”. The overall score of reputation was 4.07 (SD = .80).
A PCA was conducted on the 15 different items. This showed that there were 3 components with an Eigenvalue above 1 (8.01, 1.47 & 1.06). These components explained 53.4%, 9.8%, and 7.06% of the variance. The scree plot on the other hand showed a turning point at the second component (See Appendix C). Therefore, the two factors with an
Eigenvalue of 1.47 and 1.06 can be removed. Finally, there was one remaining component. Factor loadings ranged from .93 to .94. A reliability test was conducted on all 15 items. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the items was .94. A Cronbach’s Alpha of this size means that the scale is reliable.
Control variables. Three different control variables were used in this research. These variables are age (M = 27.16, SD = 9.53), gender, (M = 1.65, SD = .48), and social media use in hours (M = 3.34, SD = 1.10). All three variables were measured with one question. In order to find out the age of the respondents, their age in numbers was asked (What is your age in numbers?). For the gender question, respondents had to indicate what their sex was (What is your gender?). To find out their social media use per hour the question “On average, how many times do you use social media per hour?” was asked.
Results
To test the previous stated hypotheses, SPSS Statistics 22 was used. Multiple analyses, such as an independent t-test and one-way ANOVA, were carried out to answer the
hypotheses. Moreover, PROCESS macro was used. See table 2 for the means and standard deviations of the scores from the six different groups on responsibility, account acceptance, and reputation.
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of the scores from the six different groups.
Group Responsibility M (SD) Account Acceptance M (SD) Reputation M (SD) Victim/Information 2.83 (1.22) 4.48 (1.24) 4.04 (.65) Victim/Excuse 3.31 (1.29) 4.63 (1.07) 4.10 (.74) Victim/Apology 3.41 (1.55) 4.80 (1.27) 4.18 (.80) Preventable/Information 5.2 8 (1.52) 4.06 (1.10) 3.74 (.69) Preventable/Excuse 5.08 (1.36) 4.02 (1.26) 3.75 (.62) Preventable/Apology 5.13 (1.49) 5.07 (1.51) 4.64 (.94) Note. N = 141 Correlation analysis
Table 3 shows the correlations between the control variables and responsibility, account acceptance, and reputation. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to
measure the strength of the relationship between the relevant variables. There was a small significant effect between age and responsibility (r = .24). The other variables did not correlate significantly with the control variables.
Table 3
Correlations.
Variable Responsibility Account Acceptance Reputation
Age .24** -.09 .09
Gender .07 .00 -.02
Social media use -.12 -.01 .00
Note. N = 141
**Significance at p < .01
Crisis type
The first hypothesis states that the reputation of the organization will be higher when the organization is placed in the victim cluster than when it is placed in the preventable cluster. Before this could be tested, it was important to confirm the success of the
manipulation of crisis type. This was done with an independent t-test. Two different groups were created for this analysis. The respondents from the first group had read a text where the organization was a victim of the crisis. Respondents placed in the second group had read a text where the organization could have prevented the crisis. Results indicated that on average, the respondents considered the organization to be more responsible when they were placed in the preventable group (M = 5.17, SD = 1.45) than when they were placed in the victim group (M = 3.19, SD = 1.36). This difference was highly significant, t(139) = - 8.37, p <.001, r = .58. This means that the manipulation was successful and that the first hypothesis could be tested.
To test the first hypothesis an independent t-test was conducted. The two groups stayed the same for this analysis. Results showed that the respondents placed in the victim group gave a mean reputation of 4.11 (SD = .73) and the respondents placed in the
preventable group gave a mean reputation of 4.04 (SD = .86). However, this difference was not significant, t(139) = .46, p = .647. Therefore, there was no support found for the first hypothesis and thus the reputation of the organization did not significantly differ per crisis type in this study.
Online response strategies
The second hypothesis tested the reputational level of the organization when different online response strategies were used. This was tested with a one-way ANOVA. Respondents were placed into one of three different groups. The first group was the information group. Respondents in this group saw an online informative response of the organization. The
respondents placed in the second group saw an online diminish response. The third group was the rebuild group. Respondents placed in this group read an online rebuild strategy of the organization.
There was a significant, small difference between the three groups on reputation (F(2,138) = 7.07, p <.005, ω = .26) where the rebuild group gave the highest reputation score (M = 4.42, SD = .89) and information group the lowest (M = 3.88, SD = .68). Respondents from the diminish group gave a mean reputation of 3.94 (SD = .70). Moreover, results indicated that the online rebuild strategy increased reputation significantly compared to the other online strategies, t(138) = 3.74, p <.001 (1-tailed). The effect size was moderate, r = .30. Thus, the second hypothesis can be accepted.
The third hypothesis states that a matched combination of crisis type with online response strategy will lead to a higher reputation than any incorrect combination will. This
was tested with an independent t-test. In order to accept or reject the hypothesis, two different groups were created. The first groups existed of respondents that read a matched combination of crisis type with online response strategy. The respondents from the second group read a combination of crisis type with an inappropriate online response strategy. Preventable crisis type with an online rebuild strategy and victim crisis type with an online diminish strategy were considered a match. The other combinations were placed in the unmatched group. Results of the t-test showed that respondents in the matched group gave the organization a higher average reputation score (M = 4.37, SD = .88) than respondents in the mismatched group did (M = 3.92, SD = .71). This difference was significant, t(139) = 3.30, p <.001. Thus matched combinations of crisis type and online response strategy did result in a higher reputation than mismatched combinations did. However, the effect size was small, r = .27, indicating that even though there was an effect of matched combinations on reputation, this effect was a small one. Nonetheless, the third hypothesis can be accepted.
Account acceptance
The fourth hypothesis positions that the higher the account acceptance of the online response given by the organization, the higher the reputation of the organization will be. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to indicate the possible existence of the
relationship between the two variables. Account acceptance was highly related to the
reputation of the organization, r = .67, and this effect was significant (p (1-tailed) <.001). This means that the fourth hypothesis can be accepted and as a result it can be stated that the higher the account acceptance, the higher the reputation of the organization will be.
Hypothesis five states that using an online rebuild strategy will lead to a higher account acceptance than other online strategies will. This was measured with a one-way
ANOVA. The same groups were used as the ones that were created for the second hypothesis. Thus the respondents were placed in the informative, diminish, or rebuild group. Results showed that there was a significant difference between the three different groups on account acceptance (F(2,138) = 4.09, p = .009, ω = .20). The rebuild group showed the highest account acceptance with an average of 4.94 (SD = 1.39). Respondents from the diminish group gave an average account acceptance score of 4.35 (SD = 1.19) and respondents from the informative group gave an average score of 4.25 (SD = 1.17).
Moreover, results indicated that using an online rebuild strategy increases the account acceptance significantly compared to other online strategies t(138) = -2.83, p <.005 (1-tailed),
r = .23. This means that the effect of online rebuild strategy on reputation is small, but since
the effect is significant, the fifth hypothesis can be accepted.
Mediation effect
For hypothesis six, it was assumed that account acceptance would have a mediating influence on the relationship between online rebuild strategy and reputation. To test this hypothesis the PROCESS macro in SPSS (Model 4) was used (Hayes, 2012). This SPSS extension tests indirect effects. For the analysis a 95% bias-corrected bootstrap model was used. The confidence intervals resampled 5000 times. The variables age, gender and social media use in hours were used as control variables. These were chosen so that they will not influence the results. Before the analysis could take place, a dummy variable had to be created for the online rebuild strategy. This dummy variable makes it possible to conduct an analysis with PROCESS macro when the independent variable is categorical.
The results of the PROCESS macro analysis with online rebuild strategy as independent variable, reputation as dependent variable, without the mediating account
acceptance variable, showed a significant model (F(4, 136) = 3.09, p <.005, R2 = .32) where 32% of the variance in reputation can be explained by online rebuild strategy. Moreover, there was a significant effect of online rebuild strategy on reputation (b = .52, BC 95% [0.25, 0.80],
t(136) = 3.75, p <.005).
The model with online rebuild strategy as independent variable and account
acceptance as dependent variable was also significant (F(4, 136) = 2.43, p = .051, R2 = .07). The R2 score of .07 indicates that 7% of any variance in account acceptance can be explained by online rebuild strategy. The effect of online strategy on account acceptance was significant (b = .64, BC 95% [0.19, 1.08], t(136) = 2.81, p <.006). When adding the mediating variable, the model is significant (F (5,135) = 26.86, p <.001, R2 = .50), meaning that both online rebuild strategy and account acceptance are significant predictors for reputation. Moreover, there is a significant effect of account acceptance on reputation (b = .41, t(135) = 10.32, p <.001). The results also show that the direct effect of online rebuild strategy on reputation is significant (b = .26, t(135) = 2.45, p =.016).
Finally, results indicated that online rebuild strategy had a small, but highly
significant, effect on reputation, through account acceptance (b = .26, BC 95% [0.06, 0.47], Z = 2.70, p = <.001). This means that account acceptance mediates the relationship between online rebuild strategy and reputation. However, since the direct relationship between this strategy on reputation with account acceptance added, is significant, there is no full mediation present. Nevertheless, partial mediation is present, thus the sixth hypothesis can be partially accepted.
Conclusion
The growth of social media use among consumers caused a shift in the way organizations and their stakeholders communicate with each other. This new way of communication can have positive consequences for organizations, if the communication is considered appropriate by the stakeholders. Especially in times of crisis it is important that organizations communicate information appropriately. However, failure to do this can intensify a crisis for the organization. This problem raises the question how this new communication platform can support organizations during crisis situations and how it can help them to protect or increase their reputation. Since research regarding online crisis communication is lacking, this study was much needed. The aim of this research was to provide organizations with more knowledge concerning different online response strategies and their influence on reputation and account acceptance. To answer the posed research questions and to shed light on the relationship between online response strategies, crisis types, account acceptance, and reputations of the organization, different crisis situations and
responses were created. Most predictions were supported by the findings.
According to Coombs (2007) organizations will be held more responsible for a crisis when that crisis can be placed in a preventable cluster than when it can be placed in a victim cluster. The different crisis types were manipulated for this study. The results supported this manipulation. Respondents attributed a lower level of responsibility to the organization when they were placed in the victim group than when they were placed in the preventable group.
Although previous studies (e.g. Claeys, Cauberghe & Vyncke, 2010; Coombs, 2007; Coombs and Holladay, 2002; Coombs and Holladay, 2008) have demonstrated that the reputation of an organization is higher when there is a victim crisis than when other types of
crises occur, this could not be confirmed with the results of this study. The results did show that the respondents indicated the reputation of the organization higher when they were placed in the victim group than when they were placed in the preventable group. However, this difference was not significant. Since this contradicts the previous mentioned studies, this result is interesting. This would imply that organizations do not need to hold crisis type into account when formulating an online crisis response, as crisis type does not seem to influence the reputation. However, an explanation for this unexpected result might be that the
respondents in this study read the response of the organization before answering questions regarding the reputation. Since these responses have an effect on the reputation as well, it is likely that the responses influenced the answers of the respondents. Future research can measure the reputation of an organization on two different time points. One time right after reading about the crisis and one time again after reading the response of the organization. The results of the influence of crisis type on reputation will be more trustworthy when reputation will be measured on two time points.
Moreover, when respondents were exposed to the online rebuild strategy of the organization, they evaluated the reputation of the organization as more positive than the respondents who were exposed to the other online response strategies did. This is in line with the results of previous studies (Coombs & Holladay, 2008; Utz, Schultz & Glocka, 2013). This result suggests that during crisis situations, organizations can best send an online rebuild strategy, such as an apology, to their stakeholders. In that way they will receive the highest level of reputation. Furthermore, a matched combination of crisis type and the right online response strategy led to a higher reputation than mismatched combinations did. This result supported the arguments of different literature (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014; Dutta & Pullig, 2011; Hegner, Beldad & Kraesgenberg, 2016). Even though the first hypothesis could not be
accepted, indicating that crisis type did not influence the reputational level of organizations, this outcome shows that crisis type did have an influence on the reputational level in
combination with the used online response strategy. Therefore organizations should examine the crisis type before creating an online response.
Additionally, it was expected that the account acceptance would have had an influence on the reputation of the organization. It was predicted that a higher score of account
acceptance would lead to a higher reputation. This prediction was correct in this study and is in line with previous research that showed that there was a relationship between account acceptance and reputation (Coombs & Holladay, 2008; Sohn & Weaver-Lariscy, 2015). This confirms that it is important for organizations to give a central role to the account acceptance of their online message in crisis management and in formulating online crisis responses. Moreover, it was expected that the online response strategy used by organizations during a crisis situation had an influence on the level of account acceptance. Results showed that when an online rebuild strategy was used, the account acceptance was higher than when other online response strategies were used. This again is in line with previous research (Coombs & Holladay, 2008). This outcome indicates that an online rebuild strategy is the most effective response to use for organizations. Furthermore, the results of this study showed that there was a partial mediation effect present of account acceptance on the relationship between online rebuild strategy and reputation. This implies that it is important to focus on ways how
respondents will accept the response in order to get a higher reputation. Since there is not a lot of literature available regarding this relationship, more research is necessary.
It can be concluded that different online response strategies influence the reputation of the organization in different ways. Since it is important for organizations to have a positive
reputation, the results of this study are interesting for crisis managers and will contribute to the knowledge of crisis managers on how to respond during an online crisis.
Firstly, with these results crisis managers are able to create an appropriate online response strategy for a specific crisis situation that will be accepted by the stakeholders and will protect the reputation of their organization. It was found that an online rebuild strategy had the most positive influence on the reputation of the organization. This implicates that these types of responses can best be used by managers in online crisis situations.
Secondly, since results indicated that matching the right crisis type with the right online response strategy will lead to a higher reputation, it is essential for reputation repairing to match the proper online response strategy with the right type of crisis. Thus managers must examine the crisis type thoroughly before formulating an online response to the crisis.
Thirdly, this study shows that the different online response strategies have an influence on the level of acceptance of these responses and this has again influence on the reputation. It is confirmed that there lies importance in choosing an online response strategy that will lead to a higher account acceptance, since this can protect reputation. Same as for reputation, online rebuild strategy had the most positive influence on account acceptance. This online strategy was perceived as the most acceptable by the respondents and also had the most positive influence on the reputation of the organization.
All in all, this study reveals the influence of account acceptance and the importance of this concept for increasing organizational reputation and protecting it. Rebuild strategies are important for managers to use during an online crisis to form a high account acceptance and reputation. However, crisis type must be taken into consideration while forming an online crisis response.
Discussion
Practicality
The results of this study contribute to the research field of online crisis
communication, account acceptance, and reputation. As stated before, this study shows the effectiveness of using rebuild crisis response strategies during an online crisis. However, it should be taken into account that responsibility for the crisis is taken by using this strategy and this is not always desirable. According to Weiner (2006) reactions of stakeholders are positive when a low level of responsibility is attributed. Thus, when organizations take responsibility for a crisis by using a rebuild strategy, negative consequences can be derived from this. In addition, taking responsibility when this is not necessary can have negative financial consequences. As stated by Claeys, Cauberghe, and Vyncke (2010), when using rebuild strategies, such as offering an apology, organizations can open themselves to lawsuits. However, having a negative reputation can also lead to damaging financial consequences (Whitmeyer, 2000). It is therefore important to take the characteristics of rebuild strategies that have a positive influence on reputation, for instance showing concern for victims, without taking responsibility for the formation of the crisis if the organization cannot be held
accountable for this crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2008).
Other theories
For this study the SCCT was used as the main crisis theory. This theory is specifically developed for crisis communication. For example, the image repair theory (IRT) of Benoit (1997), can also be applied during crisis situations in order to repair the image of an
crises. Furthermore, this theory sees communication mainly as a tool to defend the reputation, not as a tool to create or repair reputation. Moreover, the focus of this theory does not lie on the stakeholders of an organization, but it focuses on the organization itself (Coombs & Holladay, 2011). Since reputation forming and improving in the minds of the stakeholders is an important part of this study, the IRT was not used.
In addition, a different theory, the contingency theory, does focus on the effects that crisis responses have on stakeholders. This could thus have been a theory that would be suitable for this study. However, this theory is a grand theory. Meaning it tries to explain an entire discipline and its explanations are therefore too generic for this study. The SCCT is more useful in understanding various aspects of a crisis. The theory can therefore be applied to more variables and it be used for online crisis communication studies. Since numerous aspects are important for organizations during crisis situations, this is a fitting theory to use for this study (Coombs & Holladay, 2011).
Strengths and limitations
The present study has different strengths. For the description of the crisis, a fictional organization was used. This prevented any previous formed reputations regarding the organization to influence the results. Also crisis history was not applicable in this case and thus did not influence the answers of the respondents in any way. Furthermore, respondents were randomly assigned to one of the six different groups and it was possible to fill in the survey online, in an environment that is familiar for them. This increases the internal validity and reliability of this study. Moreover, for both crisis types, the same online responses were used. The rebuild response strategy was the same for the victim crisis type as for the
preventable crisis type. In addition, since this was an experiment, it is possible to draw causal relations. Lastly, in every group the amount of responses was more or less the same.
Regardless of all these strengths, this research also has some limitations. As mentioned before, there was no significant difference between crisis types and the level of reputation. This lack of difference is probably the result of the response given by the organization concerning the crisis, which was shown to the respondents before filling in questions about the reputation. This was similar to the result of Utz, Schultz and Glocka (2013). In their study they showed the response of the organization before asking the
respondents to fill in questions about the reputation of that organization as well. The variances of reputation score between the different groups was also not significant. Moreover, since the respondents were predominantly high educated (88.7%) and between the ages 21 and 24 (56.7%), the results are almost not generalizable to the population. However, since most social media users are within those age groups (Reuters Institute Digital News Report, 2016) and thus will be most likely to read about organizational crises online, the results are still relevant for organizations.
Future research
Despite the strengths of this study and the contributions this research makes to the present knowledge of online crisis communication, account acceptance and reputation, future research is still necessary. As described before, the direct relationship between crisis type and reputation was hard to determine. Future research with a longer time span can focus on measuring reputation on two different time-points. If reputation will be measured after the respondents are made aware of the crisis situation and once more after reading the response of
the organization, the direct relationship between crisis type and reputation can be exposed better.
Furthermore, present study had problems with the generalization of the results. Upcoming research can duplicate this study with a more variety of respondents. Doing this will increase the external validity of the results.
Moreover, replications of this study can give a more detailed description of the crisis situation and the organization in order to create a valid picture in the minds of the
respondents. In addition, various crisis types and online responses can be used in future research to give organizations better knowledge on how to act during different crisis situations.
Lastly, since account acceptance seems to influence the reputation of the organization and is influenced by the online response strategies used during a crisis, it is vital that more research must be conducted that explores the effects of account acceptance on online crises.
References
Albu, O. B., & Etter, M. (2016). Hypertextuality and social media: A study of the constitutive and paradoxical implications of organizational Twitter use. Management Communication
Quarterly, 30(1), 5-31. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318915601161
Alexander, D. E. (2014). Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 20(3), 717-733. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9502-z
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public relations
review, 23(2), 177-186. doi: 10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., McCarthy, I., & Kates, S. (2007). When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative consumers. Business Horizons, 50(1), 39-48. doi:
10.1016/j.bushor.2006.05.005
Blumstein, P. W., Carssow, K. G., Hall, J., Hawkins, B., Hoffman, R., Ishem, E., … Zimmerman, D. L. (1974). The honoring of accounts. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 551-566.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094421
Boyd, D. (2009). Social Media is Here to Stay... Now What?. Paper presented at the Microsoft
Research Tech Fest, Redmond, Washington. Retrieved from
Bradford, J. L., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). The effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to accusations of unethical behavior. Journal of Business ethics, 14(11), 875-892. doi:
10.1007/BF00882067
Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public relations review, 37(1), 37-43. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.006
Campbell, S. W., & Park, Y. J. (2008). Social implications of mobile telephony: The rise of personal communication society. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 371-387. doi:
10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00080.x
Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565-567. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.008
Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2014). Keeping control: The importance of nonverbal expressions of power by organizational spokespersons in times of crisis. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1160-1180. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12122.
Claeys, A. S., Cauberghe, V., & Vyncke, P. (2010). Restoring reputations in times of crisis: An experimental study of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory and the moderating effects of locus of control. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 256-262. doi:
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. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1003_02
Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects.
Journal of public relations research, 11(2), 125-142. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1102_02.
Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of promotion management, 12(3-4), 241-260. 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. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
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(4), 279-295. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_04
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). The negative communication dynamic: Exploring the impact of stakeholder affect on behavioral intentions. Journal of Communication
management, 11(4), 300-312. doi: 10.1108/13632540710843913
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(3), 252-257.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2009). Further explorations of post-crisis communication: Effects of media and response strategies on perceptions and intentions. Public Relations Review,
35(1), 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.011
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2011). The handbook of crisis communication. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass
communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091-1112. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600602
Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2015). A stage to engage: Social media use and corporate reputation. Tourism Management, 47, 58-67. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.005
Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P., Buyukcan‐Tetik, A., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2015). Online conversation and corporate reputation: A two‐wave longitudinal study on the effects of exposure to the social
media activities of a highly interactive company. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 20(6), 632-648. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12132
Dutta, S., & Pullig, C. (2011). Effectiveness of corporate responses to brand crises: The role of crisis type and response strategies. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1281-1287. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.013
Friedman, B. A. (2009). Human resource management role implications for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(3), 229-244. doi: 10.1057/crr.2009.17
Gibbs, J. L., Rozaidi, N. A., & Eisenberg, J. (2013). Overcoming the “ideology of openness”: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of
Computer‐Mediated Communication, 19(1), 102-120. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12034
Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long
range planning, 31(5), 695-702. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(98)00074-0
Greyser, S. A. (1999). Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal, 4(4), 177-181. doi: 10.1108/13563289910299292
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Darden, W. R. (1992). Consumer assessments of responsibility for product-related injuries: The impact of regulations, warnings, and promotional policies.
NA-Advances Consumer Research, 19, 870-877. Retrieved from
Gruber, D. A., Smerek, R. E., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & James, E. H. (2015). The real-time power of Twitter: Crisis management and leadership in an age of social media. Business
Horizons, 58(2), 163-172. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.006
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54(3), 265-273. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.007
Hayes, F. (2012). Process: A versatile computational tool for observed variable, moderation, mediation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from
http://is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim2014/PSY704/50497615/hayes_2012_navod_processpdf
Hegner, S. M., Beldad, A. D., & Kraesgenberg, A. L. (2016). The impact of crisis response strategy, crisis type, and corporate social responsibility on post-crisis consumer trust and purchase intention. Corporate Reputation Review, 19(4), 357-370. doi: 10.1057/s41299-016-0007-y
Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: The interplay of information form and source. Public Relations Review, 37(4), 345-353. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.004
Jin, Y. (2010). Making sense sensibly in crisis communication: How publics’ crisis appraisals influence their negative emotions, coping strategy preferences, and crisis response
Jin, Y., Liu, B. F., & Austin, L. L. (2014). Examining the role of social media in effective crisis management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, and source on publics’ crisis responses. Communication research, 41(1), 74-94. doi: 10.1177/0093650211423918
Kaplan, A.M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
O'Rourke, M. (2004). Protecting your reputation. Risk Management, 51(4), 14. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/openview/d654c67a72df2b99109503b12d2df957/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=47271
Ott, L., & Theunissen, P. (2015). Reputations at risk: Engagement during social media crises. Public
Relations Review, 41(1), 97-102. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.015
Park, H., & Cameron, G. T. (2014). Keeping it real: Exploring the roles of conversational human voice and source credibility in crisis communication via blogs. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 91(3), 487-507. doi: 10.1177/1077699014538827
Power, A. (2014). What is social media?. British Journal of Midwifery, 22(12). Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c7f7cc7f-5fd0-4176-9e46-b11ff78f07be%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&hid=4114
Pramanik, R., Ekman, O., Hassel, H., & Tehler, H. (2015). Organizational Adaptation in Multi‐ Stakeholder Crisis Response: An Experimental Study. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, 23(4), 234-245. doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12094.
Reuters Institute for the study of journalism (2016). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016. Retrieved from: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital-News-Report-2016.pdf
Richard, J. E., & Zhang, A. (2012). Corporate image, loyalty, and commitment in the consumer travel industry. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(5-6), 568-593. doi:
10.1080/0267257X.2010.549195
Ritchie, B. W. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: a strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism industry. Tourism management, 25(6), 669-683. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.004.
Roshan, M., Warren, M., & Carr, R. (2016). Understanding the use of social media by organisations for crisis communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 350-361. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.016
Sandman, P. M. (2006). Crisis communication best practices: Some quibbles and additions. Journal
of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 257–262. doi:10.1080/ 00909880600771619.
Schultz, M. D., Koehler, J. W., Philippe, T. W., & Coronel, R. S. (2015). Managing the effects of social media in organizations. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 80(2), 42. Retrieved
from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c4e786fd-55f2-4ead-a938-efc513b5565a%40sessionmgr101&vid=1&hid=124
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public relations review, 37(1), 20-27. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). Beyond need satisfaction: Empowering and accepting messages from third parties ineffectively restore trust and consequent reconciliation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(2), 126-140. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2002
Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1982). Information response models: An integrated approach. The
Journal of Marketing, 46(1), 81-93. doi: 10.2307/1251162
Sohn, Y. J., & Lariscy, R. W. (2015). A “buffer” or “boomerang?”—The role of corporate reputation in bad times. Communication Research, 42(2), 237-259. doi: 10.1177/0093650212466891
Stewart, H. S., Bowden, J. A., Bayly, M. C., Sharplin, G. R., Durkin, S. J., Miller, C. L., … Wakefield, M. A. (2011). Potential effectiveness of specific anti-smoking mass media advertisements among Australian Indigenous smokers. Health Education Research, 26(6), 961-975. doi: 10.1093/her/cyr065
Tucker, L., & Melewar, T. C. (2005). Corporate reputation and crisis management: The threat and manageability of anti-corporatism. Corporate reputation review, 7(4), 377-387. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540233
Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Effective crisis management through established stakeholder relationships: Malden Mills as a case study. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 590-615. doi: 10.1177/0893318901144003
Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the Box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(2), 143-155. doi: 10.1023/A:1006183805499
Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2002). Crisis management and the discourse of renewal:
Understanding the potential for positive outcomes of crisis. Public Relations Review, 28(4), 361-365. doi: 10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00165-0.
Utz, S., Schultz, F., & Glocka, S. (2013). Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Public Relations
Review, 39(1), 40-46. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.010
Van der Meer, T. G., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2014). Emotional crisis communication. Public Relations
