Exploring the Hidden Dimension: The Impact of Communication on Professional Attractiveness in Times of Crisis
Merve Yilmazturk 11108533
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Toni van der Meer 30.06.2017
Abstract
Organizational crises threaten the relationship between the organization and its stakeholders by violating expectations. Although the existing literature holds several assumptions in the context of external communication (i.e., organizational reputation), internal context has been neglected. Therefore, the main aim of this paper is to examine the impact of verbal and nonverbal communication on leader’s professional attractiveness in times of crisis. First, it is investigated how the utilization of different crisis response
strategies affects leader’s credibility and persuasiveness in the eyes of employees. The results illustrate that when leaders utilize a rebuild strategy instead of a denial, they are perceived as more credible and persuasive by their stakeholders. Secondly, it is investigated how the expression of nonverbal behaviors affects his credibility and persuasiveness. The results indicate that a leader who expresses more nonverbal behaviors, appears to be more credible and persuasive than a leader with less expressive behaviors. As a consequence, this study provides several suggestions to crisis managers and organizations in order to enhance leader’s professional attractiveness traits in times of crisis.
Keywords: crisis communication, Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), crisis response strategies, nonverbal communication, account acceptance.
Introduction
“The art of communication is the language of leadership” James Humes
For the last three decades, research in organizational communication has shown an interesting increase in the number of crisis communication studies (Heath, 2010; Jones, Watson, Gardner, & Gallois, 2004). An organizational crisis might trigger far-reaching consequences both external and internal communication (Hermann, 1963). Externally, it may threaten organizational reputation and legitimacy in a broader perspective (Coombs, 2007). The internal consequences of a crisis deemed to be more diverse and sometimes
contradictory. On the one hand, previous research suggests that the appropriate crisis
communication may lead to a closer integration and clarification of organizational values and norms (Hermann, 1963). On the other hand, it might hinder organizational viability by increasing anxiety and stress among employees. Therefore, communication during a crisis becomes crucial more than ever in the context of internal communication. This present study suggests that the utilization of certain crisis response strategies and expressive nonverbal behaviors might increase the leader’s credibility and persuasiveness, which may lessen the negative effects of an organizational crisis.
Communication has the power to affect people’s perceptions, shape their evaluations, and reduce negative impact of crises (Coombs, 1995; Coombs 2007) . In times of crisis, employees of a stricken organization often feel a high degree of threat and anxiety due to the uncertain nature of crises. Therefore, the most crucial phase of communication arises, in which management focuses on handling the situation and attempting to ease the negative outcomes (Coombs, 2009). During this phase, leaders are viewed as white knights in the process of sense-making and anxiety-reduction (Shamir & Howell, 1999). How the crisis response is delivered and its content, given by the leader, substantially affects stakeholder’s perceptions (Coombs, 2009). Employees seek explanations for what has and is happening,
anticipate confidence in their leaders’ ability to respond to the crisis. The existing leadership studies proved that credibility is a central trait for leaders (Wilson & Rhodes, 1997) as well as persuasiveness (Goleman, 2003). Therefore, a leader who is perceived as more credible and persuasive is deemed to be more professionally attractive in the eyes of stakeholders.
The way leaders respond -what they say, and how they say it- gives signals to
employees in their evaluation process of their leaders. When it comes to spoken words (what they say), the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) provides a prescriptive approach to match a fitting crisis response strategy to certain crisis situations in order to reduce negative effects (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). Although, the ultimate choice of which crisis response strategy to use is often difficult, previous studies (e.g., Coombs & Holladay, 2008) found that some strategies are more useful than others. In such situations, where the organization or its stakeholders conduct misdeeds, offering an apology and taking full responsibility proved to be more effective for limiting the reputational damage (Coombs, 2007). Previous research have been predominantly focused on the external organizational outcomes (i.e., reputation); however, this research aims to focus on specifically internal organizational outcomes in a more individual level by adding the link between different crisis response strategies and its impact on leaders’ professional attractiveness. The assumption is, when a leader uses a rebuild strategy instead of a denial strategy, he will be perceived as more credible and persuasive by his employees.
The other factor, which affects professional attractiveness of leaders lies in the nonverbal communication. Literature defines nonverbal communication as the hidden dimension of all communications, which illustrates “a silent language” (Hall, 1973). This silent language regulates the verbal communication, thereby it has the power to change and control its meaning. In times of crisis, when it is “highly ambiguous situations” (Dutton, 1986), organizations need to communicate in a more competent manner than usual times.
Therefore, the impact of the nonverbal communication become highly crucial. Along with what the leader says, how he says it influences his persuasiveness and credibility (Burgoon, Birk & Pfau, 1990). Although, the effects of nonverbal communication have been studied in the fields like political communication (e.g., Nagel, Maurer & Reinemann, 2012) or social psychology (e.g., Aguinis & Henle, 2001), surprisingly, very little research has examined the impact of nonverbal communication in times of crisis. The goal of this study is to examine the influence of nonverbal communication on the stakeholder’s perceptions of a leader’s credibility and persuasiveness during an organizational crisis.
This study is expected to answer the following question: to what extent do the utilization of specific crisis response strategies and nonverbal behaviors have an impact on leader’s professional attractiveness in times of crisis? In order to answer this question, an experimental study was conducted. This research first examines which verbal communication style (i.e., crisis response strategy) is more effective to be considered as more professionally attractive. Secondly, it demonstrates the impact of leader’s nonverbal behaviors on the basis of perceived credibility and persuasiveness (i.e., professional attractiveness). The findings of this research offer several suggestions to organizations on how to manage the evaluation of a leader during a crisis by analyzing different verbal and nonverbal communication styles. Therefore, this study enriches the crisis literature in the context of internal communication.
Literature Review Crisis Communication
Existing literature holds different definitions for the concept of crisis (e.g., ; Clark, 1995; Lerbinger, 1997; Pearson & Clair, 1998; Perry, 2007; Rosenthal, Boin & Comfort, 2001). One definition that captures all fundamental attributes of organizational crises is the perception of an unpredictable event with a tremendous impact on the organization’s
moments ‘where the turning of events and interpretations could affect the organizations’ ability to accomplish its mission and business plan’ (Heath & O’hair, 2009, p. 9).
An organizational crisis might cause various negative consequences for both internal and external stakeholders (Yu, Sengul & Lester, 2008). Previous study of Hermann (1963) found that in crisis situations, existing conflicts tend to intensify, which results in a decrease in the organizational integration. Since employees represent the organization through their interactions with external stakeholders, an organization’s external reputation does not exist independently from internal reputation (Gill, 2015). However, this study primarily focuses on the internal stakeholder perspective. It is assumed that employees have a different kind of relation to an organization than external stakeholders (e.g., contractual stakeholders) (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011). Employees hold a different type of organizational identification and identity than external stakeholders, since they feel an unique sense of belonging (Pratt, 1998). Also they have particular stakes, which have an influence on their crisis attributions. Therefore, an organizational crisis may breach their expectations related to various concerns as safety, health and economical (Coombs, 2012). Ultimately, it may provoke uncertainty amongst them (Sandman, 2006; Seeger, 2006; Pescosolido, 2002) and in turn, this places organizational performance and reputation at risk (Coombs, 2009).
Communication in times of crisis is highly important since it influences reactions by an organization’s constituents and ensures that they get important information about how to react to the situation (Sturges, 1994). An organizational crisis may arise from both external and internal causes, which creates different crisis situations (Fediuk, Pace & Botero, 2010). The Situational Communication Theory (SCCT) by Timothy Coombs (1999) is considered as the dominant theoretical framework that provides prescriptive approaches for different crisis situations. SCCT posits that different types of crises inevitably determine stakeholder
(Coombs, 2007). Eventually, different types reflect stakeholder’s interpretations under
particular crisis situations (Coombs, 2007). SCCT research fundamentally focuses on external communication outcomes (i.e., reputation), however, this research suggests a bilateral
relationship between external and internal communication, such as internal reputation reinforces the external reputation of an organization.
Coombs (1999) identified different crisis strategies in the SCCT research. According to this literature, SCCT organizes response strategies based on the alteration of the
perceptions of the stakeholders (Coombs, 2009). In line with previous studies, four
comprehensive groups of strategies were identified: (1) denial; (2) diminish; (3) rebuild; and (4) bolstering. Denial strategy removes all connections between the organization and the crisis, whereas diminish strategy tries to reduce the attributions of organizational control for the crisis (Coombs 2007; Coombs 2009). Rebuild strategy offers more positive actions by apologizing or accepting responsibility. Lastly, bolstering strategy is defined as a
supplemental strategy to the former ones (Coombs 2007; Coombs 2009). However, in this research the focus was given only to rebuild and denial strategies. Previous research suggests that different types of crisis response strategies significantly affect organizational legitimacy (Allen & Caillouet, 1994; Coombs & Holladay, 1996; Lee, 2005); reputation (Benoit, 1995; Coombs, 1999; Coombs & Holladay, 2002); organizational image (Coombs, 1995; Massey, 2001); anger and hostility toward organization (Hearit, 1994); relationship management (Ice, 1991); and recovery from damage (Siomkos & Shrivastava, 1993). At this point, the foremost goal of the crisis communication is to lessen negative outcomes and protect the organization and its stakeholders (Coombs, 2012).
Professional Attractiveness
Existing literature holds the definition of leadership as the individuals who has the power to influence dynamic outcomes within an organization (Uhl-Bien & McKelvey, 2007).
According to different circumstances, they might be the managers, spokespersons, or the CEO of the company. In times of crisis, the organization and its leaders have to take control of the situation and show strong leadership skills (Hearit, 1994). Under these conditions, internal stakeholders (e.g., employees) look for greater guidance (Bass & Stogdill, 1990) and a clear sense of direction due to the feeling of anxiety and frustration (Shamir & Howell, 1999). The existing research argues that in times of such ambiguity, stress, and uncertainty that occur during an organizational crisis, charismatic and transformational leadership becomes vital to ease tensions and conflicts (Shamir & Howell, 1999; Trice & Beyer, 1986; Howell, 1997; Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld & Srinivasan, 2006 ). Throughout the crisis, leaders appear as the key players in order to reduce anxiety (Shamir & Howell, 1999), restore the trust of internal stakeholders and reputation of the organization (Utz, Schultz & Glocka, 2013). The way leaders react indubitably affects both internal stakeholder’s crisis reactions (Madera & Smith, 2009) and their evaluations of the competence of the leader (Boin & Hart, 2003; Madera & Smith, 2009). What leaders say and how they say it might give some insights to employees about how they should correspond to the unpredictable event (Pearson & Clair, 1998). Especially, employees look for strategic responses and demeanor from leaders that emanate confidence and rebuild trust (Madera & Smith, 2009).
For the purpose of this research, a new concept has been labeled as “leader’s professional attractiveness”. It consists of two distinct dimensions; (1) credibility and (2) persuasiveness. These concepts found to be interrelated, whereas messages come from credible sources are found to be more persuasive than others (Petty & Wegener, 1998). Although cultivated literature contains various different terms and definitions, the generally accepted concept of credibility consists of dimensions derived from Aristotle’s work as (1) competence; (2) trustworthiness; (3) goodwill; and (4) believability (McCroskey & Teven, 1999; Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953; McCroskey, 1992). Credibility of a communicator
indicates a person’s perceived ability or motivation to provide accurate and honest information (Tormala & Petty, 2004). During an organizational crisis, the concept of credibility becomes highly important (Sellnow, Veil & Streifel, 2010). Bridges and Nelson (2000) state that ‘if an organizational representative is perceived as credible source, the organization has an opportunity to place its position forward’ (pg. 108).
Considering the SCCT, which holds the idea that communication affects people’s perceptions and in turn, different response strategies creates different stakeholder evaluations about the crisis. It has been found that using a rebuild crisis strategy is the best way the protect and regain organization’s reputation and legitimacy (Coombs & Holladay, 2008). Thereby, from macro-level (e.g., organizational reputation) to micro-level (e.g., individual reputation), it is assumed that using a rebuild strategy will be more effective on the individual evaluation of the leader compared to using a denial strategy. This research aims to add value by investigating internal benefits of using a rebuild strategy to be perceived as more credible leader in the eyes of employees. Thus, the impact of different crisis responses on the
credibility of the leader, respectively, will be investigated based on hypothesis created as follows;
H1a: The rebuild crisis response strategy will positively affect the perception of the credibility of the leader compared to denial strategy.
The latter dimension of the professional attractiveness is the persuasiveness. In the literature, the concept of persuasion is defined as “any attempt to shape, change, or reinforce a desired behavior or attitude” (Pfau & Wan 2006, p. 89). In times of crisis, organizations create strategic messages in order to “change, alter or shape perceptions of stakeholders with the suitable crisis response”. By doing so, crisis responses become a form of persuasive communication (Fediuk, Pace & Botero 2010). In every crisis situation, leaders have a certain goal to repair organization’s legitimacy by shaping and reinforcing stakeholder’s attitudes
and perceptions. The theory of SCCT focuses fundamentally on the appropriateness of the messages in the specific crisis situation, rather than the persuasiveness or effectiveness of the messages. It helps to understand when to use different crisis responses rather than the impact of a certain response (Fediuk, Pace & Botero 2010). Since it has been found that the content of the message (i.e., the crisis response strategy) affects persuasion (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014), this research aims to add in the existing literature the link between the use of the appropriate response (i.e., rebuild strategy) and perceived persuasiveness of the leader. Therefore, the impact of rebuild strategy on the persuasiveness of the leader will be examined based on the hypothesis formed below;
H1b: The rebuild crisis response strategy will positively affect the perception of the persuasiveness of the leader compared to denial strategy.
Nonverbal Communication
Besides the importance of spoken words, the transfer of the message is crucial in all human interactions. According to literature, the definition of nonverbal communication is “the transfer and exchange of messages in any and all modalities that do not involve words” (Matsumoto, Frank and Hwang,2013, p. 4). Prior studies report that the vast majority of the messages are nonverbally communicated (Friedman, 1978). As reported by Matsumoto et al.,(2013) “depending on the study, the estimated amount of information communicated nonverbally ranges between 65% and 95% of the total messages conveyed” (p. 12). The nonverbal behaviors are defined as “the dynamic actions of the face, voice and
body”(Matsumoto et al.,2013, p. 6). They are transmitted through various channels/mediums such as facial expressions, vocal cues, gestures, body postures (Knapp, 2013).
The visual cues comprise of facial and body expressions. The equivalent term for visual cues is kinesics, which is pertaining to communication effected nonverbally through movements and gestures (Birdwhistell, 1952). Mehrabian (1981) categorized those cues
under three primary dimensions as (1) immediacy, (2) dominance, and (3) arousal.
Immediacy indicates the degree of sensory involvement and psychological approach that is signaled by the sender. This dimension complements the connotations of pleasantness, affiliation, affection and friendliness (Burgoon, Birk & Pfau, 1990). It can be evaluated by looking at sender’s body lean, eye contact, nodding ,and smiling. The second dimension dominance includes the visual behaviors related with the attribution of power and can be judged by sender’s facial pleasantness, which reveals energy and force (Burgoon, Birk & Pfau, 1990). Lastly, arousal dimension comprises the sender’s physical activation, which can be seen by self-adaptors such as self-touching or body tension (Mehrabian, 1969) .
Matsumoto and Hwang (2012) pointed out the importance of visual cues by arguing that those behaviors display people’s emotions immediately, involuntarily, and unconsciously. Thereby, it shows people’s hidden intentions, motivations and enlightens trustworthiness and credibility.
The nonverbal vocal cues encompass various noises such as pitch, volume, fluency, pauses during a speech (Trager, 1961). This study examines the subchannels as (1) speech style, and (2) speech tone. The speech style composes of the patterns of pauses, irregularities (e.g., flaws), response lengths and so forth (Frank, Maroulis & Griffin, 2012). The second subchannel is defined as the tone of the speech that holds the acoustic features such as pitch, loudness and resonance (Frank, Maroulis & Griffin, 2012). Burgoon, Birk and Pfau (1990) have associated those vocal cues to three distinct concepts under the name of (1)
pleasantness, (2) potency, and (3) arousal. Pleasantness dimension consists of speech fluency, pitch, clarity and so forth. The existing literature has proved the prominence of pauses and latencies, stating the negative correlation between speech hesitation and source credibility (Miller & Hewgill, 1964). Potency dimension includes tempo, loudness, variety which is affiliated with energy, forcefulness (Burgoon, Birk & Pfau, 1990) and dominance (Burgoon,
Buller & Woodall, 1989). Existing literature proves the positive relationship between speech rate (e.g., tempo) and attitude change, whereas rapid speech indeed enhances persuasion (Miller, Maruyama, Beaber & Valone, 1976; Mehrabian & Williams, 1969) and credibility (Pearce & Conklin, 1971). Some studies show that lower pitch indicates more social dominance (Puts, Gaulin & Verdolini, 2006), decrease in anxiety (Laukka et al., 2008) and greater competence (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014). On the other hand, greater variability in pitch has been associated with persuasiveness (Mehrabian & Williams, 1969). The last dimension arousal intensity is associated with fluency, response latency, tempo, loudness and pitch (Burgoon, Birk & Pfau, 1990). Faster tempo has been perceived as more intelligent and knowledgeable than slower tempo, which in turn affects credibility and persuasiveness (Miller et al., 1976).
People tend to interpret and evaluate both verbal and nonverbal messages through the filter of perceptions of the message’s source (McCroskey & Teven, 1999). While shaping the perceptions of receivers, certain cues that lie in the nonverbal behaviors of the sender become crucial (Burgoon, Birk & Pfau, 1990). As explained above, specific nonverbal cues might give insights about the perception of the credibility and persuasiveness of sender. Research has shown that, nonverbal behaviors appear to be as fundamental continuums, which might be used to judge social characteristics of a person (Burgoon, Birk & Pfau, 1990). When it comes to interaction between people, nonverbal behaviors have a strong role, since the crucial information is provided by those signals (Argyle, 1970). Taking into account existing literature, this research examines the impact of the nonverbal communication on the
perceived credibility and persuasiveness of a leader in times of an organizational crisis. H2a: As vocal (greater fluency, faster tempo, greater loudness) and kinesic (more eye contact, more illustrator gestures, more facial pleasantness) expressions become more prominent, the attributions of a leader’s credibility increases.
H2b: As vocal (non-fluency, faster tempo, greater loudness) and kinesic (more eye contact, more illustrator gestures, more facial pleasantness) expressions become more prominent, the attributions of a leader’s persuasiveness increases.
Credibility and Persuasion
The relationship between credibility and persuasiveness has a rich history in
communication research (e.g., Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Rhine & Severance, 1970; Mills & Jellison, 1967; Petty & Wegener, 1998; Pornpitakpan, 2004). Previous research has proved that messages, which come from high credible sources generates more attitude change than lower credible sources (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). The credibility of the communicator leads to more persuasion with more positive attitudes or opinion changes (Petty & Wegener, 1998). The degree of perceived credibility of the communicator has found to influence people’s acceptance or rejection of the message (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Since previous studies have shown that the perceived credibility of the source affects persuasion process, the
mediation effect of the perceived credibility of the leader is assumed to has an effect on the relationship between (a) nonverbal communication, and (b) crisis response strategy and perceived persuasiveness of the leader. Therefore, following hypotheses have been created for the mediation effects;
H3a: The influence of different crisis response strategy on the perceived persuasiveness will be positively mediated by the perceived credibility of the leader.
H3b: The influence of the nonverbal communication on the perceived persuasiveness will be positively mediated by the perceived credibility of the leader.
Account Acceptance
The previous research has proven that account acceptance plays an important role in effect of crisis communication. The definition of the account acceptance is the level of acceptance by the stakeholders considering the organizational response during a crisis (Jin,
Liu & Austin, 2014). It concerns how stakeholders perceive the organizational response and whether they accept the response. If the stakeholder’s level of account acceptance is high, it shows that the response by the leader is perceived as more appropriate and adequate (Coombs & Holladay, 2008; Blumstein et al., 1974). This may result in to be considered as more credible and persuasive leader by his stakeholders. Also, when the response comes from a high credible leader, it is more likely to perceived as appropriate message (Park & Cameron, 2014). Coombs and Holladay (2009) found that a crisis speech, which contains an apology and/or compensation (e.g., rebuild strategy) resulted in greater account acceptance by respondents. In addition, a speech that involves reasonable arguments and specific information provide more facts and values, which makes more credible and persuasive accounts (Frey and Cobb, 2010). Bradford and Garrett (1995) suggests that in crisis
situations, if an appropriate explanation is provided, employees’ judgments of the leader can be influenced by the provision of the information. Therefore, acknowledging the importance of what leaders say, the level of account acceptance influences the strength of its relationship with perceived credibility and persuasiveness. Thus, it is expected that;
H4a:The levels of account acceptance of employees positively moderates the indirect effect of crisis response strategy via perceived credibility on perceived persuasiveness.
H4b:The levels of account acceptance of employees positively moderates the direct effect of crisis response strategy on perceived persuasiveness.
In addition to what leaders say, how he says it gives several insights to predict a leader’s trustworthiness by his nonverbal cues. A study by Shnabel, Nadler and Dovidio (2014) found that, when the stakeholders account acceptance is high, their trust and
reconciliation levels become higher as well. Therefore, how employees feel about the crisis response (i.e., the level of account acceptance) would possibly influence the strength of the
relationship between nonverbal communication and leader’s professional attractiveness. Therefore, following hypotheses have been created;
H4c: The levels of account acceptance of employees positively moderates the indirect effect of nonverbal communication via perceived credibility on perceived persuasiveness.
H4d: The levels of account acceptance of employees positively moderates the direct effect of nonverbal communication on perceived persuasiveness.
To sum up, this research will examine the elements, which may possibly constituting the professional attractiveness of the leader as the different crisis response strategies and expressiveness of the nonverbal behaviors. In addition to those elements, the certain
attribution of employees as their level of account acceptance hypothesized as their influence on the strength of the relationship between communication style and professional
attractiveness. Figure 1 illustrates the total conceptual model for this paper. The following section will report the sample and measures of the design.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
Methodology
In order to test the hypotheses, an online experiment research was carried out. The study contains a 2 (rebuild strategy or deny strategy) X 2 (expressive nonverbal
communication or non-expressive nonverbal communication) between subjects factorial design. The design of this research also includes one moderator variable (account acceptance), and two dependent variables (perceived credibility and perceived persuasiveness).
Data Collection
A convenience sample was used in order to gather the data. The survey distributed through social media and was carried out on a voluntary basis. The data collection period was between May 9th and May 28th. The total recorded responses number was 269 across many different countries. However, the sample consisted of 125 respondents due to the presence of incomplete surveys. Also, three respondents were excluded from the initial sample due to their inconclusive duration results (less than 2 minutes). Therefore the final sample was consisted of 122 respondents and ranged in age from 18 to 75 years old, 45.1% were male (N = 55), and 54.9% were female (N = 67). Most of the respondents were holding either
Bachelor’s degree with % 46.7 (N = 57) or Master’s degree with %35.2 (N = 43). The employment status results showed that most of them were paid-employees with %39.3 (N = 48). The job titles of respondents showed a high variability in the data (M = 6.99, SD = 4.37), which is an advantage for the purpose of this paper due to the diversity of different job experiences. The half of respondents were working for profit as in private companies for salary (N = 61). The company size mostly consisted of small-size companies with %53.3 (N = 65) and large size companies with %19.7 (N = 24). Finally, respondents organizational
experience results showed that %31.1 of them were working for 1-5 years (N = 38). Pilot Study
An online pilot study was conducted in Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com) to check the validity and reliability for the main research. The sample of the pilot study consisted of 6 males (46.15%) and 7 females (53.85%). The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 75
years old (M = 1.54). The education level of the respondents was mainly Master’s degree (N = 8, 61.54%) and they were working as a paid employee (N = 5, 38.46%). The respondents were holding mainly associate title (N = 4, 30.77%) and their working experience were 1-5 years (N = 7, 53.85%). The following question was asked in order to check how the stimuli was realistic, “In your opinion, how realistic was the stimuli (e.g., the video of the CEO, crisis scenario). The results showed a higher realistic result with a mean of 4.54 out of a 5-point scale. Therefore, no change was made with the design and the stimuli. The last section of the survey was included manipulation check questions and demographics. In order to test manipulation checks, two independent t-tests were conducted. The crisis response strategy manipulation check results showed that rebuild strategy has a higher mean (M = 2.47, SD = 0.69) than denial strategy (M = 2.08, SD = 0.92) on the manipulation variable. However, it was not statistically significant t(11) = - 0.80, p = .443. The results for nonverbal
communication showed that non-expressive body language has a higher mean (M = 5.92, SD = 0.42) than expressive body language (M = 5.59, SD = 1.85) on the manipulation variable. Again, it was not statistically significant t(11) = 0.34, p = .742. The insignificant results can be explained by the small sample size (N = 13) (Field, 2013).
Procedure, Design and Stimuli
The online survey questionnaire was sent through Facebook and email over three weeks. First, all respondents were asked to accept the terms and conditions and following to that, they were asked to read a description of an internal organizational crisis situation that were taking place in a fictitious organization. They asked to imagine themselves as an
employee for the company, which is an international developer and manufacturer company of lab equipment. A fictional organization and its internal crisis situation were composed by the researcher, since creating such fictional scenario allows to avoid potential confounding effects of bias and existing knowledge (Laufer & Jung, 2010). The crisis situation was
presented as “A while ago, Mai Laboratories, Inc., attempted a market expansion in India. However, the company now Is facing an internal crisis due to the regional CEO’s and business developer’s misdeed actions (e.g., violation). They have been accused of bribing activities in Indian operation alleging that they have been making payments to government officials in order to get business permits. The Dutch/European media channels have discovered details about the situation and they reported in a negative way. The following video contains your company CEO’s crisis response to you and your colleagues after the negative media coverage about the Indian operations”.
Afterwards, each respondent was randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. Experimental conditions were recorded by the researcher in a YouTube video. A non-professional actor played in the video, as the CEO of the company. After exposure to the stimuli, respondents were asked to fill out a questionnaire measuring the mediating and dependent variables. The questionnaire consisted of series of 7-point Likert scaled opinion questions about their impressions about the CEO of the company. The manipulation check questions and demographics about the respondents were asked at the end of the experiment. Manipulation variables. In the videos, the CEO of the company was giving a crisis response speech to his employees (see Appendix).
Crisis response strategy. As the first independent variable, crisis response strategy was manipulated with using either (1) deny strategy, or (2) rebuild strategy (Coombs 2007; Coombs 2009). In his speech that contains deny strategy, the CEO of the company did not take any responsibility on the matter and he blamed other people for the existing crisis. He tried to minimize organizational responsibility by denying his involvement (e.g., “I would like to make something clear, it is absolutely not my fault and rest of our company’s fault”). On the other hand, the videos in which he used rebuild strategy, he accepted all the
take full responsibility for what happened. Even though it was the employees from India as the CEO of this company, that is my responsibility and I apologize from all the people who has faith in us”. Afterwards, he mentioned company’s other achievements and successes apart from the crisis in order to ease the crisis situation (Coombs 2007; Coombs 2009).
Nonverbal Communication. The nonverbal communication was manipulated by adjusting the CEO’s nonverbal behaviors as being expressive or non-expressive from studies by Matsumoto, Frank and Hwang (2012) and Burgoon and Birk and Pfau (1990). The
nonverbal behaviors were manipulated separately as (1) vocal cues, and (2) kinesic cues. The expressive nonverbal communication condition was consisted of vocal cues, which shows greater fluency, faster tempo, greater loudness and kinesic cues, which demonstrates more eye contact, more illustrator gestures, more facial expressions, and more erect posture. The non-expressive nonverbal communication condition consisted of vocal cues, which shows disfluency, slower tempo, low pitch and long distance latency and kinesic cues, which demonstrates self-touching, minimization of random movements and rigid posture.
Moderator. After exposure to each video, respondents were asked to fill out a questionnaire about the perceived credibility, persuasiveness of the CEO and their account acceptance in the fictitious scenario.
Account Acceptance. This variable is conceptualized as the level of acceptance of the employees regarding the CEO’s crisis response message. The level of account acceptance was measured by the means of 2 items based on Blumstein et al. (1974) as the moderator variable. The respondents indicated the level of the CEO’s message to be “appropriate” and “adequate” on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). (Cronbach’s α = .79, M = 3.45, SD = 1.53, skewness = 0.19).
Perceived Credibility. Perception about the credibility of the leader was measured using the study of McCroskey and Teven (1999) both as a dependent variable and a mediator. The credibility concept consisted of four dimensions as (1) competence, (2) goodwill, (3) trustworthiness, and (4) believability. Each dimension was measured with bipolar adjective items, the total number of the items were 20 on a 7-point Likert scale. The measurement was reliable (Cronbach’s α = .96), therefore all items were combined into a single variable (M = 3.44, SD = 1.30, skewness = 0.28). Participants indicated if they considered the CEO to be “expert” or “honest” and so forth. One item (self-centered) was recoded due it’s reverse meaning. This scale allows to understand whether different crisis responses and nonverbal behaviors has an effect on the perceived credibility of the leader.
Perceived Persuasiveness. The perception about the persuasiveness of the leader was measured by the means of 11 items based on studies of Drozd, Lehto and Oinas-Kukkonen (2012) and Platow, Knippenberg, Haslam, Knippenberg & Spears (2006) as a dependent variable. The reliability of the items was satisfactory (Cronbach’s α = .90), therefore all items were combined into a single variable (M = 3.46, SD = 1.21, skewness = 0.10). For example, the respondents indicated if they considered the CEO’s message to be “persuasive”, “well-argued” and “convincing” on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Randomization checks
A chi-square test was performed to check the randomization. There was no significant difference between the four conditions on gender (X2 (3, N = 122) = 2.92, p =.405), and age (X2 (9, N = 122) = 11.37, p =.251). Following, for the ordinal demographic variables (e.g., education level and company size) Kruskal Wallis test was performed. There was no significant difference of education level between experimental conditions (H(3) = 3.17, p =.367). Last randomization check results also showed that there was no significant difference
of company size between experimental conditions (H(3) = 3.37, p =.338), which proves that randomization of the sample has been successfully met.
Manipulation checks
In order to check whether the respondents perceived a difference in crisis response strategies and nonverbal behaviors, two independent-samples t-tests were conducted. The findings for different crisis response strategies indicates a successful manipulation (Mrebuild = 3.03, SD = 1.59 vs. Mdenial = 5.85, SD = 1.25; t (120) = 11.27, p < .001). An example for the response strategy manipulation check was, “He is not taking any responsibility on the issue”. The results for CEO’s nonverbal behaviors also indicated a successful manipulation
(Mexpressive = 4.56, SD = 1.29 vs. Mnonexpressive = 2.23, SD = 1.09; t (120) = -10.68, p < .001).
An example for the CEO’s nonverbal behavior manipulation check statement was, “John’s facial behaviors are expressive (e.g., eye contact, smiling)”.
Plan of Analysis
In order to test hypotheses, two-way ANOVA and PROCESS macro were used. Two-way ANOVA allows to compare the mean differences between groups when there are two independent variables. It helps to understand whether there is an interaction between independent variables (crisis response strategy and nonverbal communication) on the dependent variable (perceived credibility and persuasiveness). Following, PROCESS macro was used. This test provides both direct and indirect effects using a regression-based path. It represents 95% confidence intervals based on bootstrapping method.
Results Testing Hypotheses
Hypotheses 1-2. Hypotheses 1-2 were tested using a two-way ANOVA which had crisis response strategy ( rebuild vs. denial) and nonverbal communication (expressive vs. non-expressive behaviors) as independent variables, and perceived credibility and
persuasiveness as dependent variables. Hypothesis 1a stated that rebuild crisis response strategies would positively affect the perception of the credibility of the leader. Regarding this hypothesis, the results showed that there is a significant difference among crisis response strategy groups on the perceived credibility of the leader (F(1, 122) = 35.55, p < .001). In line with expectations, when the rebuild strategy was used, the credibility of the leader was
significantly higher (M = 4.18, SD= 1.33) than in the case of the denial strategy (M = 2.96, SD= 1.03). Hence, Hypothesis 1a is supported. Hypothesis 2a stated that as the nonverbal behavior expressions increase, the attributions of a leader’s credibility would also increase. In line with the expectations, nonverbal communication yielded a significant main effect on credibility (F(1, 122) = 13.55, p < .001). When leader’s nonverbal behaviors were expressive, the credibility of the leader was significantly higher (M = 3.94, SE = 0.14) than
non-expressive behaviors (M = 3.19, SE= 0.15), confirming Hypothesis H2a. However, the ANOVA did not yield a significant interaction effect of the crisis response strategy and nonverbal communication (F(1, 122) = 0.24, p = 0.626). Hypothesis 1b stated that rebuild strategy would positively affect the perception of the persuasiveness of the leader. In line with expectations, ANOVA did yield a significant main effect of the crisis response strategy on the perceived persuasiveness of the leader (F(1, 122) = 22.08, p < .001). Using the rebuild strategy did positively affect the perception of the persuasiveness (M = 4.03, SE= 0.16) than denial strategy (M = 3.08, SE= 0.13). Thus, Hypothesis 1b is confirmed. Hypothesis 2b asserted that as the nonverbal behavior expressions increase, the attributions of a leader’s persuasiveness would also increase. In line with the assumptions, there was a significant main of the nonverbal behaviors on the perceived persuasiveness of the leader (F(1, 122) = 14.14, p < .001). When leader’s nonverbal behaviors were expressive, the persuasiveness of the leader was significantly higher (M = 3.93, SE= 0.14) than non-expressive behaviors (M =
3.18, SE= 0.14), confirming Hypothesis 2b. However, the ANOVA did not yield a significant interaction effect (F(1, 122) = 0.53, p = 0.47).
Hypotheses 3. Hypothesis 3 stated a mediation would take place as the influence of (a) crisis response strategy, and (b) nonverbal communication on the perceived
persuasiveness would be positively mediated by the perceived credibility of the leader. In order to test both Hypotheses 3, the PROCESS macro (Model 4) was used (Hayes,2013). The results indicated that the crisis response strategy was a significant predictor of perceived credibility (t(119) = 5.99, p < .001), and perceived credibility was a significant predictor of perceived persuasiveness (t(118) = 12.27, p < .001). The figure below illustrates these interactions with the unstandardized coefficients. Consistent with full mediation, crisis response strategies no longer significantly predicted perceived persuasiveness after controlling the mediator variable as perceived credibility (t(118) = 0.31, p = .76). Thus Hypothesis 3a is confirmed, that perceived credibility significantly mediated the effect of crisis response strategies on perceived persuasiveness (b = .94, t(2, 119 ) = 4.72, p < .001; 95% CI [.54, 1.33]). The indirect effect of this mediation effect was (0.58)(1.23) = 0.89, and the fact that confidence intervals did not contain zero supported the presence of a full
mediation effect.
Figure 3- Mediation Results for Hypothesis 4a (Unstandardized Coefficients)
A second PROCESS macro analysis was used to investigate if the perceived credibility significantly mediated the effect of nonverbal communication on perceived persuasiveness.
As Figure 4 illustrates below, the results showed that nonverbal communication significantly predicted perceived credibility (t(119) = 3.67, p < .001), and the perceived credibility also significantly predicted the perceived persuasiveness (t(118) = 12.27, p < .001). A full
mediation took place, proving that nonverbal communication is no longer predicted perceived persuasiveness after controlling the perceived credibility (t(118) = 1.35, p = .18). Therefore, Hypothesis 3b is confirmed ( b = .72, t(119) = 3.70, p < .001; 95% CI [.33, 1.10]). The indirect effect of this mediation was (0.26)(0.85) = 0.54, and confidence intervals also proved that a full mediation took place, since it did not contain zero.
Figure 4- Mediation Results for Hypothesis 4b (Unstandardized Coefficients)
Hypothesis 4. In order to test moderation effect hypotheses, PROCESS macro (Model 8) was performed, which allows to test moderated mediation effect (Hayes, 2013). The first set of hypotheses stated that (a) the levels of the account acceptance would positively
moderates the indirect effect of crisis response strategy via perceived credibility on perceived persuasiveness, and (b) the direct effect of crisis response strategy on perceived
persuasiveness. The first interaction effect, using crisis response strategy as an independent variable and perceived credibility as an outcome variable, did not yield a significant result (t(117) = -0.12, p = .89). Therefore, Hypothesis 4a is rejected. The second interaction effect, using crisis response strategy as an independent variable and perceived persuasiveness as an
outcome variable, did not yield a significant results as well (t(116) = -0.42, p = .67). The unstandardized coefficients can be found on the figure below. Thus, Hypothesis 4b is rejected.
Figure 5 - Moderation Results for Hypotheses 5a & 5b (Unstandardized Coefficients)
Following, another PROCESS macro was performed with using nonverbal
communication as an independent variable. Second set of hypotheses stated that the levels of the account acceptance of employees would positively moderates (c) the indirect effect of nonverbal communication via perceived credibility on perceived persuasiveness, and (d) the direct effect of nonverbal communication on perceived persuasiveness. First interaction effect with nonverbal communication as independent variable and perceived credibility as an
outcome variable did not yield a significant result (t(117) = -1.70, p = .09). Thus,
Hypothesis 4c is rejected. Considering the final Hypothesis 4d, the results did not yield a significant result (t(116) = 1.44, p = .15). Contrary to the assumptions, account acceptance did not moderate the relationship between both crisis response strategy and nonverbal communication on the perceived persuasiveness.
Discussion and Conclusion
The main objective of this study was to fill the research gap regarding the combined impact of verbal and nonverbal communication on leader’s professional attractiveness, focusing on internal communication of organizations. When it comes to verbal
communication, the results revealed that a rebuild crisis response strategy has a positive effect on perceived credibility and persuasiveness of a leader, compared to a denial strategy. Since it has been proved that the content of the response has a strategic focus and helps to achieve goals of communication (Coombs, 2009), this study discovered that when a leader takes full responsibility and apologize for the crisis, he is perceived more credible and persuasive in the eyes of stakeholders. Previous studies in the field of crisis communication have shown a great interest in the crisis response strategies, however the focus has been primarily given to broader organizational outcomes, such as reputation, (e.g., Coombs, 2007) and image restoration (e.g., Benoit, 1995). For example, a study by Coombs (2006) found that a full apology may protect the stricken organization from legal liabilities, in which may help to restore its legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders. Taking into consideration the impact of different crisis response strategies on organizations’ external communication, this study is a novel to establish the link between crisis response strategies on an individual level, as
organizational leaders’ credibility and persuasiveness traits. Benoit (1995) stated the importance of the crisis management by saying “Communicative acts are intended to attain goals important to the communicators who perform them. These utterances are ones that the communicators believe will help accomplish goals that are salient to the actor at the time they made” (p. 67). Adding on his findings, this present study examined the impacts of different “communicative acts” on the communicator’s individual evaluations by his stakeholders.
In addition to the verbal communication in times of crisis, this study also examined the impact nonverbal communication on leader’s professional attractiveness. When a crisis occurs, it has been found that nonverbal expressions of a leader help to assure the
stakeholders (Claeys et al., 2014). Since an organizational crisis usually causes anxiety and stress amongst employees of an stricken organization (Coombs, 2007), exhibiting more powerful and expressive nonverbal behaviors help to reassure them (Hosman & Siltanen, 1994). Adding on the limited research on nonverbal communication, this study found that a leader who illustrates more body gestures, eye contact, facial expressions, and greater loudness during his speech, he is perceived more credible and persuasive than a leader who has less expressive nonverbal behaviors. These findings are also consistent with previous research in other contexts (e.g., Burgoon et. al.,1990).
As a next step, regarding the leader’s professional attractiveness, the direct effect of credibility on leader’s persuasiveness examined. Previous research has shown that when a message comes from high credible source, it creates a positive attitude change, which results in more persuasion (Petty & Wegener, 1998). Consistent with this assumption, the results of this research revealed the positive effect of perceived credibility on the perceived
persuasiveness of the leader. Thus, it is possible to come to the conclusion that a leader’s credibility trait is a crucial factor during the persuasive communication Following to this direct relationship, the mediation effect of the credibility on both verbal and nonverbal
communication and perceived persuasiveness of a leader was examined. Given that different crisis response strategies carry significant importance in professional attractiveness of a leader, also it is found that the use of rebuild strategy is linked to persuasiveness through the mediation of credibility. Considering the nonverbal communication, it is found that
expressive nonverbal behaviors also linked to persuasiveness through the mediation of credibility. These findings may help crisis managers, and leaders who are dealing with an organizational crisis, proving that they may focus more on being credible (e.g., competent, trustworthy) in order to persuade their employees.
The final assumption of this research was the moderation effect of the account acceptance on the verbal and nonverbal communication and professional attractiveness traits (i.e., credibility and persuasiveness). Contrary to the assumptions, this research failed to reveal this moderation effect. Although previous research has found a positive effect of account acceptance on crisis communication (e.g., Yang et al.,2010), in this study it did not influence the strength of the relationship between either crisis response strategies or
nonverbal communication and professional attractiveness traits. Since previous research (e.g., Coombs & Holladay, 2008) found a main effect of response strategy on account acceptance, it shows that it does not moderate the relationship but instead, it has a main effect.
This research offers various implications for crisis managers, who are facing an organizational crisis. The way that stakeholders perceive the crisis response is highly valuable for organizations during a crisis (Coombs, 2006), in order to ease the negative outcomes. The findings of this research may guide leaders as how to respond verbally and nonverbally during a crisis. Benefiting a rebuild strategy (i.e., taking full responsibility and apologizing) is found to be more effective than denying and accusing others in order to be perceived as more credible and persuasive leader. Moreover, leaders who express more
nonverbal behaviors during their speeches, they are perceived more credible and persuasive in the eyes of employees.
There are also certain limitations of the present research. First of all, considering different crisis response strategies, only two strategy were used as the rebuild and denial strategies, since these two strategies represent completely opposite directions. However, existing literature holds four different strategies (Coombs 2007; Coombs 2009). It might be fruitful to consider all strategies in order to achieve a broader perspective. Thereby, future research should take into account more comprehensive SCCT framework. Also, SCCT framework has strong implications for the organizational reputation (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). It might be useful to include organizational reputation as whether the professional attractiveness of the leader has an association with the reputation of the organization. Regarding nonverbal communication, visual and vocal nonverbal behaviors were combined in the manipulation of this research. It might be useful to look at separate nonverbal
behaviors, since each behavior might generate different implications (Burgoon et.al., 1990). Finally, the findings of this research exceeds the boundaries of extant crisis
communication studies and be implemented in any crisis situations to restore confidence. Leaders, managers, spokespersons may apply the findings of this research in order to be perceived as more credible and persuasive in the eyes of their stakeholders. Expressing more nonverbal behaviors and stand behind their actions result in more credibility and persuasion which in return make them more professionally attractive.
References
Agle BR, Nagarajan NJ, Sonnenfeld JA, Srini- vasan D. 2006. Does CEO charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationships among organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and top management team perceptions of CEO charisma. Acad. Manage. J. 49:161–74
Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. (2001). Effects of nonverbal behavior on perceptions of a female employee's power bases. The Journal of social psychology, 141(4), 537-549.
Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimation endeavors: Impression management strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communications Monographs, 61(1), 44-62. Argyle, M. (1970). Eye-contact and distance: A reply to Stephenson and Rutter. British Journal of Psychology.
Argyle, M., Salter, V., Nicholson, H., Williams, M., & Burgess, P. (1970). The
Communication of Inferior and Superior Attitudes by Verbal and Non‐ verbal Signals. British journal of social and clinical psychology, 9(3), 222-231.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses and apologies: A theory of image repair strategies. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1952). Introduction to Kinesics: An Annotation System for Analysis of Body Motion and Gesture. Washington, DC: Department of State, Foreign Service Institute. 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, 551-566.
Boin, A., & Hart, P. T. (2003). Public leadership in times of crisis: mission impossible?. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 544-553.
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. Bridges, J. A., & Nelson, R. A. (2000). Issues management: A relational approach. Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations, 95-115.
Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (86). Woodall, WG (1989). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: Harper & Row.
Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human communication research, 17(1), 140-169.
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.
Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2014). What makes crisis response strategies work? The impact of crisis involvement and message framing. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 182-189.
Clark, J. (1995). Hope for the best, but plan for the worst—the need for disaster planning. Employment Relations Today, 22(4), 41-53.
Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words the development of guidelines for the selection of the “appropriate” crisis-response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 447-476.
Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of public relations research, 11(2), 125-142.
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. (2009). Conceptualizing crisis communication. Handbook of risk and crisis communication, 99-118.
Coombs, W. T. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (3rd ed.). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165-186.
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.
Drozd, F., Lehto, T., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2012, June). Exploring perceived
persuasiveness of a behavior change support system: a structural model. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology (pp. 157-168). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Fediuk, T. A., Pace, K. M., & Botero, I. C. (2010). Crisis response effectiveness:
Methodological considerations for advancement in empirical investigation into response impact. The handbook of crisis communication, 221-242.
Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2011). The study of internal crisis communication: towards an integrative framework. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 347-361.
Frank, Maroulis, and Griffin. (2012): "The Voice." Nonverbal communication: Science and applications 53-74.
Frey, F. M., & Cobb, A. T. (2010). What matters in social accounts? The roles of account specificity, source expertise, and outcome loss on acceptance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1203-1234.
Friedman, H. S. (1978). The relative strength of verbal versus nonverbal cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 147-150.
Gill, R. (2015). Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 662-674. Goleman, D. (2003). What makes a leader. Organizational influence processes, 229-241. Hall, E. T. (1973). The Silent Language, Anchor. Garden City, NY.
Hearit, K. M. (1994). Apologies and public relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Public Relations Review, 20(2), 113-125.
Heath, R. L. (2010). Introduction Crisis Communication: Defining the Beast and De-marginalizing Key Publics. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The Handbook of Crisis Communication (pp. 1-13). Blackwell Publishing .
Heath, R. L., & O’Hair, H. D. (2009). The significance of crisis and risk communication. Handbook of risk and crisis communication, 5-30.
Hermann, C. F. (1963). Some consequences of crisis which limit the viability of organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 61-82.
Hosman, L. A., & Siltanen, S. A. (1994). The attributional and evaluative consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles: An examination of the ‘control over others’ and ‘control of self’explanations. Language & Communication, 14(3), 287-298.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public opinion quarterly, 15(4), 635-650.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change.
Howell, J. M. (1997). Organization contexts, charismatic and exchange leadership. Kellogg Leadership Studies Monograph, Center for Political Leadership and Participation, University of Maryland.
Ice, R. (1991). Corporate publics and rhetorical strategies: The case of Union Carbide's Bhopal crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(3), 341-362.
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.
Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organizational communication: Challenges for the new century. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 722-750.
Knapp, M. L., Hall, J. A., & Horgan, T. G. (2013). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Cengage Learning.
Laufer, D., & Jung, J. M. (2010). Incorporating regulatory focus theory in product recall communications to increase compliance with a product recall. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 147-151.
Lee, B. K. (2005). Hong Kong consumers' evaluation in an airline crash: A path model analysis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(4), 363-391.
Lerbinger, O. (1997). The crisis manager: facing risk and responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Madera, J. M., & Smith, D. B. (2009). The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of leadership in a crisis situation: The role of anger and sadness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 103-114.
Massey, J. E. (2001). Managing organizational legitimacy: Communication strategies for organizations in crisis. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 38(2), 153-182. Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. S. (2013). Body and gestures. Nonverbal communication: Science and applications, 75-96.
Matsumoto, D., Frank, M., & Hwang, H. S. (2013). Reading people: Introduction to the world of nonverbal behavior. Nonverbal communication: Science and applications, 3-14. Matsumoto, David, and Hyi Sung Hwang. (2012): "Facial expressions." Nonverbal communication: Science and applications 15-52.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90-103.
McCroskey, J.C. (1992). An introduction to communication in the classroom. Edina, MN. Burgess International Group.
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 359.
Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mehrabian, A., & Williams, M. (1969). Nonverbal concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 13(1), 37.
Miller, G. R., & Hewgill, M. A. (1964). The effect of variations in nonfluency on audience ratings of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50(1), 36-44.
Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 34(4), 615.
Mills, J., & Jellison, J. M. (1967). Effect on opinion change of how desirable the
communication is to the audience the communicator addressed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(1), 98.
Nagel, F., Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2012). Is there a visual dominance in political communication? How verbal, visual, and vocal communication shape viewers' impressions of political candidates. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 833-850.
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.
Pearce, W. B., & Conklin, F. (1971). Nonverbal vocalic communication and perceptions of a speaker.
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of management review, 23(1), 59-76.
Perry, R. W. (2007). What is a Disaster?. Handbook of disaster research, 1-15.
Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 583-599.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227-240.
Pfau, M., & Wan, H. H. (2006). Persuasion: An intrinsic function of public relations. Public relations theory II, 101-136.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281.
Pratt, M.G. (1998), “To be or not to be: central questions in organizational identification”, in Whetten, D. and Godfrey, P.C. (Eds), Identity in Organizations: Developing Theory through Conversations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Puts, D. A., Gaulin, S. J., & Verdolini, K. (2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 283-296. Rhine, R. J., & Severance, L. J. (1970). Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 175.
Rosenthal, U., Boin, A., & Comfort, L. K. (2001). Managing crises: Threats, dilemmas, opportunities. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
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.
Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 232-244.
Sellnow, T. L., Veil, S. R., Streifel, R. A., & Johnson, C. L. (2010). Credibility seeking through an inter-organizational alliance: Instigating the Fen-Phen confrontation crisis. Handbook of Crisis Communication. New York: Blackwell.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257-283.
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.
Siomkos, G., & Shrivastava, P. (1993). Responding to product liability crises. Long Range Planning, 26(5), 72-79.
Sturges, D. L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy for organizational survival. Management communication quarterly, 7(3), 297-316.
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A
metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 427-442.
Trager, G. L. (1961). The typology of paralanguage. Anthropological Linguistics, 17-21. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement organizations. Research in organizational behavior.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The leadership quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.
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.
Wilson, R. K., & Rhodes, C. M. (1997). Leadership and credibility in n-person coordination games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(6), 767-791.
Yang, S. U., Kang, M., & Johnson, P. (2010). Effects of narratives, openness to dialogic communication, and credibility on engagement in crisis communication through
organizational blogs. Communication Research.
Yu, T., Sengul, M., & Lester, R. H. (2008). Misery loves company: The spread of negative impacts resulting from an organizational crisis. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 452-472.
