Public Relations Review 33(2007)135–139
Attribution Theory as a guide for post-crisis
communication rearch
W.Timothy Coombs ∗
Communication Studies,Eastern Illinois University,600Lincoln Avenue,Charleston,IL 61920,USA
Received 1November 2006;received in revid form 1November 2006;accepted 20November 2006
Abstract
The field of crisis communication is poid to take the next in its evolution.Now is the time to move beyond the limits of the ca study methods that shape the field’s development and shift to empirical methods.As the field matures,crisis managers need recommendations that are bad on scientificall
y tested evidence rather than speculation.The argument for scientifically tested evidence for action is bad on the evidence-bad in management and medicine.This article discuss the role Attribution Theory has played and can continue to play in building scientifically tested evidence for crisis managers as well as providing an integrative mechanism for the diver crisis rearch that spans a variety of disciplines.
©2007Elvier Inc.All rights rerved.
Keywords:Crisis communication;Attribution Theory;Crisis
Post-crisis communication,what management says and does after a crisis,is a robust area of rearch in communication and management.While prolific,the post-crisis communication rearch is often disjointed and atheoretical.Much of the extant writings consist of lists of what “to do”and what “not to do”drawn from ca studies.Moreover,the ca studies tend to be bad on mediated accounts of the crisis and do not involve interviews with tho involved in the crisis.What is underreprented are theory-bad studies designed to systematically identify and model the key variables in post-crisis communication.We “know”little about how people react to cris or crisis respons given the lack of experimental study of the phenomenon (Ahluwalia,Burnkrant,&Unnava,2
新娘18岁国语版000;Dawar &Pillutla,2000;Dean,2004;Seeger,Sellnow,&Ulmer,1998).What we need in crisis communication is a shift towards evidence-bad management,the u of scientific evidence to guide managerial decision-making (Rousau,2005).
In communication-bad crisis rearch,we have an over abundance of rhetorical studies that attempt to u descrip-tive data to claim issues of causality and theory building.There are also problems in preoccupations with finding “genres”in crisis communication that contribute little to theory development and testing.Apologia was a gateway for many into crisis communication.It was uful to think of organizations using communication to protect their public personas/reputations and provided a wealth of resources for developing crisis respon strategies (Hearit,2006).But that does not mean the genre should be the focal point of crisis communication.Some rearchers em bent on finding a new genre in every new crisis.Every crisis does have unique features.However,is it right to have a genre of one?Is not genre to be bad on a pattern emerging from a number of works?Furthermore,of what value is discovering ∗Tel.:+12175813324.
E-mail address:wtcoombs@eiu.edu .
听课评语和建议0363-8111/$–e front matter ©2007Elvier Inc.All rights rerved.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.016
136W.T.Coombs/Public Relations Review33(2007)135–139
another genre of crisis communication?While a valuable start for crisis communication,we emed to have exhausted the yields from apologia.Post-crisis communication rearch can offer greater value to theory and practitioners if there is a grander picture that can unite and integrate the various“genres”in to usable applied knowledge.
Rhetorical cas’studies provided the roots for the study of crisis communication in the communicationfield.It awakened us to the need to focus on what organizations say and do as well keyed us to the value of the situation in influencing crisis respons.However,the time has come to embrace the evolution of thefield and influx of empirical studies of crisis ,Arpan&Roskos-Ewoldn,2005;Dean,2004;Huang,Lin,&Su,2005). Crisis communication rearch should adopt the perspective of evidence-bad management.This piece argues that Attribution Theory provides one uful beacon for this evolutionary track.
1.Attribution Theory as a guide
Two key traits of cris are that they are unexpected(we might know one might hit but not when)and negative.The are also the key characteristics that Attribution Theory expert Bernard Weiner identified as driving people’s need to arch for caus of an event(Weiner,1985,1986).It is logical to connect cris and Attribution Theory.Stakeholders will make attributions about the cau of a crisis;they will asss crisis responsibility.Was the crisis a result of situational factors or something the organization did?Indeed,extant rearch forges a link between Attribution Theory and ,Bradford&Garrett,1995;Coombs,1995;H¨a rtel,McColl-Kennedy&McDonald,1998;Jorgenn, 1994,1996;McDonald&H¨a rtel,2000;Stockmyer,1996).
The attributions stakeholders make about crisis responsibility have affective and behavioral conquences for an organization(Coombs&Holladay,2005;McDonald&H¨a rtel,2000).If the organization is deemed responsible,the reputation will suffer.In turn,stakeholders may exit the relationship and/or create negative word-of-mouth.Management has a vested interest in preventing either of the two negative outcomes.
1.1.Early application of Attribution Theory to crisis
Thefirst true studies of crisis communication appear in the management literature with works appeari
ng in the1980s. While the study of apologia pre-dates the1980s,its application to crisis communication did not occur until the later 1980s.Mowen(1980)was among thefirst to systematically broach the idea of a crisis respon.Mowen also initiated an important conceptual link for crisis communication,the u of Attribution Theory.Wiener(1986)built Attribution Theory on the premi that people need to assign responsibility for events.Attribution Theory posits that people look for the caus of events,especially unexpected and negative events.Most experts agree that a crisis is negative and unexpected.When using Attribution Theory,the threat of a crisis is largely a function of crisis responsibility/blame. Managers should evaluate the situation to determine which crisis respon is best for the situation(Coombs,1995, 2004;Mowen,1980).
Product harm cris were ud for the initial development of crisis communication.For product harm cris,four crisis respon strategies have rved as the focal point of rearch:denial,forced compliance,voluntary compliance, and super effort.Denial involves the organization claming there is no threat from their product.V oluntary compliance occurs when the government forces a recall or other remediation efforts.V oluntary compliance is when a company recalls or takes remediation efforts on its own accord.Super efforts involve voluntary compliance plus compensation and an extensive communication campaign to promote the effort(Siomkos&Kurzbard,1994).
Rearchers have documented that cris have negative effects on market share,sales of the recalled product, stock prices,purcha intention,and sales of other products by the company(taint-the-line)(Dawar,1998;Siomkos &Kurzbard,1994).The crisis respon can reduce or eliminate the negative effects.It is important to note that management rearchers look beyond reputation(character)to include other variables.Again,this is not just apologia. The management recognition of various outcomes more accurately reflects the demands faced by crisis managers.They are not just wrestling with reputational concerns but with legal andfinancial ones as well.
Bradford and Garrett(1995)applied Attribution Theory to ethical cris,a departure from the product harm line of rearch.Bradford and Garrett developed a model,bad in Attribution Theory,which was designed to explain what crisis respon to lect bad upon the nature of the ethical crisis.Wefind Attribution Theory has now been applied to a variety of crisis types.However,the rearch is made comparable by the theoretical linkage.The rearch shares similar theoretical and methodological assumptions.
蔡铭超W.T.Coombs/Public Relations Review33(2007)135–139137 1.2.Situational crisis communication theory
Situational Crisis Communication Theory(SCCT)applies Attribution Theory bad ideas to a wider array of cris. SCCT draws upon experimental methods and social–psychological theory.This is true to the Attribution Theory roots of SCCT.SCCT advances and test hypothes related to how perceptions of the crisis situation affect the crisis respon and the effects of crisis respons on outcomes such as reputation,emotions,and purcha intention.SCCT rearch extends and is comparable to the early product harm and ethical cris rearch found in the management and marketing literatures.
SCCT begins with the crisis manager examining the crisis situation in order to asss the level of the reputational threat of a crisis.The threat is the amount of damage a crisis could inflict on the organization’s reputation if no action is taken.Three factors in the crisis situation shape the reputational threat:(1)initial crisis responsibility,(2)crisis history, and(3)relationship history/prior reputation.Crisis managers follow a two-step process for using the three factors to asss the reputational threat.
Thefirst step in asssing the reputational threat is to determine the initial crisis responsibility attached to a crisis. Initial crisis responsibility is a function of stakeholder attributions of personal control for the crisis by the organization –how much stakeholders believe organizational actions caus
ed the crisis(Coombs,1995).Rearch has consistently demonstrated that incread attributions of crisis responsibility produce lower reputational scores–is a greater repu-tational threat(Coombs&Holladay,1996,2002,2004).The initial asssment is bad upon the crisis type.The crisis type is how the crisis is being framed.Frames are cues that stakeholders u to interpret cris(Coombs&Holladay, 2002;Dowling,2002).A crisis type is a frame that indicates how people should interpret the crisis events.Was the event an accident,sabotage,or criminal negligence?
SCCT posits that each crisis type generates specific and predictable levels of crisis responsibility—attributions of organizational responsibility for the crisis.SCCT rearch has identified three crisis clusters bad upon attributions of crisis responsibility by crisis type:(1)victim cluster has very weak attributions of crisis responsibility(natural disasters, workplace violence,product tampering,and rumor)and the organization is viewed as a victim of the event;(2)accidental cluster has minimal attributions of crisis responsibility(technical-error accident,technical-error product harm,and challenge)and the event was considered unintentional or uncontrollable by the organization;and(3)intentional cluster has very strong attributions of crisis responsibility(human-error accident,human-error product harm,and organizational misdeed)and the event was considered to be purpoful(Coombs&Holladay,2002).
一从
By identifying the crisis type,the crisis manager can determine how much crisis responsibility stakeholders will attribute to the organization at the ont of the crisis.In turn,crisis responsibility indicates the initial reputational threat becau crisis responsibility has been proven to be negatively related to organizational reputation(Coombs& Holladay,1996,2001).
The cond step in asssing the threat involves two intensifying factors,consistency and distinctiveness,derived from Kelley’s principle of covariance(Kelley,1972;Kelley&Michela,1980;Martinko,Douglas,Ford&Gundlach, 2004).Consistency is operationalized as crisis history;whether or not an organization has had a similar crisis in the past. Consistency is high if an organization previously has had similar events.A history of cris suggests an organization has an ongoing problem that needs to be addresd.The organization is consistently having problems.
伤感歌曲推荐Distinctiveness is operationalized as relationship history/prior reputation;how well or poorly an organization has treated stakeholders in other contexts.Distinctiveness is low if the organization has a history of treating stakeholders badly.An organization shows little consideration for stakeholders across a number of domains,not just in this crisis. The crisis is not distinctive.Either high consistency or low distinctiveness increas the threat from a crisis.Each indicates that the crisis is part of a patt
ern of behaviors rather than an isolated incident(Coombs,2004).
Distinctiveness(relationship history/prior reputation)and consistency(crisis history)have both a direct and indirect effect on the reputational threat pod by the crisis.Either low distinctiveness or high consistency will intensify attributions of crisis responsibility thereby indirectly affecting the reputational threat.Moreover,the two factors have a direct effect on the reputational threat that is parate from crisis responsibility(Coombs,2004).Crisis history (consistency)and relationship history/prior reputation(distinctiveness)are ud to adjust the initial asssment of the threat.SCCT posits that either a crisis history or a negative relationship history/prior reputation will intensify the reputational threat.Applied to crisis management,a victim crisis becomes treated as an accident crisis and an accident crisis becomes treated as an intentional crisis when either consistency is high(crisis history)or distinctiveness is low (negative relationship history)(Coombs&Holladay,2001,2004).
138W.T.Coombs/Public Relations Review33(2007)135–139
The crisis respon strategies vary in their perceived acceptance of responsibility for the crisis.SCCT’s general tenant is that as the reputational threat and negative affect increas,crisis ma
nagers should utilize crisis respon strategies with the requisite level of accepting crisis responsibility.Put another way,crisis managers need to accept grater levels of responsibility as the reputational threat intensifies.SCCT has been applied beyond reputation.The factors shaping the reputational threat also rve to shape the affect generated by crisis and purcha intentions(Coombs&Holladay, 2005).Refer to Coombs(2006)for a fuller discussion of SCCT recommendations for post-crisis communication. 2.Integrative nature of Attribution Theory
Attribution Theory provides a common t of concepts and shared methods that allow for easier integration of rearchfindings from different rearchers.Kelly’s covariation principle is an example.Kelley’s work is built on the concepts of connsus,distinctiveness,and consistency(Kelley&Michela,1980).Studies that share the u of covariation can be compared.The rearch will share experimental methods and how the variables should relate to one another.Exact operationalization of variables might differ but the consistent conceptualization of concepts results in similar operationalizations.The shared concepts and methods made it possible to integrate a number of diver product harm crisis studies into one larger t of recommendations for crisis managers(Laufer&Coombs,2006).
The idea for evidence-bad management is derived from evidence-bad medicine.The focus is on
using scientif-ically proven results to guide actions in medicine and now management(Rousau,2005).This piece argues that we should extend the ideas to create evidence-bad crisis communication and move away from the speculation offered by cas built from mediated reports of cris.Attribution Theory provides a mechanism for integrating the various studies of crisis communication to build a t of principles for evidence-bad crisis communication.
3.Summary
Post-crisis communication rearch should continue along its newer,empirical track.Such rearch is providing tested results to crisis managers rather than speculation bad on ca studies.We move away from decisions bad on unsystematic data toward evidence-bad decisions.Attribution Theory is an historical and still viable theory for integrating crisis communication rearch.A common theoretical link allows for the integration of rearch from various rearchers in diverfields.We begin to build upon one another’s work and e how the pieces can begin to be integrated into a larger whole.Moreover,there is a broad rearch agenda to pursue bad upon Attribution Theory.A partial list would include application of fundamental attribution error to cris and implications for crisis communication,the ability of crisis respon strategies to shape perceptions of the crisis frames,how crisis respon strategies can trigger the discounting principle,and relationship of crisis f
rames to counter-factual thinking.With Attribution Theory as a connecting point,diver streams of rearch can converge into to a river of post-crisis communication knowledge that provides a mechanism for evidence-bad crisis communication.
References
Ahluwalia,R.,Burnkrant,R.E.,&Unnava,H.R.(2000).Consumer respon to negative publicity:The moderating role of commitment.Journal of Marketing Rearch,27,203–214.
Arpan,L.M.,&Roskos-Ewoldn,D.R.(2005).Stealing thunder:Analysis of the effects of proactive disclosure of crisis information.Public Relations Review,31,425–433.
Bradford,J.L.,&Garrett,D.E.(1995).The effectiveness of corporate communicative respons to accusations of unethical behavior.Journal of Business Ethics,14,875–892.
Coombs,W.T.(1995).Choosing the right words:The development of guidelines for the lection of the“appropriate”crisis respon strategies.
Management Communication Quarterly,8,447–476.
Coombs,W.T.(2004).Impact of past cris on current crisis communications:Insights from situational crisis communication theory.Journal of Business Communication,41,265–289.
Coombs,W.T.(2006).The protective powers of crisis respon strategies:Managing reputational asts during a crisis.Journal of Promotion Management,12,241–260.
Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(1996).Communication and attributions in a crisis:An experimental study of crisis communication.Journal of Public Relations Rearch,8,279–295.
Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(2001).An extended examination of the crisis situation:A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches.Journal of Public Relations Rearch,13,321–340.海洋石
W.T.Coombs/Public Relations Review33(2007)135–139139 Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(2002).Helping crisis managers protect reputational asts:Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory.Management Communication Quarterly,16,165–186.
Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(2004).Reasoned action in crisis communication:An attribution theory-bad approach to crisis management.In
D.P.Millar,&R.L.Heath(Eds.),Responding to crisis:A rhetorical approach to crisis communication(pp.9
5–115).Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(2005).Exploratory study of stakeholder emotions:Affect and crisis.In N.M.Ashkanasy,W.J.Zerbe,&C.E.J.
Hartel(Eds.),Rearch on emotion in organizations:Volume1:The effect of affect in organizational ttings(pp.271–288).New York:Elvier. Dawar,N.(1998).Product-harm cris and the signaling ability of brands.International Studies of Management&Organization,28,109–119. Dawar,N.,&Pillutla,M.M.(2000).Impact of product-harm cris on brand equity:The moderating role of consumer expectations.Journal of Marketing Rearch,27,215–226.
Dean,D.W.(2004).Consumer reaction to negative publicity:Effects of corporate reputation,respon,and responsibility for a crisis event.Journal of Business Communication,41,192–211.
鸡蛋放冰箱Dowling,G.(2002).Creating corporate reputations:Identity,image and performance.New York:Oxford University Press.
H¨a rtel,C.,McColl-Kennedy,J.R.,&McDonald,L.(1998).Incorporating attribution theory and the theory of reasoned action within an affective events theory framework to produce a contingency predictive model of consumer reactions to organizational mishaps.Advances in Consumer Rearch,25,428–432.
Hearit,K.M.(2006).Crisis management by apology:Corporate respon to allegations of wrongdoing.Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Huang,Y.H.,Lin,Y.H.,&Su,S.H.(2005).Crisis communicative strategies in Taiwan:Category,continuum,and cultural implication.Public Relations Review,31,229–238.
Jorgenn,B.K.(1994).Consumer reaction to company-related disasters:The effect of multiple versus single explanations.Advances in Consumer Rearch,21,348–352.
Jorgenn,B.K.(1996).Components of consumer reaction to company-related mishaps:A structural equation model approach.Advances in Consumer Rearch,23,346–351.
藻井结Kelley,H.H.(1972).The process of causal attribution.American Psychologist,28,107–128.
Kelley,H.H.,&Michela,J.L.(1980).Attribution theory and rearch.Annual Review of Psychology,31,45
7–501.
Laufer,D.,&Coombs,W.T.(2006).How should a company respond to a product harm crisis?The role of corporate reputation and consumer-bad cues.Business Horizon,10(2),123–137.
Martinko,M.J.,Douglas,S.C.,Ford,R.,&Gundlach,M.J.(2004).Dues paying:A theoretical explication and conceptual model.Journal of Management,30,49–69.
McDonald,L.,&H¨a rtel,C.E.J.(2000).Applying the involvement construct to organisational cris.In Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference(pp.799–803).Gold Coast,Australia:Griffith University,Department of Marketing.
Mowen,J.C.(1980).Further information on consumer perceptions of product recalls.Advances in Consumer Rearch,7,519–523. Rousau,D.M.(2005).Is there such a thing as“evidence-bad management”?Academy of Management Review,31,256–269.
Seeger,M.W.,Sellnow,T.L.,&Ulmer,R.R.(1998).Communication,organization,and crisis.In M.E.Roloff(Ed.),Communication Yearbook
21.Thousand Oaks(pp.231–276).CA:Sage Publications,Inc.
Siomkos,G.J.,&Kurzbard,G.(1994).The hidden crisis in product harm crisis management.European Journal of Marketing,28(2),30–41. Stockmyer,J.(1996).Brands in crisis:Consumer help for derving victims.Advances in Consumer Rearch,23,429–435.
Weiner,B.(1985).An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.Psychology Review,92,548–573.
Weiner,B.(1986).An attributional theory of motivation and emotion.New York,NY:Springer-Verlag.
