Implications of Stealing Thunder for the Impact of Expressing Emotions in Organizational Crisis Communication

Abstract

This study examines if and when spokespersons of an organization in crisis can express their genuine emotions as opposed to appearing rational. The impact of emotional (sadness) versus rational message framing on perceptions of an organization in crisis is studied by means of a 2 (crisis timing strategy: ex-antecrisis timing strategy vs. ex-postcrisis timing strategy)×2 (message framing: rational vs. emotional) between-subjects factorial experimental design with 168 participants. The findings first show that organizations can restore their reputation in times of crisis better by means of an ex-antecrisis timing strategy than by means of an ex-postcrisis timing strategy. In addition, the study illustrates that an ex-antecrisis timing strategy leads to more effective use of organizational message framing. In the case of an organizational self-disclosure, expressing sadness as a discrete negative emotion results in a better postcrisis reputation than rational message framing, whereas no impact of message framing is found for an ex-postcrisis timing strategy. Finally, the results indicate that organizations can benefit from allowing their spokespersons to express sadness because consumers will consider them more sincere.

Keywords:

• Public Relations
• Crisis Communication
• Crisis Timing Strategies
• Message Framing
• Corporate Image

The authors would like to thank Jo Jacobs and Elke De Wolf for their help in collecting the data as well as the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Notes

[1] Sincerity differs from credibility. The credibility of a communicator or message refers to the perceived ability or motivation to provide information that is correct (Tormala & Petty, 2004). Credibility is attributed by estimating expertise on the one hand and trustworthiness on the other hand (Sternthal, Dholakia, & Leavitt, 1978; Tormala & Petty, 2004). Trustworthiness relates to perceptions of honesty and sincerity. Consequently, sincerity refers not to the truthfulness of a person or message, but to the degree to which the public estimates that a message is offered in a heartfelt and genuine manner. Sincerity is thus a specific element taken into regard by the public when it estimates the overall credibility of a communicator or message.

[2] In order to make a realistic comparison between the ex-antecrisis timing strategy and the ex-postcrisis timing strategy, the managerial response in the ex-postcrisis timing strategy condition additionally contained a crisis response strategy. Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) posits that, whenever a crisis is highly severe, it is necessary for organizations to offer a crisis response strategy (e.g., apology, denial) in the case of an ex-postcrisis timing strategy (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2012; Coombs, 2004). To enlarge the generalizability of the study, two different response strategies (rebuild crisis response strategy and deny crisis response strategy) were used. Half of the participants in the ex-postcrisis timing strategy condition read that the manager apologized (i.e., rebuild crisis response strategy), the other half read that the manager denied (i.e., deny crisis response strategy) that the exit door was closed. Crisis response strategy was not used as an independent variable in the study since the focus is on crisis timing strategies. Therefore, both types of crisis response strategy were taken together in the analyses. The results do indicate, however, that crisis response strategy did not influence the impact of message framing on postcrisis reputation, F(1, 100) = 0.15, p = .70.