Explaining Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)

DevelopEvolution

Application

Overview: SCCT

• Research Method Experimental• Strategic focus Reputation Repair• Function Managing

Meaning• Phase Crisis• Communication Receiver & Context

Origins

• Lists of response strategies and crisis types• Emphasis on situation• Connection to the practice• Attribution theory and marketing research

Attribution Theory

• People motivated to find reasons for events• Attributions– Internal– External

Why care about attributions?

• Attributions influence affect and behavior

Crises

• Attributions shape– Affect concerning organization– Behaviors toward organization– Reputations (there is damage)

Crisis and Reputation

• Reputational Capital• Build through good work• Crises spend some, but how much

Attributions of crisis responsibility

• Greater threat to reputation as they increase• Connection between response strategies and

crisis type– Crisis types reflect crisis responsibility– Crisis response reflect acceptance of crisis

Crisis Type

Dominant Situational Factor

Original Dimensions

• Internal-External: locus of control from Attribution Theory

• Intentional-Unintentional: controllability, purposeful by an actor or not

• Shape attributions of crisis responsibility

Original Crisis types

• Faux Pas: interpretation of organizational behavior– Organization considers positive or neutral– Stakeholders view are negative

• Accidents: things happen• Terrorism: external attack• Transgression: organization places

stakeholders at risk

Original Matrix

VictimAccidental

Preventable

Modification: Crisis Types organized by

Attributions of Crisis Responsibility

Victim (very little crisis responsibility)

• Natural disasters• Rumor• Workplace violence• Product tampering

Accidental (minimal crisis responsibility)

• Challenges• Technical-error accidents• Technical-error product harm

Preventable (significant crisis responsibility)

• Human-error accidents• Human-error product harm• Organizational misdeed– No injuries– Injuries– Management misconduct

Change to Crisis Types

• Shift from Grid to a Continuum• Dropped external control• Centered on crisis responsibility• New continuum based on survey research

Other Situational Factors

Veracity of evidence

• Proof there is a crisis– True– False– Ambiguous

Application Today

• Hidden factor• Choice to use denial• Ambiguity is key factor in accidental crises

Stakeholders

• Victim• Non-victim

Revision Today

• Victims• Potential victims• Voyeurs – News media– Social media

Damage

• Harm inflicted by crisis– Severe– Minor

Current Application

• Relevant but mixed results• Future– Treat as susceptibility – Relationship to anxiety

Performance history

• Past relationship with stakeholders– Positive– Negative

Currently an Intensifier

• Positive prior reputation• Neutral/unknown• Negative prior reputation—the driver

Other Intensifier: Crisis History

• No history of crises• No knowledge of history• Had a crisis in the past

Revision

• No longer use decision tree• List of recommendations

Original Response Strategies

• Nonexistence– Denial– Clarification– Attack– Intimidation

• Ingratiation– Bolstering– Praise others

Original Response Strategies

• Distance– Excuse: deny intention and/or control– Justification: minimize harm done

• Mortification• Suffering– Organization as victim

Revised Response Strategies

• Arranged from – Defensive: protect organization – Accommodative: help the victims

Crisis Responses

• Deny: no connection– Denial, Attack Accuser, and Scapegoat

• Diminish: reduce responsibility– Excuse and Justification– Reinforce existing frame

• Rebuild: attempt to improve reputation– Compensation and Apology

Crisis Responses

• Bolstering: draw on goodwill– Reminder, Ingratiation, and Victimage– Supporting strategies

Reputational Threat

• How people perceive the crisis.• Strong threat requires stronger response

(more perceived acceptance of responsibility)

Assess the Threat

• Initial Assessment: Crisis Type• Frame used to view the crisis• Grouped by attributions of crisis responsibility– Victim– Accidental– Preventable

Intensifiers

• Crisis history: similar crises in past• Prior relational reputation: how well or poorly

organization has treated stakeholders

Velcro Effect

• History of crises intensifies crisis responsibility• Negative prior reputation intensifies crisis

responsibility

Boundaries

• Financial resources are constraints– Afford the strategy?

• Crisis can be frame by media (includes Internet)– May need to follow and not try to reframe

Ethical Base Response

• Instructing Information: to protect selves– Warnings– Information about crisis (what happended)

• Adjusting Information: cope psychologically– Express regret– Corrective action– Counseling

SCCT Recommendations

1. All victims or potential victims should receive instructing information, including recall information. – This can be called the “public safety response.” – This is one-half of the base response to a crisis.

2. All victims should be provided an expression of sympathy, any information about corrective actions, and trauma counseling when needed.– This can be called the “care response.” – This is the second-half of the base response to a

crisis.

SCCT Recommendations

3. For crises with strong attributions of crisis responsibility (preventable crises and accidental crises with an intensifying factor), add compensation and/or apology strategies to the instructing information and care response.

SCCT Recommendations

4. The compensation strategy is used anytime victims suffer serious harm

5. The reminder and ingratiation strategies can be used to supplement any response

6. Denial and attack the accuser strategies are best used only for rumor and challenge crises

7. Suffering part of response if organization is a victim

Beliefs

• Theory-driven (beyond description)• Evidence-based (tested)

Research to test

• Assumptions• Relationships between variables– Existence– Strength

Initial outcome

• Reputation

Other outcomes

• Emotion (anger)• Purchase intention• Negative word-of-mouth

Example of Research in Detail:Negative Communication Dynamic

Crisis Affect

• Emotions generated by a crisis– Anger– Sympathy– Schadenfreude

• Anger most common (McDonald & Hartel, 2000)

Anger

• Typical reaction to a crisis• Can be a catalyst for behaviors– Negative word-of-mouth– Purchase intention (Jorgensen, 1996)

Anger as Energizer

• Energize people to say or write negative things about an organization/product/service

• We refer to as “The Negative Communication Dynamic”

Current Focus in Crisis Communication

• Crisis and impact on reputation• Limited on purchase intention• Effects typically transitory—people forget• Any effects from crisis can dissipate quickly

(McDonald & Hartel, 2000)

Potential Persistence of Anger

• Unhappy customers tell others (Power, 2006)• Similarly, stakeholders unhappy about a crisis

and crisis management may tell others• Dissatisfaction leads to negative word-of-

mouth

Word-of-Mouth

• A powerful force in shaping consumer attitudes

• Negative word-of-mouth more power than positive (Lacznial, DeCarlo & Ramaswami, 2001)

Lasting Effects of Word-of-Mouth

• Negative word-of-mouth spreads beyond initial stakeholders– Initially tell 6 to 15 people– They in turn tell others

• Negative word-of-mouth can linger– Remain on blogs, web sites, and discussion boards

after initial anger subsides.

Hypotheses

• H1: Higher attributions of crisis responsibility and stronger feelings of anger from a crisis are associated with higher levels of intended negative word-of-mouth.

Hypotheses

• H2: Anger mediates the relationship between crisis responsibility and negative word-of-mouth.

• H3: Anger mediates the relationship between crisis responsibility and purchase intention.

Results

• Negative word-of-mouth and crisis responsibility correlated at .45

• Negative word-of-mouth and anger correlated at .63

Results

• Anger did mediate the relationships between – Crisis responsibility and purchase intention– Crisis responsibility and negative work-of-mouth

Negative Communication Dynamic Visual Representation

Crisis

Anger

Negative WOM

Visual Representation II

Crisis

Anger

Purchase Intention

What does this mean for crisis managers?

Where to Next?

• Effects of crisis response strategies on anger• Crisis factors that shape anger• Duration of crisis anger• Relationship of anger and schadenfreude