Crisis Communication: How To Deal With It

Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102136
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev
Full Length Article
Crisis communication: The mediating role of cognitive and affective

empathy in the relationship between crisis type and crisis response strategy
on post-crisis reputation and forgiveness
James Ndone a, *, Jihye Park b
a
Coastal Carolina University, United States
b
University of Missouri, Columbia, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This study seeks to contribute to the growing body of research in crisis communication by exploring how two
Public relations types of empathy; cognitive empathy and affective empathy, affect organizational reputation and publics’
Crisis communication forgiveness for an organization that is in a crisis. An online three (crisis type: victim vs. accidental vs. pre
Crisis response strategies
ventable) × two (response strategy: rebuilding vs. denial) between-subjects experiment was conducted with 648
Corporate reputation
participants (N = 648) recruited through Amazon’s research tool MTurk. The results of the study reveal that
Empathy
Affective empathy crisis type affects both cognitive and affective empathy and people are more likely to feel empathetic toward an
Cognitive empathy organization that uses rebuilding strategies than an organization that denies the existence of a crisis. Theoretical
and practical implications of empathy on corporate reputation and forgiveness are discussed.
1. Introduction empathy influence crisis outcomes like reputation (Schoofs et al., 2019).
However, the study on how empathy affects reputation investigated
The field of crisis communication has grown exponentially in recent empathy as a whole, despite some scholars arguing that different types
years. Experimental research has contributed to how people perceive of empathy have different effects on relationships and should be broken
and react to an organization in crisis by exploring reputational damage down into individual types of empathy (Le, Côté, Stellar, & Impett,
brought by the crisis and the most effective response strategies to adopt 2020). In fact, Załuski (2017) argues that empathy is a vague psycho
to mitigate the crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). Extant research sug logical construct that can be understood better by looking at the
gests that crisis responsibility, or the extent to which the publics different types of empathy. Therefore, the current study seeks to explore
consider the organization as responsible for the crisis, is a fundamental the role of two main types of empathy, cognitive empathy and affective
determinant of post-crisis publics’ behavior and post-crisis reputation. empathy, and how these two affect organizational reputation. The two
Resultantly, crisis communication researchers have explored crisis re types are independent of one another but often work in tandem. Affec
sponsibility as the nexus between a crisis, the response strategy that an tive empathy is the ability to feel the emotions of another person, while
organization uses, and post-crisis reputation and publics’ behavior cognitive empathy is the ability to see things from another’s point of
(Fediuk, Coombs, & Botero, 2012; Schoofs, Claeys, Waele, & Cauberghe, view (Baron-Cohen & Wheelright, 2004). By exploring these two types
2019). of empathy separately, we seek to understand which empathy leads to
To continue building crisis communication scholarship, some higher organizational reputation ratings by the publics and which of the
scholars have started exploring other factors that also play a key role in two brings about more forgiveness. This research could help crisis
explaining how publics’ reactions to an organization in crisis are shaped. managers to understand the type of empathy they need to cultivate
One key area that scholars have devoted time to is the role of discrete among publics, which in turn will lead to a favorable post-crisis
emotions in crisis communication especially on how emotions affect reputation.
organizational reputation (Claeys, Cauberghe, & Leysen, 2013; Kim & Another area that has not received much attention in crisis
Cameron, 2011; Lu & Huang, 2018; Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). communication is publics’ forgiveness as a crisis outcome (Moon &
Other scholars have started investigating how other emotions like Rhee, 2012). Literature from psychology suggests that forgiveness is a
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Ndone), [email protected] (J. Park).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102136
Received 14 October 2020; Received in revised form 12 November 2021; Accepted 19 November 2021
Available online 1 December 2021
0363-8111/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J. Ndone and J. Park Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102136
prosocial change toward a transgressor (McCullough, Kilpatrick, organizational reputation and forgiveness. Both reputation and
Emmons, & Larson, 2001). Research on forgiveness has solely focused forgiveness will affect purchase intentions and spread of either positive
on the relationship between attribution and forgiveness. Most of the or negative word-of-mouth which are critical for business survival
existing literature borrows from the theory of correspondent interfer (Harrison-Walker, 2019; Noth, Jaroenwanit, & Brown, 2015).
ence and attribution theory (Jones & Davis, 1965; Weiner, 1985, 1995).
For instance, attributions of blame in a workplace setup are positively 2. Literature review
associated with a desire to seek revenge and negatively related to a
desire to forgive the transgressor (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999). Mostly, 2.1. Theoretical framework: situational crisis communication theory
forgiveness occurs after a transgressor apologizes. This could be (SCCT)
explained by the fact that the offended perceive an apology as a sign that
the offending behavior is unlikely to recur, leading to decreased attri One of the most dominant theories in crisis communication research
butions of behavioral stability and eventually forgiveness (Davis & Gold, is the SCCT. The theory, which stemmed from attribution theory, pos
2011). tulates that publics will assign responsibility to a crisis based on how an
Forgiveness helps in the restoration of social relationships by organization responds to the crisis (Coombs, 2007; Weiner, 1986).
reducing negative emotions toward the transgressor (Fincham, May, & Normally, the publics evaluate how an organization’s events led to a
Beach, 2016; Lichtenfeld, Maier, Buechner, & Capo, 2019; Tsang, 2006). crisis that is threatening an organization’s reputation before they assign
Thus, by forgiving a transgressor, people hope to maintain a positive responsibility. A crisis is a reputational threat. As research suggests, a
relationship with the transgressor by changing the causal attributions reputational threat stemming from a crisis is a function of attribution of
toward the offender (Lichtenfeld et al., 2019). Forgivers tend to give the crisis, in that if publics perceive the organization to be responsible
their offenders “the benefit of the doubt” (McCullough et al., 2001, p. for the crisis, the organization’s reputation is in jeopardy (Coombs &
196). There are two types of forgiveness; decisional and emotional Holladay, 2002).
forgiveness (Davis et al., 2015). Decisional forgiveness involves one When a crisis hits an organization, SCCT suggests that the first thing
seeking to reduce the offender’s negative behavior and if possible, that the organization should do is to evaluate the situation, or the crisis
restore positive behavior toward the offender (Lichtenfeld et al., 2019). type, and choose an appropriate response strategy that will first address
Emotional forgiveness entails the replacement of negative emotions the physical and psychological needs of the publics before focusing on
with positive ones such as empathy and compassion (Hook et al., 2012). reputation (Coombs, 2007). Once the foundation has been established,
Since emotional forgiveness leads to more positive and less negative then the organization can shift its focus to the organizational reputation.
feelings, there is a likelihood that it will give rise to more positive at Reputation refers to the aggregate evaluation of an organization’s ability
tributions toward the offender. to meet the publics’ needs based on its past behaviors (Wartick, 1992).
These psychological backgrounds on both empathy and forgiveness After identifying the crisis type, the organization should look at two
form the impetus for the current study. The study seeks to extend the intensifiers of a crisis, crisis history, and prior reputation (Coombs,
literature in emotional crisis communication by borrowing from psy 2010).
chology literature on empathy and how both cognitive and affective The SCCT has developed three clusters of crisis types that charac
empathy affect forgiveness and organizational reputation. Just like terize organizational crisis: victim crisis, accidental crisis, and prevent
literature on crisis responsibility attribution, interpersonal relation able crisis. All these clusters are based on the level of responsibility that
ships’ literature suggests that attribution of wrongdoing determines publics attribute a crisis to. In the victim cluster, the attribution is low as
interpersonal forgiveness ((Lichtenfeld et al., 2019; Weiner, Graham, the organization is also a victim of the crisis. Thus, a victim cluster has
Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991). This implies that when people forgive their weak crisis responsibility attributions and poses a mild reputational
transgressors, they hold them less responsible for the offense committed. threat, like a crisis caused by an earthquake (Coombs, 2007). In the
Besides, developing empathetic feelings toward the transgressor is accidental cluster, the organizational actions that caused the crisis were
another determinant of forgiveness. As research suggests, when victims unintentional. Therefore, crisis attribution is minimal leading to mod
empathize with the wrongdoers, they are likely to forgive them erate reputational threat, like a mechanical failure causing an industrial
(McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). In the same vein, the accident. Lastly, the preventable cluster has strong attributions of crisis
current study proposes that if publics empathize with an organization in responsibility leading to severe reputational threat, as the organization
crisis, the likelihood of forgiving the organization is high. knowingly placed the publics at risk and should have prevented the
Bringing the concepts of interpersonal forgiveness and empathy to crisis from happening, like human-error product harm (Coombs, 2007).
crisis communication, we propose that when publics empathize with the Crisis communication researchers have examined this typology in detail.
organization in crisis, they are likely to reduce their attributions of the Some scholars have focused on only one single crisis type in their studies
crisis toward the organization and in return forgive the organization. (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2012, 2014), while others have explored two or
This leads to less reputational damage (Schoofs et al., 2019). The focus three crisis types in one study (Claeys, Cauberghe, & Vyncke, 2010;
of this study is how both cognitive and affective empathy affect orga Coombs, 2004; Kim & Sung, 2014; Sisco, 2012; Zhou & Ki, 2018). Extant
nizational reputation and forgiveness. Organizational reputation is one research suggests that as the publics’ attribution of crisis to the orga
of the main intangible assets that is affected by a crisis (Coombs, 2007). nization intensifies, so does the reputational damage (Coombs & Hol
Since research suggests that feeling empathetic toward a wrongdoer laday, 2002; Coombs, 1998; Lee, 2004; Schoofs et al., 2019). Thus,
leads to forgiveness and empathy is a key determinant of organizational preventable crises have the most devastating effects on reputation
reputation, the current study seeks to expand Schoofs et al.’ (2019) work (Claeys et al., 2010; Coombs, 2007; Verhoeven, Van Hoof, Ter Keurs, &
on empathy by borrowing from psychology literature to help in building Van Vuuren, 2012).
crisis communication literature (McCullough et al., 1997; Schoofs et al., The SCCT also identifies several response strategies that organiza
2019). Specifically, this study aims to explore the mediating role of both tions can adopt to mitigate the effects of a crisis. SCCT groups crisis
cognitive and affective empathy (Baron-Cohen & Wheelright, 2004) on response strategies into four postures; denial, diminishing, rebuilding,
the relationship between crisis type, crisis response strategy, and orga and bolstering. The theory matches the three clusters of crises to the
nizational reputation and forgiveness. The findings of this study can three postures of response strategies, with the bolstering posture being a
contribute to the development and advancement of crisis communica supplemental posture to the other three postures (Coombs, 2019).
tion theories as well as inform the practice of crisis communication by Denial strategies should be used in the case of a victim crisis, where the
helping crisis managers understand how empathy operates among the organization rejects its responsibility for the crisis. The diminishing
publics and how cultivating empathetic feelings can lead to better strategies should be used in the case of an accidental crisis to minimize
2
the organization’s responsibility for the crisis. Lastly, the rebuilding person is feeling (Powell & Roberts, 2017).
strategies should be used in the case of a preventable crisis, where the When it comes to crisis communication, empathy can be a critical
organization admits full responsibility for the crisis (Coombs, 2019). In determinant of organizational reputation and forgiveness. Therefore,
the present study, we focus on denial and rebuilding postures. The two the concept of empathy needs to be probed further. Psychology re
strategies have received a considerable amount of research and offer an searchers argue that empathy is an impetus of forgiveness (McCullough
ideal comparison (Claeys et al., 2010; Coombs & Holladay, 2008; Kim et al., 1997). Also, extant research in crisis communication suggests that
et al., 2009; Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). empathy affects organizational reputation (Schoofs et al., 2019). Crisis
The SCCT also suggests that a crisis induces emotions in both the managers practice empathy by actively listening to the fears of the
crisis spokespeople and the publics. Although SCCT matches the crisis publics and showing that the publics are not alone. As SCCT suggests,
type to the appropriate response strategy and argues that attribution of when crisis managers provide both instructing and psychological in
responsibility is key in crisis communication, research on interpersonal formation to the affected publics during a crisis, such managers are
forgiveness reveals that in addition to publics’ attribution of a crisis, practicing empathy. Therefore, empathy should be studied as an
publics’ empathy toward an organization in crisis plays a critical role in emotional factor in crisis management in that it helps in cultivating
mitigating the negative effects a crisis (Schoofs et al., 2019). To extend positive feelings about the organization which can be manifested
SCCT, researchers started exploring the role of emotions in crisis through the public’ positive rating of organizational reputation and
communication. Coombs & Holladay suggested the inclusion of emo forgiveness (De Waele, Schoofs, & Claeys, 2020; Schoofs et al., 2019). In
tions in crisis communication when they were refining SCCT (Coombs & other words, empathy shapes publics’ attitudinal responses to a crisis in
Holladay, 2002, 2004). Most of the research has focused on discrete that when the publics experience empathy with the organization, they
emotions such as anger, and sadness (see Claeys et al., 2013; Kim & are likely to reduce their negative feelings toward the organization.
Cameron, 2011; Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). Besides, empathy helps to understand the relationship between crisis
Although emotional crisis communication research has been communication and crisis outcomes (Schoofs et al., 2019).
growing, there is considerable room to explore other emotions that are Forgiveness entails motivational adjustments where one person be
related to response strategies. Recently, scholars have started exploring comes disinterested to carry out retaliatory actions on an offender by
a crisis from a forgiveness standpoint by exploring the role of empathy in decreasing motivations to keep estrangement from the offender and
crisis communication (Schoofs et al., 2019). Both empathy and attri increasing the desire for conciliation and goodwill toward the offender
bution of responsibility warrant more research, as organizations keep (Davis & Gold, 2011; McCullough et al., 1998). In a similar vein, orga
debating the most appropriate response strategy to employ based on the nizations seek forgiveness from the publics to restore their reputation
type of crisis. and maintain a good relationship with its publics (Coombs, 2015). The
process of forgiveness starts with attribution. Research suggests that
2.2. Apology, empathy, forgiveness, and crisis communication attribution of blame is negatively linked to revenge cognitions and
positively linked to forgiveness cognitions (Davis & Gold, 2011; Weiner,
Social-psychological research shows that emotions are critical in 1985). Research from interpersonal forgiveness implies that when the
understanding behavior because of their ability to energize people and victims attribute less responsibility to the transgressor, they are likely to
induce subsequent behaviors. For instance, the feelings that publics have forgive the wrongdoer (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010; McCullough et al.,
toward an organization will affect its future relationship with the publics 1998; Riek & Mania, 2012). However, responsibility attribution is just
(Jin, 2010). This future relationship could be in the form of spreading one of the constructs of forgiveness. Researchers have identified
positive or negative word-of-mouth about the organization or through empathy as the other construct of forgiveness (Fehr et al., 2010;
purchase intentions (Coombs & Holladay, 2007). When people wrong McCullough et al., 1998; Riek & Mania, 2012).
others, it is prudent to ask for forgiveness. Feeling empathetic toward a Empathy plays a critical role in forgiveness during a crisis. By
transgressor can lead to forgiveness. Empathy refers to the “attempt by practicing cognitive empathy, publics take the organization’s perspec
one self-aware self to comprehend unjudgmentally the positive and tive to understand the organization’s viewpoints and actions (Baron-
negative experiences of another self” (Wispé, 1986, p. 318). It is both a Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). By practicing affective empathy, publics
mental and emotional construct that is “conceived to be the outcome of strive to experience the emotions of the organization’s crisis spokes
cognitive and affective processes that operate conjointly” (Feshbach & person, leading to care and compassion about the spokesperson and the
Feshbach, 1987, p. 273). This definition suggests that empathy is organization at large (Decety & Johnson, 2004). Thus, when publics
composed of both affective and cognitive components. For people to experience both cognitive and affective empathy, they are likely to
practice empathy, they must experience the mental and emotional states forgive the organization. This further underscores the need to study
of others before responding empathetically to others. An emerging body empathy as an emotional factor in crisis communication research.
of experimental research has started exploring the role of empathy in
crisis communication (Schoofs et al., 2019). However, this study 2.3. Crisis type and apology
explored empathy as a whole. In the current study, we explore empathy
as composed of two types: affective empathy and cognitive empathy. As mentioned earlier, SCCT identifies three crisis types depending on
Affective empathy takes an observer’s approach where a person re the level of crisis attribution. The three types of crises have different
sponds emotionally to the emotional situation of another person (Blair, effects on post-crisis organizational reputation as they induce different
2005). Other scholars call affective empathy an “emotional contagion” levels of empathy among the publics (De Waele et al., 2020; Schoofs
(Hatfield, Rapson, & Le, 2009, p. 160). To practice affective empathy, et al., 2019). These crisis types are based on crisis attribution and
one must experience emotions that match the emotions of the other depending on how responsible an organization is, an appropriate
person and start caring about the wellbeing of the other person (Bar response strategy will help restore the damaged reputation. Since pre
on-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004; Decety & Jackson, 2004). In other ventable crises lead to stronger attributions of crisis responsibility, a
words, you must feel what the other person is feeling. On the other hand, rebuilding strategy such as an apology is highly recommended (Coombs,
cognitive empathy is a mental state that involves taking another in 2007). An apology is one of the most studied strategies of crisis
dividual’s perspective to understand their school of thought, viewpoints, communication in determining post-crisis organizational reputation.
and emotions (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Thus, cognitive Issuing an apology is regarded as the ideal response strategy. Despite the
empathy involves the ability to represent the mental states of others, by positive attributes of apology as a response strategy, some scholars have
thinking about their beliefs, desires, thoughts, and intentions (Blair, questioned its value due to legal implications that are related to the
2005). In other words, cognitive empathy is recognizing what another admission of guilt (Chung & Lee, 2017; Coombs & Holladay, 2008).
3
However, crisis communication scholars still argue that apology and empathy during a crisis. Our interest was guided by the literature that
compensation are the most appropriate response strategies especially when people interpret an offense as unintentional (which is the case for
when the organization is fully responsible for a crisis (Decker, 2012; a victim crisis where attribution is low), they are more likely to empa
Kim, Avery, & Lariscy, 2009; Lee, 2004; Sisco, 2012). Besides, Coombs thize with the offender (Schoofs et al., 2019). Thus, we proposed:
and Holladay (2008) outline conditions under which an apology is an
H1a. A victim crisis will generate more cognitive empathy than an
ideal response strategy that organizations should use, that is, in a pre
accidental crisis. On the other hand, a preventable crisis will generate
ventable crises. Other scholars have confirmed that an apology is an
less cognitive empathy than an accidental crisis.
appropriate response strategy when an organization wants to minimize
reputational damage during a crisis (Decker, 2012; Sisco, 2012). Apol H1b. A victim crisis will generate more affective empathy than an
ogies attenuate negative feelings toward the organization, especially accidental crisis. On the other hand, a preventable crisis will generate
when stakeholders perceive the apologies as sincere (Claeys & Cau less affective empathy than an accidental crisis.
berghe, 2014; Lyon & Cameron, 2004; Schoofs et al., 2019; Van der
Depending on the crisis type and crisis response strategy that an
Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). Apologies show the human side of the or
organization adopts, we expect the publics to experience different types
ganization that it can make errors and is acknowledging the mistake. An
of empathy. For instance, victim crises and accidental crises have mild
apology implies that the organization is willing to take positive actions
and moderate reputational damage due to weak and minimal attribu
to handle the crisis (Coombs, 2007). However, other studies show that
tions of crisis responsibility. Therefore, both victim and accidental crises
denial can also be an effective response strategy (Claeys et al., 2010;
are likely to induce more empathy compared to preventable crises that
Fuoli, van de Weijer, & Paradis, 2017). This occurs when the organi
have strong attributions of responsibility and severe reputational threat.
zation is not to blame for the crisis.
Apologies target publics’ empathy for an organization that is in a crisis
(Schoofs et al., 2019). Accordingly, when crisis spokespeople apologize,
2.4. The role of apology in empathy
the publics are more likely to develop positive feelings toward the or
ganization and empathize with the organization. Because of the positive
Given the ubiquitous nature of interpersonal offenses, psychology
feelings brought by an apology and the negative reactions to denial of
researchers have examined what offenders can do to minimize the
crisis existence (Coombs, 2007; Schoofs et al., 2019), we expect that:
negative ramifications of their offenses (Fehr et al., 2010). Researchers
in this area argue that an apology can help mitigate the negative effects H2. When an apology is used, the publics will feel more cognitive and
of transgressions. The act of apologizing is viewed as an other-oriented affective empathy toward the organization than when a denial strategy
behavioral activity that first requires offenders to recognize they have is used.
offended victims, and they are willing to repair the relationships with
There is a need for research to understand how empathy and re
the victims (Dunlop, Lee, Ashton, Butcher, & Dykstra, 2015). When of
sponsibility attribution affect organizational reputation and forgiveness.
fenders apologize, the victims develop empathetic feelings toward the
Both the attribution theory (Weiner, 1985, 1986) and the empathy
offenders (McCullough et al., 1997; Riek & Mania, 2012). These scholars
model of forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1997) represent two perspec
argue that an apology is a precursor to empathy. Literature on inter
tives that emphasize the impact of responsibility attribution and
personal relationships suggests that when people wrong each other and
empathy in forgiveness. The two theoretical frameworks receive a sub
apologize for the offense, such interpersonal apologies arouse feelings of
stantial amount of support in social-psychological literature, and ac
empathy toward the offender.
cording to the empathy model of forgiveness, empathy mediates the
Bringing these concepts to crisis communication, Schoofs et al.
relationship between an apology and forgiveness (David & Gold, 2011).
(2019) suggest that crisis communication scholars need to consider the
In addition, empathy mediates the relationship between crisis type and
underlying power of empathy in explaining why apologies are effective
reputation (McDonald, Sparks, & Glendon, 2010; Schoofs et al., 2019).
during crises. Apologies are used to target the publics’ empathy toward
Moreover, an apology generates more empathetic feelings as people are
the organization, while denial strategies are used to shape the percep
likely to empathize with someone who apologizes and shows remorse
tions of responsibility (Coombs, Holladay, & Claeys, 2016). If the denial
compared to someone who denies responsibility for an offense (Davis &
strategy succeeds in the intended purpose of eliminating perceptions of
Gold, 2011). Therefore, we predict:
organizational responsibility, the crisis may no longer cause reputa
tional harm to the organization (Coombs et al., 2016). H3. Both cognitive and affective empathy will mediate the relation
ship between crisis type and organizational reputation as well as
2.5. Attribution of responsibility as a precursor to forgiveness and forgiveness. The effects will be more pronounced when an apology is
reputation used than when denial is used.
Social-psychological researchers argue that attributions and 3. Method

empathy are key precursors to forgiveness. According to the empathy
model of forgiveness, empathetic feelings overshadow the transgressor’s 3.1. Design
hurtful feelings and prevent victims from undertaking revenge on the
transgressor (McCullough et al., 1997). This model allows crisis A three (crisis type; victim vs. accidental vs. preventable) × two
communication scholars to integrate both empathy and responsibility (response strategy: apology vs denial) between-subjects experiment was
attributions as precursors to forgiveness and post-crisis organizational conducted to test these hypotheses. This created six conditions for the
reputation (Schoofs et al., 2019). Also, depending on the crisis type, study.
attributions for the crisis will be different. For instance, in a victim crisis,
the organization is also a victim of the crisis and publics are more likely 3.2. Participants
to develop empathetic feelings toward the organization. On the other
hand, a preventable crisis, since the organization did not do enough to We recruited study participants using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
prevent it from happening, will lead to less empathy from the publics. (MTurk). MTurk is a research tool that allows people to complete sur
Since accidental crises are in between the victim and the preventable veys for monetary compensation (Bohannon, 2011; Gibson, Piantadosi,
crises with unintentional actions leading to the crisis, we used accidental & Fedorenko, 2011). MTurk has been suggested as a valid data collec
clusters as our point of comparison (Coombs, 2007). We sought to tion method comparable to the traditional pen and paper surveys
compare how crisis type affects both cognitive empathy and affective (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). We took several precautions to
4
ensure the quality of the data we collected. First, we set the pre the organization. For the apology strategy, the organization admitted
conditions of the survey takers to have a 95 % approval rating on the that the company was responsible for the accidents and offered an
website as this indicated a history of high-quality participation in sur apology to the victims, assuring them that the company will ensure that
veys. We also ensured that each worker had a unique Worker ID. Be such accidents do not happen again.
sides, we eliminated 52 workers (n = 52) who failed the screening
questions and participants who did not spend enough time reading the 3.3.2. Dependent variables
stimuli and responding to the questions. There were two dependent variables in this study: organizational
Participants who decided to take the survey on MTurk clicked on the reputation and forgiveness. Organizational reputation was measured
survey link that led them to the informed consent form. In the informed with five items adapted from Coombs and Holladay (2002) such as:
consent, we explained that the study was meant to explore how crisis “Under most circumstances, I would be likely to believe what the or
type and response strategy could affect both cognitive and affective ganization says” (α = .82, M = 3.75, SD = 1.31). Forgiveness was
empathy. In terms of ethical observations, we explained that taking part measured using seven items adapted from Rye and his colleagues (2001)
in the study was voluntary and participants could stop taking part at any such as: “I feel that the many emotional wounds related to this refinery’s
time. We also assured the participants of anonymity as we did not reveal wrongful actions have healed” (α = .80, M = 24.17, SD = 7.20). This
any information that could identify the participants or even track their scale combines forgiveness for an individual and an entity, such as an
devices’ IP addresses. Besides, we included our contact information and organization in a crisis.
the contact information of our university’s institutional review board
(IRB). Next, were instructions about the survey and compensation for 3.3.3. Mediator variables
the participants’ time in taking the survey. We tested the study with 10 The current study had two mediators: Cognitive empathy and af
participants to estimate the average time that a participant would take fective empathy. The items to measure both cognitive empathy and af
to complete the survey so that we can come up with appropriate fective empathy were adopted from Shen’s (2010) scale of state
compensation for the participants’ time. All procedures were reviewed empathy. Other scales that have been used to measure empathy. The
and approved by the IRB from a large Midwestern university in the most widely used scales are the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale
United States. (BEES, Mehrabian, 1996) and the Davis’s Interpersonal Reactivity Index
There were 648 participants used for analysis. Participants were (IRI, Davis, 1983). However, some scholars have expressed concerns
randomly assigned to one of the six conditions using an automated about the items used to measure some of these scales. For instance, some
randomizer built into the Qualtrics online survey software. Of the 648 scholars argue that the BEES has insufficient semantic correspondence
participants, 60.2 % were male and 39.8 % were female. The mean age between the content of the items probed and the conceptualization of
was 36.75 (SD = 12.01). Participants mostly identified themselves as empathy, with some items not measuring empathy directly and there
Caucasian/White (60.1 %), followed by Asian (23 %), Black/African fore making empathy an assumed concept (Stueber, 2010). In addition,
American (8.5 %), Hispanic/Latino (6.9 %), and others (1.6 %). Most of the IRI scale, although widely used, measures psychological processes
the participants identified themselves as married (57.3 %), followed by such as imagination or capacity for emotional control. These processes
never married (33.4 %), divorced (6%), widowed (1.7 %), and separated are somehow related but not certainly identical to empathy (Baron-
(1.6 %). Educationally, the greatest number of participants had a Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Therefore, the researchers decided to use
bachelor’s degree (54.4 %), professional degree (17.5 %), some college Shen’s (2010) empathy scale. Shen’s (2010) scale measures both
(12.4 %), two-year-degree (7.6 %), high school diploma (6.4 %), cognitive and affective empathy as components of state empathy. This
doctorate (1.3 %), and less than high school (0.4 %). Income ranged scale has been validated among social-psychological research. Besides,
from less than $10,000 to more than $150,000. the scale has been employed in recent studies measuring empathy and
scholars have validated it over the years, with the constructs used
showing good reliability among college populations and non-college
3.3. Measures populations (see Blagrove et al., 2019; Cooke, Bazzini, Curtin, &
Emery, 2018). As these scales measure empathy toward an individual,
3.3.1. Independent variables participants’ empathy with the organization’s CEO (who was the crisis
There were two independent variables in this study: crisis type and spokesperson) was measured as a proxy toward the organization. This
crisis response strategy. Respondents were randomized into one of the proxy has been used in previous research (Schoofs et al., 2019). Besides,
six conditions and assigned to read a short message of a fictitious factory crisis communication researchers argue that the CEO represents the
accident. organization as a whole (Lucero, Tan Teng Kwang, & Pang, 2009; Men,
2011). Shen’s (2010) empathy scale has measures for both cognitive and
3.3.1.1. Crisis type. Crisis type was manipulated to show different levels affective empathy. Cognitive empathy was measured with four items
of attribution of responsibility. For the victim crisis, we selected a nat such as: “I can understand what the CEO was going through in the
ural disaster where a hurricane slammed a certain state in the United message.” (α = .90, M = 4.60, SD = 1.40). Affective empathy was
States causing injuries to employees of a fictitious company, M&J, who measured with four items such as: “I was in a similar emotional state as
were conducting regular maintenance on a piece of equipment, with the the CEO when reading this message” (α = .81, M = 3.85, SD = 1.50).
hurricane destroying the equipment’s anchor causing the equipment to
fall on the victims. For the accidental crisis, we selected a technical error 3.3.4. Control variable
accident where an equipment’s anchor broke unexpectedly as em There was one control variable in this study: crisis history. Crisis
ployees of M&J were winding up the equipment inspection. For the history was operationalized as the publics’ experience with an event like
preventable crisis, we selected an organizational misdeed where em the crisis described in the study. It was measured using the question: “In
ployees were placed at risk by their employer who had failed to replace a the last five years, have you had direct experience with a similar incident
piece of equipment that should have been replaced for several years, but as the crisis just described?” This question was measured on a 5-point
the employer, M&J, overlooked the replacement to save money. scale (1-Definitely No, to 5-Definitely Yes, M = 1.97, SD = 1.28).
Crisis history was controlled because SCCT literature suggests that crisis
3.3.1.2. Crisis response strategy. The participants were exposed to a history exacerbates a crisis, which affects how publics perceive a crisis
stimulus message in a press conference in which M&J issued a statement and evaluate the organization’s reputation (Coombs, 2007).
about the accidents. For the denial strategy, the M&J distanced itself
from the accidents with the organization emphasizing no wrongdoing by
5
3.4. Manipulation check tested using mediation analysis through PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). A
regression-based path analytic mediation model was used with PRO
For a manipulation check of crisis response strategy, participants CESS macro (Model 4) by Hayes (2013) and estimated parameters for
were asked two items about to what extent they think the organization the mediation effects. To investigate the significance of the indirect ef
apologized/denied for the company’s role in the accident responding on fects, the bootstrapping method with 5,000 resamples of the data was
a 10-point scale anchored by none at all (1) and to an extreme amount applied, and we inspected whether the 95% bias-corrected confidence
(10). Participants in the apology strategy condition should rate higher in intervals of these effects from the bootstrapping method contained a
the organization’s expression of apology for the crisis compared to ‘zero.’ If the confidence intervals do not include zero, it means the effects
participants in the denial response strategy condition. An independent are significant at α = 0.05. (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Gender, race,
samples t-test revealed there was a significant difference in the evalua education, marital status, income, and crisis history were included as
tion of the extent the organization apologized for the accident between covariates. These demographic items were added to control for all
participants in the apology strategy condition (M = 6.69, SD = 1.45) and possible confounders in the model (Valeri & VanderWeele, 2013)
participants in the denial response strategy condition (M = 4.36, SD = (Fig. 1).
1.45), t(647) = − 10.87, p < .001. Additional t-test for a manipulation
check of denial crisis response strategy informed that respondents in the
4.2. Hypotheses testing
denial response strategy condition (M = 9.61, SD = 1.45) recognized
more the message included denial of the crisis responsibility than those
4.2.1. Crisis type and cognitive empathy
in the apology response strategy condition (M = 5.65, SD = 1.45), t(647)
The first hypothesis (H1a) posited that a victim crisis will induce
= 14.33, p < .001). Therefore, manipulations for all two crisis response
more cognitive empathy than an accidental crisis. On the other hand, a
strategies were successful.
preventable crisis will generate less cognitive empathy than an acci
In addition, for a manipulation check of crisis type, every participant
dental crisis. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to
answered a series of three items to assess whether they noticed the crisis
determine whether cognitive empathy will be different across crisis
type that they were exposed to as a way of measuring crisis re
types. The results of the ANOVA test (F (2, 647) = 10.009, p < .001)
sponsibility. This was done by asking the participants these questions:
showed that compared to a preventable crisis (M = 4.27, SD = 1.53),
“To what extent do you think this crisis was caused by a natural disaster
participants in the victim crisis condition (M = 4.80, SD = 1.29, p <
and the organization had no control over the incident?” (for the victim
.001) and accidental crisis condition (M = 4.74, SD = 1.30, p < .001) felt
crisis condition); “to what extent do you think the crisis that you read
more cognitive empathy. There were differences in cognitive empathy
about was caused by a technical error and the organizational actions
level between respondents in preventable, victim, and accidental crises,
were not intentional?” (for the accidental crisis condition); “to what
but no significant difference was observed between victim and acci
extent do you think this accident was due to negligence (organizational
dental crises. Therefore, H1a was partially supported (see Fig. 2 for the
misdeed) and the organization could have done something to prevent it
mean differences).
from happening?” (for the preventable crisis condition). A three one-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to check the manip
4.2.2. Crisis type and affective empathy
ulation of crisis types: victim, accidental, and preventable crisis (each
Another one-way ANOVA was conducted to explore the effects of
crisis type was a dependent variable for that condition’s manipulation
crisis type on affective empathy H1b)). The results of the ANOVA test (F
check). Results supported successful manipulations for all three crisis
(2, 647) = 4.905, p < .001) revealed that compared to a preventable
types —victim crisis, F(2, 636) = 77.98, p < .001; accidental crisis, F(2,
crisis (M = 3.59, SD = 1.59), participants in the victim (M = 3.98, SD =
636) = 37.2, p < .001; and preventable crisis, F(2, 636) = 67.68, p <
1.43, p < .05) and accidental crises conditions (M = 3.96, SD = 1.45, p <
.001. The participants within a condition were significantly more likely
.05) felt more affective empathy. That is, affective empathy differed
to identify the correct manipulation strategy compared to participants
significantly among the three crisis types. However, there were no sig
outside of that condition. Thus, the manipulation of crisis type based on
nificant differences between victim and accidental crises. herefore, H1b
crisis responsibility was successful.
was partially supported (see Fig. 2 for the mean differences).
4. Results
4.2.3. Crisis response strategy and empathy
The second hypothesis (H2) predicted that when the organization
4.1. Analysis
apologizes, people are likely to feel more cognitive and affective
empathy than when the organization denies existence of the crisis. The
The purpose of this study was to test the effects of crisis type and
empathy model of forgiveness posits that an apology is a precursor of
crisis response strategy on organizational reputation and forgiveness,
empathy (McCullough et al., 1997). Looking at Tables 1 and 2, under the
and whether cognitive and affective empathy mediated the relationship
victim crisis, when the organization apologized, people felt more
between crisis type and crisis response strategies and organizational
cognitive empathy (B = .48, SE = .14, p < .001) and more affective
reputation and forgiveness. To test the hypotheses, both analysis of
empathy (B = .48, SE = .13, p < .001) than when the organization used
variance (ANOVA) and mediation analyses were used. Hypotheses H1a
the denial strategy (Cognitive: B = − .02, SE = .14; Affective: B = − .16,
and H1b were tested using ANOVA, while hypotheses H2 and H3 were
SE = .14). In the accidental crisis, when the organization apologized for
Fig. 1. Mediation Model: Effects of Crisis Type and Response Strategy on Organizational Reputation and Forgiveness via Cognitive and Affective Empathy.
6
Fig. 2. The Mean Differences of Cognitive and Affective Empathy Across Crisis Types.
Table 1
Results of the Mediation Model for Crisis Type and Crisis Response Strategy Conditions: Effects of Crisis Type and Response Strategy on Organizational Reputation via
Cognitive and Affective Empathy.
Condition a1 a2 b1 b2 c(total) c’(direct) Indirect effect 1 Indirect effect 2 (Affective R2 reputation
(Cognitive empathy)
empathy)
Victim crisis X Apology .48 .48 .19 .22 1.02 .82 .09 (.04) .11 (.04) R2 = .23
(.14)*** (.13)*** (.04) (.04)*** (.13)*** (.12) *** [.03, .17] [.04, .19] F(9,676) =
*** 22.11
Victim crisis X Denial − .02 − .16 .21 .24 − .05 − .004(.10) − .005(.03) [− .06, − .04 (.03)[− .11, .02] R2 = .17
(.14) (.14) (.04) (.04)*** (.14) .05] F(9,676) =
*** 15.88
Accidental crisis X .29 .26 .19 .23 .99 .87 .06 (.03) .06 (.04) R2 = .23
Apology (.14) * (.14) (.04) (.04)*** (.13)*** (.12) *** [.005, .13] [− .002, .14] F(9,676) =
*** 23.05
Accidental crisis X − .0003 − .11 .21 .24 − .44 − .41(.12) ** − .0001 (.03)[− .07, − .03 (.03) [− .10, .04] R2 = .19
Denial (.14) (.14) (.04) (.04)*** (.14) ** .06] F(9,676) =
*** 17.36
Preventable crisis X − .32 − .21 .20 24 − .59 − .48 (.12) − .06 (.03) [− .14, − .05 (.04) [− .13, .01] R2 = .19
Apology (.14)* (.13) (.04) (.04)*** (.13) *** − .01] F(9,676) =
*** *** 17.98
Preventable crisis X − .42 − .25 .19 24 − .90 − .76 (.12) − .08 (.04) [− .16, − .06 (.03) [− .13, .001] R2 = .22
Denial (.14)** (.13) (.04) (.04)*** (.13) *** − .02] F(9,676) =
*** *** 21.44
*p < .05, **p < .01, *** p< .001.
Table 2
Results of the Mediation Model for Crisis Type and Crisis Response Strategy Conditions: Effect of Crisis Type and Response Strategies on Forgiveness via Cognitive and
Affective Empathy.
Condition a1 a2 b1 b2 c c’(direct) Indirect effect 1 Indirect effect 2 (Affective R2 reputation
(total) (Cognitive empathy)
empathy)
Victim crisis X Apology .48 .48 .12 .50 .13 − .17 .06 (.02) .24 (.07) R2 = .64
(.14)*** (.13)*** (.02) *** (.03)*** (.11) (.07) * [.02, .11] [.11, .37] F(9,676) =
136.37
Victim crisis X Denial − .02 − .16 .12 .50 − .16 − .08 − .003(.02) [− .04, − .08 (.07)[− .21, .06] R2 = .64
(.14) (.14) (.02)*** (.02)*** (.11) (.07) .03] F(9,676) =
135.09
Accidental crisis X .29 .26 .12 .50 .04 − .12 .04 (.02) .13 (.07) R2 = .64
Apology (.14) * (.14) (.02)*** (.03)*** (.11) (.08) [.004, .08] [− .003, .26] F(9,676) =
135.65
Accidental crisis X − .0003 − .11 .12 .50 − .01 .04 000 (.02) − .05 (.07) [− .19, .08] R2 = .64
Denial (.14) (.14) (.02)*** (.02)*** (.11) (.08) [− .04, .04] F(9,676) =
134.86
Preventable crisis X − .32 − .21 .12 .50 .04 .18 − .04 (.02) − .10 (.07)[− .24, .03] R2 = .65
Apology (.14)* (.13) (.02)*** (.02)*** (.10) (.07) * [− .09, − .004] F(9,676) =
136.72
Preventable crisis X − .42 − .25 .12 .50 − .04 .14 − .05 (.02) − .13 (.07)[− .27, .0007] R2 = .64
Denial (.14)** (.13) (.02)*** (.02)*** (.11) (.07) [− .10, − .01] F(9,676) =
135.84
*p< .05, **p < .01, *** p< .001.
the crisis, people felt more cognitive empathy (B = .29, SE = .14, p < accidental crisis.
.05) than when the organization denied the responsibility of the crisis Under the preventable crisis, regardless of whether the organization
(Cognitive: B = − .0003, SE = .14; Affective: B = − .11, SE = .14). apologized or denied existence of the crisis, people were less likely to
However, a significant association between the organization’s apology feel cognitive empathy or affective empathy toward the organization.
strategy and affective empathy was not found (B = .26, SE = .14) in the However, a denial strategy led to decreased cognitive empathy (B = −
7
.42, SE = .14, p < .01) compared to an apology (B = − .32, SE = .14, p < significant role in mediating the relationships between crisis type and
.05). In sum, when apology strategy was used (in the case of a victim crisis response strategy, and organizational reputation and forgiveness.
crisis), both affective and cognitive empathy increased. However, in Cognitive empathy was a stronger mediator of the relationship than
both accidental and preventable crises, using an apology strategy only affective empathy especially when the CEO apologized for the crisis.
led to an increase in cognitive empathy, but not affective empathy. Thus, Looking at the indirect effects (through cognitive empathy for both
H2 was partially supported. victim and accidental crises), an apology strategy yielded a stronger and
more favorable organizational reputation and increased the chances of
4.2.4. The mediating role of cognitive empathy and affective empathy publics’ forgiveness. Affective empathy only mediated the relationship
The third hypothesis (H3) predicted that the effects of crisis types on between a victim crisis and both organizational reputation and
organizational reputation and forgiveness will be mediated by both forgiveness, with the relationship being more pronounced when the
cognitive and affective empathy and the effects will be more pronounced organization issued an apology than when the organization denied the
when the organization apologizes than when the organization denies crisis. Additionally, when an apology was used, cognitive empathy
crisis responsibility. In terms of cognitive empathy, according to Ta negatively mediated the relationship between preventable crisis and
bles 1 and 2, the indirect effects of victim crisis and accidental crisis on organizational reputation and forgiveness. Moreover, the results show
organizational reputation (VCA: B = .09, SE = .04, CI = .03, .17; ACA: B that the CEO’s apology in a preventable crisis had a negative impact on
= .06, SE = .03, CI = .005, .13) and forgiveness (VCA: B = .06, SE = .02, organizational reputation directly. Under a preventable crisis, people
CI = .02, .11; ACA: B = .04, SE = .02, CI = .004, .08) were significant may believe an apology from an organization is insincere since the or
through cognitive empathy, when the organization apologized for the ganization is entirely responsible for the crisis (Coombs, 2007).
crisis. In other words, when the organization used the denial strategy, In the case of both victim and accidental crises, the organization is
cognitive empathy did not mediate the relationships between crisis held less responsible for the crises (Coombs, 2007). Therefore, people
types and organizational reputation and forgiveness. However, regard would interpret an apology as a way of the organization showing its
less of the crisis response strategy, the relationship between preventable human side and that it cares about the victims of the crisis. This explains
crisis and organizational reputation was mediated by cognitive empathy why an apology yielded more cognitive empathy in the case of victim
(Apology: B = − .06, SE = .03, CI = − .14, − .01; Denial: B = − .08, SE = and accidental crises. In victim and accidental crises, an apology was
.04, CI = − .16, − .02). Similarly, regardless of the crisis response strat effective and able to mitigate the negative emotions that could have
egy, cognitive empathy mediated the relationship between preventable been generated by the crises (McCullough, Bono, & Root, 2007; Wor
crisis and forgiveness (Apology: B = − .04, SE = .02, CI = − .09, − .002; thington, Witvliet, Pietrini, & Miller, 2007). Moreover, the publics may
Denial: B = − .05, SE = .02, CI = − .10, − .01). perceive the apology as sincere and interpret the crisis as an unforeseen
In contrast to cognitive empathy, affective empathy mediated only event, with the publics redefining the crisis as “an unintentional
the relationships between the victim crisis along with the CEO’s apology mistake” (Choi & Chung, 2012;).
strategy and organizational reputation (B = .11, SE = .04, CI = .04, .19), For the preventable crisis, there was a negative direct effect of
and forgiveness (B = .24, SE = .07, CI = .11, .37). In general, when the apology on post-crisis organizational reputation (see Table 1). This
CEO apologized for the crisis, the relationships between each crisis type result can be explained using the SCCT (Coombs, 2007). A preventable
and organizational reputation and forgiveness were more likely to be crisis occurs when the organization is solely responsible for the crisis as
mediated by cognitive and affective empathy than when the CEO denied it should have averted the crisis from happening. Therefore, the publics
the responsibility of the crisis. In addition, compared to affective could interpret the apology as insincere, leading to negative ratings on
empathy, cognitive empathy played a more significant role in mediating the organizational reputation. In the same vein, the current study found
the relationships between each crisis type and organizational reputation that using an apology during a preventable crisis led to decreased
and forgiveness. Therefore, H3 was partially supported. cognitive and affective empathies. Since the organization did not pre
vent the crisis from happening, an apology will not induce empathy
5. Discussion among the publics who may perceive the apology as ingenuine. In turn,
the publics may not feel empathetic toward the organization in a crisis
The purpose of this study was to explore how two types of empathy: (Kraig, Barraza, Montgomery, & Zak, 2019). The other reason could be
cognitive empathy and affective empathy, affect crisis outcomes of the respondents in the preventable crisis condition were aware of the
organizational reputation and forgiveness. Extant research has paid suffering that the company may have caused the victims who died, and
substantial attention to how crisis types and crisis response strategies this could have invoked feelings of empathetic anger toward the com
(like an apology) affect empathy. Although prior research posits that pany. When people experience empathetic anger, they are less likely to
apologies are more effective in restoring reputation than denial strate forgive an offender (Cargile & Salazar, 2015; Worthington et al., 2007).
gies, only one study has empirically examined the process underlying
the effectiveness of apologies on organizational reputation (see Schoofs 5.1. Theoretical implications
et al., 2019). Therefore, the current study takes a step further by
investigating the role of the two types of empathy in organizational The current study contributes to the existing crisis communication
reputation and forgiveness. Besides, the current study seeks to add to the research by answering the call for more research that integrates stake
literature on the underlying effectiveness of apologies on organizational holders’ emotional reactions to crises into the situational crisis
reputation and forgiveness. communication theory (Coombs & Holladay, 2005; McDonald et al.,
This study observed three meaningful outcomes. First, compared to 2010; Schoofs et al., 2019). However, there is still a need for more
the other participants (those in both victim and accidental crises), par research to probe the underlying relationship between apologies, af
ticipants in the preventable crisis condition felt less cognitive empathy fective empathy, and cognitive empathy. The current study shows that
and affective empathy. That is, a preventable crisis made the publics less we should consider both responsibility attributions and the two types of
empathetic toward the organization. Second, an apology induced both empathy when answering the call for more research on SCCT and
types of empathies among the publics in the case of a victim crisis. In stakeholders’ emotional responses to crises.
addition, an apology strategy enhanced cognitive empathy in both The current study explored other variables that could explain the
accidental and preventable crises. Therefore, an apology is a crucial relationship between crisis type, the underlying effectiveness of apol
strategy that organizations can use to induce both affective and cogni ogy, and the contribution of the two types of empathy in reputation
tive empathy. management and forgiveness. Extant research demonstrates that victim
Third, the current study found that cognitive empathy plays a crises result in weak reputational damage, accidental crises cause
8
minimal reputational damage, and preventable crises lead to severe 5.2. Practical implications
reputational damage (Coombs, 2007). The current study shows that both
victim and accidental crises result in more cognitive and affective These findings have several implications to the public relations
empathy, while preventable crises induce less cognitive and affective practice and crisis management. By issuing an apology, an organization
empathy. These two types of empathy are more pronounced when an in a crisis can evoke empathetic feelings. Therefore, practitioners need
apology is involved than when denial is involved. This finding is to issue genuine apologies that will evoke empathetic feelings and in
consistent with previous research that an apology can trigger empathetic turn, lead to forgiveness and positive reputation evaluations. This calls
feelings toward an organization in crisis (Schoofs et al., 2019). for crafting press releases that could cultivate empathy among the
This study underlines the importance of cognitive empathy and af publics and showing that the organization is doing all it can to prevent
fective empathy in crisis type/crisis response strategy/reputation/ the recurrence of the crisis. Another way of inducing empathetic feelings
forgiveness relationship and contributes to the existing literature that is by actively listening to the victims, asking them to explain their per
has called for more studies exploring affective reactions to crises spectives, and consciously trying to share the victims’ affective states
(Coombs & Holladay, 2005; McDonald et al., 2010; Schoofs et al., 2019). (Eyal, Steffel, & Epley, 2018; Schumann, 2014).
The results imply that empathy can also explain the outcomes of crisis Moreover, crisis spokespeople should examine the nature of the crisis
communication such as forgiveness. Besides, publics’ cognitive and af before offering a response. The current study found that a preventable
fective empathy could explain the relationship between crisis type and crisis leads to less empathetic feelings even when an organization
reputation. The study goes further to demonstrate that both types of apologizes. Therefore, before issuing an apology, a crisis spokesperson
empathy contribute to organizational forgiveness. The current study should do enough research to see the most appropriate strategy to use.
also reveals that crisis type affects publics’ empathetic feelings toward Research has shown that apologies do not work all the time (Coombs &
the organization. Although both victim and accidental crises induced Holladay, 2008). People have a similar reaction to apologies when an
empathetic feelings, there was no statistically significant difference in organization shows sympathy and compensates the victims of a crisis.
the two types of crises. This could be explained by the fact that publics Therefore, organizations should also look for alternatives to normalized
do not attribute too much responsibility to the organization in both crisis response strategies rather than relying on apologies as the default
victim and accidental crises, hence inducing similar levels of empathy. response strategy. Showing sympathy and offering compensation to the
However, a preventable crisis induced less cognitive and affective victims of a crisis could help in reducing the negative effects of a pre
empathy, and this could be attributed to the huge responsibility placed ventable crisis. In addition, research suggests that favorable pre-crisis
on an organization for its failure to prevent the occurrence of a pre relationships can help mitigate effects of a crisis (Coombs & Holladay,
ventable crisis (Coombs, 2007). Thus, publics will punish the organi 2008). Therefore, there is need to build good relationships with the
zation for failure to prevent a crisis from happening by feeling less publics.
empathetic toward the organization.
Besides, when the CEO apologized, people felt more cognitive and 6. Limitations and future research
affective empathy toward the organization than when the CEO denied
the crisis, especially in the case of a victim crisis. This suggests that an This study has several limitations. First, we did not explore the role of
organization that is in crisis needs to apologize for the transgression as crisis severity in this study. Crisis severity is “the amount of damage
this, in turn, induces both affective and cognitive empathy among generated by a crisis including financial, human, and environmental
publics and eventually leads to forgiveness. These findings align with damage” (Coombs & Holladay, 2002, p. 169). Extant research suggests
research in both crisis communication and sociopsychology showing that crisis severity matters during a crisis (Zhou & Ki, 2018). Future
that empathy mediates the relationship between an apology and research could test the same variables but include the severity variable
receiving forgiveness (Davis & Gold, 2011; McCullough et al., 1998; (either high severity where death is involved or low severity where
Schoofs et al., 2019). However, as previous research suggests, crisis people did not die). Second, the current study only chose one crisis type
spokespeople should first examine the nature of the crisis before from each crisis cluster and therefore, does not comprehensively
selecting the most appropriate response strategy. This is because denial represent an entire cluster. For instance, human-error accidents and
could also be an effective strategy if the publics believe what the crisis organizational misdeed with injuries belong to the preventable cluster
spokespeople say about the crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2008). but the two differ in many ways including how the publics will react to
The existing study that has explored the role of empathy in crisis them. Thus, to improve the study’s generalizability, it would be prudent
communication focused on affective empathy only (see Schoofs et al., to test the relationship with other crisis types.
2019). However, the current study explored both affective and cognitive Third, our study used the CEO as the spokesperson in this crisis and it
empathy. Although social-psychological research has predominantly is easy for the publics to develop empathetic feelings toward an easily
focused on the role of affective empathy on forgiveness, cognitive identifiable person. The reason we used the CEO as the crisis spokes
empathy is considered a strong mediator of prosocial behavior such as person is that the CEO represents the organization and therefore any
forgiveness (Davis, 2005; Fehr et al., 2010). Besides, as research reveals, thing the CEO says is viewed as the organization’s stance (Lucero et al.,
when people are instructed to take an offender’s perspective (thus 2009; Men, 2011). Although we controlled for the CEO’s gender by
practice cognitive empathy), they are more likely to forgive the offender using a gender-neutral name, our study cannot be generalized among
(Takaku, 2001). The current study confirmed the finding that, compared organizations that opt to address a crisis without using a spokesperson.
to affective empathy, cognitive empathy is a strong mediator for both Thus, future research could manipulate the crisis scenarios to have one
forgiveness and favorable corporate reputation. scenario with a female spokesperson, another scenario with a male
In summary, both cognitive and affective empathy provide addi spokesperson, and another scenario with no spokesperson, and test the
tional variables that could explain the relationship between crisis type same variables we tested in the current study.
and crisis response strategies, and reputation and forgiveness. This calls Fourth, our participants were recruited through MTurk, which is an
for more research on the role of empathy in crisis communication, as online platform. This may limit the generalizability of our results to
pioneered by Schoofs et al. (2019). Besides, crisis communication other populations. Future research could use non-MTurk worker pop
scholars should consider both cognitive and affective empathy when ulations to ensure more generalizable results. Lastly, we did not include
exploring the impact of crises and crisis communication in general. account acceptance or the degree that participants believe that a crisis
response strategy adopted by an organization in crisis is appropriate and
how that affects post-crisis reputation (Coombs & Holladay, 2008).
Thus, more research is needed to address the issue of account
9
acceptance. In the same vein, more post-crisis behavior such as purchase Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communication: Insights
from situational crisis communication theory. Journal of Business Communication, 41
intentions and (un)willingness to spread negative word-of-mouth could
(3), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943604265607
be addressed in a future study. Overall, our study suggests that both Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organizational reputations during a crisis: The
cognitive and affective empathy could provide a link between crisis development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate
type, crisis response strategy, organizational reputation, and forgive Reputation Review, 10, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
Coombs, W. T. (2010). Pursuing evidence-based crisis communication. In W. T. Coombs,
ness. Thus, both cognitive and affective empathy provide promising & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), Handbook of crisis communication (pp. 719–725). Blackwell
areas for future research in crisis communication. Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444314885.ch39.
Coombs, W. T. (2015). The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from
strategic communication research. Business Horizons, 58(2), 141–148. https://doi.
Declaration of Competing Interest org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003
Coombs, T. (2019). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing and responding. Sage.
The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involve Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational
assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management
ment in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as Communication Quarterly, 16, 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/089331802237233
honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Reasoned action in crisis communication: An
membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other attribution theory- based approach to crisis management. In D. P. Millar, &
R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication
equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), (pp. 95–115). Lawrence Erlbaum.
or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). An exploratory study of public emotions: Affect
affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials and crisis. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Research on
emotion in organizations: Volume 1: The effect of affect in organizational settings (pp.
discussed in this manuscript.
271–288). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1746-9791(05)01111-9.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). The negative communication dynamic:
Data availability Exploring the impact of public affect on behavioral intentions. Journal of
Communication Management, 11(4), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13632540710843913
No data was used for the research described in the article. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response
Data will be made available on request. strategies: Clarifying apology’s role and value in crisis communication. Public
Relations Review, 34, 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.04.001
Coombs, W. T., Holladay, S. J., & Claeys, A. S. (2016). Debunking the myth of denial’s
References effectiveness in crisis communication: Context matters. Journal of Communication
Management, 20(4), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-06-2016-0042
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of Davis, M. H. (2005). A “constituent” approach to the study of perspective taking: What
adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex are its fundamental elements? In B. F. Malle, & S. D. Hodges (Eds.), Other minds: How
differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175. https:// humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp. 44–55). Guilford Press.
doi.org/10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00 Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
Blagrove, M., Hale, S., Lockheart, J., Carr, M., Jones, A., & Valli, K. (2019). Testing the multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1),
empathy theory of dreaming: The relationships between dream sharing and trait and 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
state empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/ Davis, J. R., & Gold, G. J. (2011). An examination of emotional empathy, attributions of
fpsyg.2019.01351 stability, and the link between perceived remorse and forgiveness. Personality and
Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of Individual Differences, 50(3), 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.031
empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Davis, D. E., Ho, M. Y., Griffin, B. J., Bell, C., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren, D. R., …
Cognition, 14(4), 698–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004 Westbrook, C. J. (2015). Forgiving the self and physical and mental health
Bohannon, J. (2011). Social science for pennies. Science, 334(6054). https://doi.org/ correlates: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 329–335.
10.1126/science.334.6054.307, 307–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000063
Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender De Waele, A., Schoofs, L., & Claeys, A.-S. (2020). The power of empathy: The dual
likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25 impacts of an emotional voice in organizational crisis communication. Journal of
(5), 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500501 Applied Communication Research, 48(3), 350–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new 00909882.2020.1750669
source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.
3–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/e527772014-223 Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/
Cargile, A. C., & Salazar, L. R. (2015). Sorry you had to go through that. Journal of 10.1177/1534582304267187
Language and Social Psychology, 35(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Decker, W. H. (2012). A firm’s image following alleged wrongdoing: Effects of the firm’s
0261927x15580595 prior reputation and response to the allegation. Corporate Reputation Review, 15(1),
Choi, J., & Chung, W. (2012). Analysis of the interactive relationship between apology 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2011.27
and product involvement in crisis communication. Journal of Business and Technical Dunlop, P. D., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Butcher, S. B., & Dykstra, A. (2015). Please accept
Communication, 27(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912458923 my sincere and humble apologies: The HEXACO model of personality and the
Chung, S., & Lee, S. (2017). Crisis management and corporate apology: The effects of proclivity to apologize. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 140–145. https://
causal attribution and apology type on publics’ cognitive and affective responses. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.004".
International Journal of Business Communication, 58(1), 125–144. https://doi.org/ Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding
10.1177/2329488417735646 the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of
Claeys, A.-S., & Cauberghe, V. (2012). Crisis response and crisis timing strategies, two Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/
sides of the same coin. Public Relations Review, 38, 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pspa0000115.supp
pubrev.2011.09.001 Fediuk, T. A., Coombs, W. T., & Botero, I. C. (2012). Exploring crisis from a receiver
Claeys, A., & Cauberghe, V. (2014). What makes crisis response strategies work? The perspective: Understanding public reactions during crisis events. In W. T. Coombs, &
impact of crisis involvement and message framing. Journal of Business Research, 67 S. J. Holladay (Eds.), Handbook of crisis communication (pp. 221–242). Wiley-
(2), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.10.005 Blackwell.
Claeys, A.-S., Cauberghe, V., & Leysen, J. (2013). Implications of stealing thunder for the Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic
impact of expressing emotions in organizational crisis communication. Journal of synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5),
Applied Communication Research, 41(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 894–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993
00909882.2013.806991 Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (1987). Affective processes and academic achievement.
Claeys, A.-S., Cauberghe, V., & Vyncke, P. (2010). Restoring reputations in times of crisis: Child Development, 58(5), 1335–1347. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130625
An experimental study of the situational crisis communication theory and the Fincham, F., May, R., & Beach, S. (2016). Forgiveness interventions for optimal close
moderating effects of locus of control. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 256–262. relationships: Problems and prospects. In C. Knee, & H. Reis (Eds.), Positive
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.05.004 Approaches to Optimal Relationship Development: Advances in Personal Relationships
Cooke, A. N., Bazzini, D. G., Curtin, L. A., & Emery, L. J. (2018). Empathic (pp. 304–325). Cambridge University Press.
understanding: Benefits of perspective-taking and facial mimicry instructions are Fuoli, M., van de Weijer, J., & Paradis, C. (2017). Denial outperforms apology in
mediated by self-other overlap. Motivation and Emotion, 42(3), 446–457. https://doi. repairing organizational trust despite strong evidence of guilt. Public Relations
org/10.1007/s11031-0189671-9679 Review, 43(4), 645–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.07.007
Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and
a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(3), analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5,
177–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1003_02 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00295.x
10
Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2019). The critical role of customer forgiveness in successful Moon, B. B., & Rhee, Y. (2012). Message strategies and forgiveness during crises.
service recovery. Journal of Business Research, 95, 376–391. https://doi.org/ Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(4), 677–694. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.049 10.1177/1077699012455388
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Le, Y.-C. L. (2009). Emotional contagion and empathy. In Noth, A. C., Jaroenwanit, P., & Brown, R. H. (2015). The roles of forgiveness towards
J. Decety, & W. Ickes (Eds.), Social neuroscience. The social neuroscience of empathy repurchase intentions from a cross cultural perspective. Athens Journal of Business &
(pp. 19–30). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/ Economics, 1(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajbe.1-3-4. https://doi.org/
9780262012973.003.0003. 10.30958/ajbe.1-3-4".
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Powell, P. A., & Roberts, J. (2017). Situational determinants of cognitive, affective, and
A regression-based approach. Guilford. compassionate empathy in naturalistic digital interactions. Computers in Human
Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., Utsey, S. O., Davis, D. E., Gartner, A. L., Jennings, D. J., Behavior, 68, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.024
… Dueck, A. (2012). Does forgiveness require interpersonal interactions? Individual Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
differences in conceptualization of forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
53(5), 687–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.026 Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879
Jin, Y. (2010). Making sense sensibly in crisis communication: How publics’ crisis Riek, B. M., & Mania, E. W. (2012). The antecedents and consequences of interpersonal
appraisals influence their negative emotions, coping strategy preferences, and crisis forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Personal Relationships, 19(2), 304–325. https://
response acceptance. Communication Research, 37, 522–552. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01363.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
10.1177/0093650210368256 6811.2011.01363.x".
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in Schoofs, L., Claeys, A.-S., Waele, A. D., & Cauberghe, V. (2019). The role of empathy in
social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology crisis communication: Providing a deeper understanding of how organizational
(Volume 2, pp. 219–266). Academic Press. crises and crisis communication affect reputation. Public Relations Review, 45, Article
Kim, H. J., & Cameron, G. T. (2011). Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and 101851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101851. https://doi.org/10.1016/
sadness in the publics’ response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response. j.pubrev.2019.101851".
Communication Research, 38(6), 826–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Schumann, K. (2014). An affirmed self and a better apology: The effect of self-affirmation
0093650210385813 on transgressors’ responses to victims. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54,
Kim, S., & Sung, K. H. (2014). Revisiting the effectiveness of base crisis response 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.013
strategies in comparison of reputation management crisis responses. Journal of Public Shen, L. (2010). On a scale of state empathy during message processing. Western Journal
Relations Research, 26(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2013.795867 of Communication, 74(5), 504–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Kim, S., Avery, E. J., & Lariscy, R. W. (2009). Are crisis communicators practicing what 10570314.2010.512278
we preach?: An evaluation of crisis response strategy analyzed in public relations Sisco, H. F. (2012). Nonprofit in crisis: An examination of the applicability of situational
research from 1991 to 2009. Public Relations Review, 35, 446–448. https://doi.org/ crisis communication theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(1), 1–17.
10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.08.002 https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2011.582207
Kraig, A. F., Barraza, J. A., Montgomery, W., & Zak, P. J. (2019). The neurophysiology of Stueber, K. R. (2010). Rediscovering empathy: Agency, folk psychology, and the human
corporate apologies: Why do people believe insincere apologies? International sciences. The MIT Press.
Journal of Business Communication. , Article 232948841985839. https://doi.org/ Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal
10.1177/2329488419858391 forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. The Journal
Le, B. M., Côté, S., Stellar, J., & Impett, E. A. (2020). The distinct effects of empathic of Social Psychology, 141(4), 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/
accuracy for a romantic partner’s appeasement and dominance emotions. 00224540109600567
Psychological Science, 31(6), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904975 Tsang, J.-A. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: An experimental test of gratitude.
Lee, B. K. (2004). Audience-oriented approach to crisis communication: A study of Hong Cognition and Emotion, 20(1), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Kong consumers’ evaluation of an organizational crisis. Communication Research, 31, 02699930500172341
600–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204267936 Valeri, L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Mediation analysis allowing for
Lichtenfeld, S., Maier, M. A., Buechner, V. L., & Capo, M. F. (2019). The influence of exposure–mediator interactions and causal interpretation: Theoretical assumptions
decisional and emotional forgiveness on attributions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros: Correction to Valeri and
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01425 VanderWeele (2013). Psychological Methods, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/
Lu, Y., & Huang, Y.-H. C. (2018). Getting emotional: An emotion-cognition dual-factor a0035596, 474–474.
model of crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 44(1), 98–107. https://doi. Van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Verhoeven, J. W. M. (2014). Emotional crisis
org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.09.007 communication. Public Relations Review, 40, 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Lucero, M., Tan Teng Kwang, A., & Pang, A. (2009). Crisis leadership: When should the pubrev.2014.03.004
CEO step up? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(3), 234–248. Verhoeven, J. W. M., Van Hoof, J. J., Ter Keurs, H., & Van Vuuren, M. (2012). Effects of
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280910980032 apologies and crisis responsibility on corporate and spokesperson reputation. Public
Lyon, L., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A relational approach examining the interplay of prior Relations Review, 38(3), 501–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.02.002
reputation and immediate response to a crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16 Wartick, S. L. (1992). The relationship between intense media exposure and change in
(3), 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1532-754x.2004.11925128 corporate reputation. Business & Society, 31(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/
McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., & Root, L. M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and 000765039203100104
forgiveness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
92(3), 490–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.490 Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer-Verlag.
moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct.
0033-2909.127.2.249 Guilford Press.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, J. E. L., Brown, S. W., & Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and
Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 281–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/
elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), j14676494.1991.tb00777.x
1586–1603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586 Wispé, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 314–321.
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.314
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.2.321 Worthington, E. L., Witvliet, C. V., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. J. (2007). Forgiveness, health,
McDonald, L. M., Sparks, B., & Glendon, A. I. (2010). Public reactions to company crisis and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness,
communication and causes. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 263–271. https://doi.org/ dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral
10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.04.004 Medicine, 30(4), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9105-8
Mehrabian, A. (1996). Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). Albert Załuski, W. (2017). On three types of empathy: The perfect, the truncated, and the
Mehrabian. contaminated. Logos I Ethos, 45(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.15633/lie.2119
Men, L. J. (2011). CEO credibility, perceived organizational reputation, and employee Zhou, Z., & Ki, E.-J. (2018). Does severity matter? An investigation of crisis severity from
engagement. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. defensive attribution theory perspective. Public Relations Review, 44(4), 610–618.
pubrev.2011.12.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.08.008
11

Crisis Communication: How To Deal With It

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crisis Communication: How To Deal With It

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crisis Communication: How To Deal With It

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102136

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Full Length Article

Crisis communication: The mediating role of cognitive and affective

Social-psychological researchers argue that attributions and 3. Method

p < .05, p < .01, p< .001.

p< .05, p < .01, p< .001.

You might also like