BUSHOR-1184; No.

of Pages 8

Business Horizons (2014) xxx, xxx—xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

The value of communication during a crisis:

Insights from strategic communication
research
W. Timothy Coombs

Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 161344, Orlando,
FL 32816-1344, U.S.A.

KEYWORDS Abstract The field of strategic communication encompasses a burgeoning crisis

Crisis communication; communication literature that seeks to identify effective and ineffective
Evidence-based; crisis communication efforts. Strategic communication has identified an array of
Crisis response crisis response strategies and the factors that determine when these response options
strategies; are effective or ineffective. This article extracts key lessons from the crisis commu-
Crisis nication research to develop a set of guidelines managers can use to inform their
crisis communication efforts. The analysis includes an examination of the crisis
response strategies and their desired outcomes, the timing of crisis responses, and
the situational factors that have proven to affect the effectiveness of crisis response
strategies. The research results provide the foundation for evidence-based crisis
communication. The guidelines help managers to understand how their communica-
tive choices will impact the corporate reputation and other important crisis out-
comes, and will help managers to make informed choices about crisis communication.
# 2014 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.

1. Crisis communication Inc., proved a key point about crisis communication:

just because you communicate during a crisis does
On July 6, 2013, a Canadian Pacific Railway locomo- not mean you necessarily make the situation better.
tive carrying crude oil derailed in Lac-Mégantic, In fact, a leading business journal noted that
Quebec, Canada. The ensuing explosions and fires Burkhardt’s coping tactics made the situation worse
resulted in 42 deaths, five people missing and pre- for the organization. Crisis communication should
sumed dead, and evacuation of the town. Edward be strategic; efforts should be designed to improve
Burkhardt, the CEO of parent company Rail World the situation for stakeholders and the firm in crisis.
What was Burkhardt’s Achilles heel? As this article
will demonstrate, the problem was ineffective crisis
E-mail address: timothy.coombs@ucf.edu communication.

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2014 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003
BUSHOR-1184; No. of Pages 8

2 W.T. Coombs

I will resist use of the label ‘best practices’ for negatively affected by the crisis. Instructing infor-
crisis communication. Best practices implies bench- mation prevents stakeholders from becoming vic-
marking and uniformity in a process. While we can tims (Sturges, 1994) by warning people to evacuate,
identify crisis types and similarities between crises, to not use a product, or to shelter-in-place. The
it is misleading to assume uniformity. Each crisis has strategic objective is public safety.
the potential to create unique communication de-
mands. What we can identify are lessons from the 2.2. Adjusting information
strategic communication analyses of crisis that pro-
duce consistent results. The evidence-based crisis Adjusting information includes efforts to help stake-
communication research provides guidance regard- holders cope psychologically with a crisis (Sturges,
ing what is typically effective and ineffective in a 1994). Expressions of sympathy, information about
crisis. As a whole, this guidance can help crisis the crisis event, counseling, and corrective action
managers make informed decisions about the stra- are all variations of adjusting information. Crises
tegic use of communication during their own crises. can create anxiety (Jin & Pang, 2010) and anger
The explication of evidence-based crisis commu- (Coombs & Holladay, 2005). Information about the
nication will begin with an examination of basic crisis crisis event reduces anxiety by reducing ambiguity.
response strategies, move on to a discussion of crisis Corrective action helps stakeholders by explaining
communication outcomes, and end with consider- how the organization is working to reduce the like-
ation of how various situational factors affect the lihood of a repeat of the crisis. Expressions of
effectiveness of basic crisis response strategies. This sympathy help to reduce anger while counseling
final section reviews primary lessons derived from the helps with extreme anxiety.
strategic crisis communication research.
2.3. Reputation repair

2. Crisis response strategies Reputation repair seeks to reduce the negative

effects a crisis has on the organization’s reputation
Crisis response strategies represent the words and and related assets. Reputation repair strategies can
actions managers employ in dealing with crises be organized into four groups: (1) denial, (2) reduc-
(Coombs, 2007). We can view crisis response strate- ing offensiveness, (3) bolstering, and (4) redress.
gies as the options crisis managers have available to Each strategy offers a slightly different means for
them when responding to a crisis. The strength of reputation repair.
the strategic communication approach to crisis com-
munication is the explication of crisis response 2.3.1. Denial
strategies. Crisis response strategies are only part Denial seeks to sever any connection between the
of the larger fabric of crisis communication. Broadly, organization and the crisis, with the objective of
there are two strategies for crisis communication: establishing no responsibility. Simple denial argues
(1) managing information and (2) managing mean- that the organization is not involved in a crisis and
ing. Managing information involves the collection that misperception links the two. An example would
and dissemination of crisis-related information. be a rumor (untrue information) about a crisis or
Managing meaning involves efforts to influence confusing the organization with a similar firm that is
how people perceive the crisis and/or the organiza- experiencing a crisis. A scapegoating strategy seeks
tion involved in the crisis (Coombs, 2010). Crisis to shift the blame to another actor; here, the
response strategies are primarily about managing organization is connected to the crisis but lays fault
meaning. Hence, the discussion of crisis response upon another entity. Either way, if the organization
strategies must consider the effects the crisis re- is not responsible for a crisis, the crisis should not
sponse strategies are intended to have upon stake- damage the organization (Benoit, 1995; Coombs,
holder perceptions of the crisis situation. Crisis 1995). Less damage is inflicted on an organization
response strategies can be divided into three cate- if people believe the organization is not connected
gories: instructing information, adjusting informa- to the crisis.
tion, and reputation repair. It is important to note a critical caveat of the
denial strategy. If an organization uses denial and
2.1. Instructing information then later is found to bear some responsibility for
the crisis, damage inflicted upon the organization is
Instructing information helps stakeholders to pro- intensified. Hence, manager should avoid using de-
tect themselves physically from a crisis. Crises cre- nial if they are at all unsure about the organization’s
ate a unique set of stakeholders: victims that are true culpability. Moreover, stakeholders generally
BUSHOR-1184; No. of Pages 8

The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research 3

have a negative view of the scapegoating strategy. Riel (2004), in the corporate sense, reputation is an
Stakeholders want organizations to take responsi- evaluation of an organization driven by the percep-
bility rather than try to pass the buck. Consider tions of stakeholders. Crises damage reputations,
when a crisis is caused by a supplier. The company and crisis communication is one resource that can be
whose name is on the product is expected to take used to repair that damage (Benoit, 1997). Because
ultimate responsibility and not pass that responsi- reputation is a valued intangible asset, reputational
bility down the supply chain. For example, when damage should be avoided (Fombrun & van Riel,
Mattel attempted to blame the use of lead paint in 2004). The two dominant emotions that emerge in
its toys on a supplier, customers reacted negatively. the crisis communication research are anger and
Because stakeholders assume Mattel should be re- anxiety. Stakeholders are angry that organizations
sponsible for its final products, these wanted the allowed a crisis to occur and to harm others (Coombs
company to take responsibility for the ensuing recall & Holladay, 2005). Crises produce anxiety because
and crisis. people are afraid the crisis may harm them or worry
about a recurrence of the crisis (Jin & Pang, 2010).
2.3.2. Reducing offensiveness Anger and anxiety can alter how stakeholders inter-
Reducing offensiveness strategies acknowledge an act with an organization. Therefore, crises can have
organization bears some responsibility for the crisis. direct financial costs through declines in purchase
However, the organization claims it had little con- intentions and stock prices (Jones, Jones, & Little,
trol over the situation or the crisis was not as bad as 2000). Anger has been shown to increase the likeli-
people perceived. Arguing lack of control or minimal hood of negative word of mouth after a crisis, and
damage to others serves to reduce attributions of negative word of mouth can damage an organization
crisis responsibility (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). In in many ways (Tucker & Melewar, 2005). However,
reality, organizations seldom utilize reduce offen- crisis communication can be used to reduce the
siveness crisis response strategies. negative effects of a crisis on a range of outcome
variables. The challenge lies in connecting the crisis
2.3.3. Bolstering communication strategies to the outcome variables.
Bolstering strategies seek to add positive informa- The question becomes: How can crisis communica-
tion to the crisis situation. Managers might remind tion reduce the negative effects of a crisis? The
stakeholders of the organization’s past good works key to addressing that question is the cluster of
or thank those who helped combat the crisis, such as situational factors that shape how crises create
first responders or loyal customers. Bolstering works negative outcomes for organizations.
by adding positive information to help offset nega-
tive information generated by a crisis.
4. Situational factors
2.3.4. Redress
Redress strategies include actions designed to pri- To protect an organization from crisis harms, we
oritize victim concerns. Compensation offers money must comprehend how a crisis inflicts harms on an
or other types of rewards to victims. Apology ac- organization. Research has identified four situation-
cepts responsibility for the crisis and asks victims for al factors that help us understand the damaging
forgiveness. The idea behind redress strategies is to effects of crises: (1) crisis responsibility, (2) compe-
engage in positive actions toward victims in order to tence and integrity, (3) long-term and short-term
offset negatives from the crisis. threat assessment, and (4) timing.

4.1. Crisis responsibility

3. Outcomes
Crisis responsibility represents the amount of respon-
Outcome variables are the second set of variables sibility for a crisis that stakeholders attribute to the
that are important to understanding the effects of organization (Coombs, 1995). Crisis responsibility is
crisis communication. Outcome variables represent derived from attribution theory. The more people
the different factors that crisis communication attribute a negative event to the person involved, the
strategies can influence, and reflect efforts to man- more negative they are toward that person. Similarly,
age meaning. The five most common outcome var- the more stakeholders attribute crisis responsibility
iables are reputation, emotion, purchase intention, to an organization, the more damage the crisis inflicts
stock prices, and word of mouth. Reputation is easily upon the organization–—including reputational dam-
the most studied outcome variable in crisis commu- age, purchase intention, anger, and negative word of
nication research. As defined by Fombrun and van mouth (Coombs & Holladay, 1996, 2002, 2005;
BUSHOR-1184; No. of Pages 8

4 W.T. Coombs

Schwarz, 2008). Situational Crisis Communication indeed the organization bears any responsibility
Theory (SCCT) has mapped critical variables that for the crisis.
shape attributions of crisis responsibility.
SCCT uses a two-step process to assess attribu- 4.3. Long-term and short-term threat
tions of crisis responsibility. The first step entails assessment
determining the crisis type. The crisis type is the
general frame that is being used to define the crisis The threat appraisal model, drawing upon Contin-
situation. For example, a victim crisis frame posi- gency Theory from the field of public relations, finds
tions the organization as a victim of the crisis and that long-term threats are perceived as stronger
thus produces minimal attributions of crisis respon- than short-term threats. If a crisis can be classified
sibility, while a preventable crisis frame produces as a long-term threat, it will require greater atten-
strong attributions of organizational responsibility. tion and a more victim-oriented, accommodative
Examples of victim crises include workplace vio- response than would a short-term crisis (Jin, 2009;
lence, rumors, product tampering, and outside at- Jin & Cameron, 2007).
tacks. Preventable crises include management
misconduct that knowingly places stakeholders at 4.4. Timing
risk and/or violates laws or regulations. The second
step entails evaluating intensifying factors in the Timing refers to timing of the release of information
situation. A history of similar past crises or a nega- acknowledging that a crisis exists. This line of re-
tive prior reputation will intensify attributions of search is known as ‘stealing thunder.’ Stealing thun-
the organization’s crisis responsibility (Coombs, der is a concept derived from legal studies and
1995, 2004, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002). The refers to situations in which a defense attorney will
two-step assessment allows crisis managers to de- bring up a weakness before opposing counsel has the
termine if stakeholders are likely to view the orga- opportunity to do so. Being the first to address a
nization as bearing little or significant responsibility weakness reduces damage to the legal case
for the crisis. (Williams, Bourgeois, & Croyle, 1993). Stealing
thunder in crisis communication occurs when the
4.2. Competence and integrity organization in crisis is the first entity to report the
existence of the crisis. Stealing thunder research
Competence and integrity are two critical elements consistently demonstrates that a crisis inflicts sig-
of corporate reputation (Brown & Dacin, 1997). nificantly less reputational and other damage to an
Psychological research demonstrates that people organization when the organization is the source of
are more willing to forgive trust violations related the initial report about the crisis compared to when
to competence than trust violations related to in- another party, such as the news media, is the first to
tegrity; this is similar to the difference between release the information (Arpan & Pompper, 2003;
accidental acts (competence) and intentional acts Claeys & Cauberghe, 2010). It benefits the organi-
(integrity). Research shows that apologies are very zation to release initial information about a crisis
effective at addressing trust violations resulting occurrence because reputational damage is intensi-
from competence. However, apologies serve to in- fied if another party is instead the first to do so.
tensify damage from trust violations resulting from
integrity. The damage intensifies because the apol-
ogy reinforces that the person is guilty of a moral 5. Crafting evidence-based crisis
violation. Denial was found to prevent trust prob- communication
lems with integrity violations (Kim, Dirks, Cooper, &
Ferrin, 2006; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004). A Crisis communication research has been generated
similar pattern has been found with organizational in public relations, corporate communication, mar-
crises when using denial. The dilemma is that when keting, management, and psychology. I reviewed a
an organization is guilty of an integrity-based crisis range of this research when identifying the key
(has some responsibility for the crisis), denial is an factors involved in crisis communication: crisis
ineffective option. If managers deny any responsi- response strategies, situational factors, and
bility for a crisis and are then found to bear some outcomes. Using the research as a foundation, we
responsibility for it, damage to the organization will can construct a fairly substantial set of evidence-
be intensified (Coombs & Holladay, 2014). This based recommendations for crisis communicators.
means that crisis managers must use a strategy–— What follows is a discussion of guidance that can be
or some combination thereof–—that is perceived to distilled from the extant research. Again, this guid-
accept a level of responsibility for the crisis, if ance represents not best practices but rather
BUSHOR-1184; No. of Pages 8

The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research 5

insights regarding which crisis response strategies managers should use the denial strategy and provide
can be beneficial in a particular crisis and which can evidence against the erroneous perception that the
actually make the crisis situation worse. The guid- organization was in crisis. If successful, the denial
ance discussion is divided into three sections: strategy separates the organization from the crisis,
(1) recommendations for action, (2) warnings, and thereby protecting organizational assets from
(3) long-term versus short-term gain. The recom- damage.
mendations for action section is the longest and Minimal Crisis Responsibility Crisis Situation. In
seeks to identify the best available advice about this situation, the organization does have some link
how crisis managers might communicate during spe- and responsibility for the crisis. The crisis will in-
cific crisis situations. The warnings section discusses volve some external attack such as product tamper-
the dangers inherent in utilizing a denial strategy. ing, workplace violence, or terrorism. Instructing
Finally, the long-term versus short-term gain section and adjusting information are necessary to address
considers the consequences of flying low or being the needs of victims or potential victims. When
aggressive with crisis communication. there are victims, crisis managers must emphasize
what is being done to help the victims. Public safety
5.1. Recommendations for action and welfare must be shown as the organization’s top
priorities. Victim focus is what will help limit dam-
This section identifies key situational factors and age to organizational assets.
how these factors should shape the selection of Strong Crisis Responsibility Crisis Situation. In
crisis response strategies, as well as subsequent this situation, the organization is the source
effects of chosen crisis response strategies on crisis of the crisis and could have taken actions to reduce
outcomes. Table 1 provides a quick summary of the the likelihood of the crisis. Examples include man-
crisis communication guidance. agers knowingly sending an unsafe product to mar-
No Crisis Responsibility Crisis Situation. In this ket or purposely violating laws or regulations.
situation, the organization bears no responsibility Instructing and adjusting information is the initial
for the crisis. The crisis could be based on false response, as these crises produce victims. Crisis
information (a rumor) or be a case of mistaken managers must determine if they will add compen-
identity (a different firm is involved). Crisis sation, apology, or both to their response. Given the

Table 1. Overview of crisis response strategy guidance

Crisis Situation Crisis Response Strategies Outcomes
No Crisis Responsibility Denial  Protect reputations and purchase intention
 Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth
Minimal Crisis Responsibility Instructing and Adjusting  Protect reputations and purchase intention
Information  Reduce anger, anxiety, likelihood of negative
word of mouth
Strong Crisis Responsibility Instructing and Adjusting  Protect reputations and purchase intention
Information  Reduce anger, anxiety, likelihood of negative
apology, compensation, word of mouth
or both
Integrity-based Crisis Instructing and Adjusting  Protect reputations and purchase intention
Information  Reduce anger, anxiety, likelihood of negative
apology, compensation, or both word of mouth
Competence-based Crisis Instructing and Adjusting  Protect reputations and purchase intention
Information  Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
apology word of mouth
Long-term Threat Instructing and  Protect reputations and purchase intention
Adjusting Information  Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
apology, compensation, word of mouth
or both
Timing Instructing and Adjusting  Protect reputations and purchase intention
Information  Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth
BUSHOR-1184; No. of Pages 8

6 W.T. Coombs

high level of crisis responsibility in this situation, must be reported first by the federal government. As
crisis managers–—if interested in maximizing the part of the organization’s initial statement, it is still
reputation repair potential of crisis response useful to provide instructing and adjusting informa-
strategies–—must go beyond instructing and adjust- tion. By stealing thunder, crisis managers can sig-
ing to enact the most accommodative strategies nificantly reduce the damage a crisis inflicts on the
possible. Simply using instructing and adjusting in- organization.
formation is a viable response, but less optimal than Except for No Crisis Responsibility, the seven
adding an accommodative strategy. By seeking to aforementioned crisis situations are not mutually
help the victims, crisis managers can lessen damage exclusive. Crisis managers may face crisis situations
suffered by the organization. that entail a combination of the situational factors,
Integrity-based Crisis Situation. In this case, the such as an integrity-based crisis that produces
crisis situation will be similar to the attribution of strong attributions of crisis responsibility and
strong crisis responsibility crises. The two crisis presents the opportunity to steal thunder. Table 1
situations are very similar but not isomorphic. In demonstrates overlap in the optimal crisis response
integrity-based crises, managers demonstrate little strategies; hence, overlaps between the crisis sit-
regard for morality. Examples include knowingly uations are easily accommodated. In other words,
sending a dangerous product to market or embez- there is a consistency to the pattern of crisis re-
zling. Instructing and adjusting information is the sponse strategies that will help crisis managers
initial response. Crisis managers then must deter- repair organizational damage caused by crises. That
mine if they will add compensation, apology, or both central pattern is a base response of instructing and
to their response. Again, a victim focus is what will adjusting information–—when there are victims–—
help to reduce the amount of damage an organiza- and then a decision as to whether or not to include
tion suffers from the crisis. an apology, compensation, or a combination of the
Competence-based Crisis Situation. In this situa- two. The unique features of each crisis will help to
tion, the crisis will reveal a problem arising from an guide the final crisis response strategies crisis man-
error that stems from the organization’s lack of skill. agers employ.
The organization exposes a competency gap be-
tween what is required of its duties and how the 5.2. Warnings
organization performs those duties. Industrial and
transportation accidents can be competence-based. In addition to actions that should benefit the orga-
Instructing and adjusting information is the initial nization during a crisis, two warnings should be
response if there are victims. An apology is strongly heeded in order to avoid creating additional prob-
recommended because of its ability to rebuild trust lems. First, avoid scapegoating, even if another
for competence violations. The addition of an apol- organization bears some responsibility for the crisis.
ogy should significantly help to repair damage done Crisis managers can mention involvement of another
by the crisis. firm (share blame), but should not shift all or most of
Long-term Threat Crisis Situation. In this situa- the burden to the other party. Crisis managers must
tion, the crisis has staying power and can inflict indicate that they understand the situation is theirs
harm on an organization for an extended period of to deal with. Second, denial represents a major risk.
time. Instructing and adjusting information is the If any evidence emerges linking an organization to
initial response if there are victims. An apology the crisis after a denial strategy is used, damage will
should be added to quicken the end of the crisis. be intensified (Coombs & Holladay, 2014). In fact,
An apology is an effective way to end media interest researchers have identified the ways in which de-
in a crisis and shorten attention span regarding the nials can trigger additional damage to an organiza-
crisis (Hearit, 2006). The combination of strategies tion as a type of ‘double crisis.’ A double crisis
should provide some level of repair to organizational occurs when the crisis response is so ineffective
damage created by the crisis. or inappropriate that it appears to create a second
Timing Crisis Situation. In this situation, the crisis crisis for the organization (Frandsen & Johansen,
manager has the opportunity to be the first to 2010; Grebe, 2013).
release information about the crisis. It is not always
possible for the firm to be the first source of infor- 5.3. Short-term versus long-term gain
mation: the news media or some social media source
might be the first to report the crisis, or legal A crisis can inflict damage on an organization’s
requirements might dictate that a government reputation and its stock price. ‘Fly low’ approaches
agency is the entity that must report it. For exam- can help minimize initial damage to both reputa-
ple, most product harm events in the United States tions and stock prices. The fly low approach is when
BUSHOR-1184; No. of Pages 8

The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research 7

crisis managers say little about the crisis (Moran & References
Gregory, 2014). However, the fly low approach is
risky in that it seems to suppress the ability of both Arpan, L. M., & Pompper, D. (2003). Stormy weather: Testing
reputations and stock prices to rebound. Aggressive ‘‘stealing thunder’’ as a crisis communication strategy to
responses can intensify initial damage to reputation improve communication flow between organizations and jour-
(Moran & Gregory, 2014) and stock price (Raithel, nalists. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 291—308.
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory
2014), but also seem to produce a quicker rebound. of image restoration. Albany, NY: State University of New York
An aggressive response involves immediately talking Press.
about the crisis and may even include the use of an Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communi-
apology. Crisis managers need to decide if they want cation. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177—186.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the
a short-term or long-term gain from their crisis
product: Corporate associations and consumer product
communication efforts. responses. The Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68—84.
Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2010). Crisis response and crisis
timing strategies: Two sides of the same coin. Public Relations
Review, 38(1), 83—88.
6. Limitations Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The develop-
ment of guidelines for the selection of the ‘‘appropriate’’
One criticism of crisis communication research is crisis response strategies. Management Communication
that it forgets about the actual constraints manag- Quarterly, 8(4), 447—476.
Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis
ers face in crisis situations. Financial and legal communications: Insights from situational crisis communica-
concerns can limit how crisis managers respond to tion theory. Journal of Business Communication, 41(3),
a crisis (Fitzpatrick & Rubin, 1995; Tyler, 1997). That 265—289.
is why it is important to address the crisis response Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during
strategies that crisis managers should avoid. While a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis
communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3),
constraints might prevent the selection of optimal
163—177.
crisis response strategies, crisis managers should Coombs, W. T. (2010). Crisis communication: A developing field.
know how to avoid making the situation worse In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (2nd ed.,
and which strategies provide a minimal amount of pp. 477—488). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
repair potential. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and
attributions in a crisis: An experimental study of crisis
communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4),
279—295.
7. Conclusion Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers
protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational
crisis communication theory. Management Communication
Crisis communication is an applied discipline be- Quarterly, 16(2), 165—186.
cause it seeks to find solutions to real-world prob- Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). Exploratory study of
lems. The earliest publications in the crisis stakeholder emotions: Affect and crisis. In N. M. Ashkanasy,
communication body of knowledge were based on W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Research on emotion in
organizations: Vol. 1. The effect of affect in organizational
practitioner advice; practitioners who underwent
settings (pp. 271—288). New York: Elsevier.
crises wrote about their experiences and con- Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2014, March 7). Corporate
structed lists of what to do and what not to do. tweets: Social or parasocial interaction? Paper presented at
These lists appear in practitioner-oriented publica- the 17th Annual International Public Relations Research Con-
tions (Coombs, 2010). The early and foundational ference, Miami, FL.
Erez, A., & Grant, A. M. (2014). Separating data from intuition:
crisis communication research publications re-
Bridging evidence into the management classroom. The
flected personal experience rather than systematic Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(1),
knowledge (Erez & Grant, 2014). In the United 104—119.
States, crisis communication emerged as a practice Fitzpatrick, K. R., & Rubin, M. S. (1995). Public relations vs. legal
in the late 1980s. However, serious research on crisis strategies in organizational crisis decisions. Public Relations
Review, 21(1), 21—33.
communication did not appear until the 1990s. As is
Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and fortune:
a common pattern, the practice of crisis communi- How successful companies build winning reputations.
cation was ahead of research. The early research New York: Prentice Hall.
was predicated on subjective analyses of cases, not Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2010). Crisis communication,
evidence produced by rigorous systematic research. complexity, and the cartoon affair: A case study. In W. T.
Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis
Some 30 years later, crisis communication should be
communication (pp. 425—448). Boston: Blackwell.
heeding the call of evidence-based management Grebe, S. K. (2013). Things can get worse: How mismanagement
and seeking to use systematic research to guide of a crisis response strategy can cause a secondary or
the practice of crisis communication. double crisis: The example of the AWB corporate scandal.
BUSHOR-1184; No. of Pages 8

8 W.T. Coombs

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(1), versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based
70—86. trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104—118.
Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate Moran, R., & Gregory, J. R. (2014). Post crisis: Engage–—or fly low?
response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brunswick Review, 8, 52—54.
Jin, Y. (2009). The effects of public’s cognitive appraisal of Raithel, S. (2014, March 4). Negative celebrity endorser publicity
emotions in crises on crisis coping and strategy assessment. and stock returns: How critical are immediate firm reactions?
Public Relations Review, 35(3), 310—313. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the International
Jin, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). The effects of threat type and Crisis and Risk Communication Conference, Orlando, FL.
duration on public relations practitioner’s cognitive, affec- Schwarz, A. (2008). Covariation-based causal attributions during
tive, and conative responses in crisis situations. Journal of organizational crises: Suggestions for extending situational
Public Relations Research, 19(3), 255—281. crisis communication theory. International Journal of Strate-
Jin, Y., & Pang, A. (2010). Future directions of crisis communica- gic Communication, 2(1), 31—53.
tion research: Emotions in crisis–—The next frontier. In W. T. Sturges, D. L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy
Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis for organizational survival. Management Communication
communication (pp. 677—682). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Quarterly, 7(3), 297—316.
Jones, G. H., Jones, B. H., & Little, P. (2000). Reputation as Tucker, L., & Melewar, T. C. (2005). Corporate reputation and
reservoir: Buffering against loss in times of economic crisis. crisis management: The threat and manageability of anti-
Corporate Reputation Review, 3(1), 21—29. corporatism. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 377—387.
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When Tyler, L. (1997). Liability means never being able to say you’re
more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. sorry: Corporate guilt, legal constraints, and defensiveness
external attributions for the repair of trust after a compe- in corporate communication. Management Communication
tence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Be- Quarterly, 11(1), 51—73.
havior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 49—65. Williams, K. D., Bourgeois, M. J., & Croyle, R. T. (1993). The
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials. Law and
Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology Human Behavior. 17(6), 597—609.