Risk‐reducing strategies after a product‐harm crisis: The moderating role of controllability attribution

Abstract

AbstractExtant research on crisis communication underexplored firm responses in terms of risk‐reducing strategies. When a product‐harm crisis occurs, a focal firm can use strategies targeted at repairing the damage that has already happened (i.e., to reduce consequence) or preventing the recurrence of the crisis (i.e., to reduce recurrence likelihood) to mitigate potential damage and assuage public concern. This paper reveals that the effectiveness of risk‐reducing strategies is influenced by consumers' controllability attribution. Controllability attribution refers to whether or not consumers perceive that a focal firm could have prevented an event from happening. Results of the study indicate that consequence‐reducing strategies lead to better attitudes, but not greater worry reduction than likelihood‐reducing strategies when controllability attribution is low. However, likelihood‐reducing strategies result in greater worry reduction, but not better attitudes than consequence‐reducing strategies when controllability attribution is high. Message credibility perceptions fully mediate the effects of risk‐reducing strategies on attitudes and worry reduction in the case of low firm controllability. The results highlight the role of controllability attribution in affecting the relative effectiveness of the two risk‐reducing strategies.