Synthesizing Crisis Communication and Reputation Management

Abstract

This experiment used a counterbalanced, within-subjects design to assess two factors in crisis communication and reputation management: Defensive and apologetic responses to news stories and the effects of good and bad reputation. The dependent measures examined subjects' memory about the companies in the short and long term. Interaction effects ran counter to conventional wisdom abjuring the stonewall response. Subjects recalled fewer details about corporations with a bad reputation that apologized. However, a positive reputation reinforced by an apologetic response resulted in stronger ability to recall details. Reputation appears to be a powerful force in subsequent attributions about other aspects of the organization. The power of reputation was evidenced by significant differences found as a function of reputation and response in a measure assessing defensiveness. Subjects did not, however, link response with the measure evaluating reputation. The interaction of reputation and response found here suggests that traditional strategies do not apply in all cases and certainly calls into question pat answers or formulaic principles such as: “Always apologize” or “Never Say No Comment.” Taking a relational approach, reputation is an ongoing index of previous responses to situations, making the most immediate response strategy a key element of that index, but also a response that should be made in light of current reputation.