Abstract
AbstractAcross two experiments, this study examines the relative effectiveness of refutational messages employing different rhetorical modes in mitigating the reputational damage from an activist’s accusation of which validity can be contentious. Experiment 1 reveals that an appeal to logic generates more positive evaluations than an appeal to indignation in the message evaluations of transparency and reliability. Experiment 2 shows that an appeal to logic yields more positive attitude, higher perceptions of credibility and trust in the organization than an appeal to indignation when crisis involvement is high. The results of this study support the theoretical proposition of a dual‐process model of persuasion—individuals’ processing of crisis discourse is greatly affected by their level of involvement with the crisis.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
