Full Apology Research Articles

The tethered humanity hypothesis among victims of interpersonal harm: The role of apologies, forgiveness, and the relation between self-, other-, and meta-perceptions of humanity

When interpersonal harm is inflicted, victims stop seeing themselves as fully human. The tethered humanity hypothesis proposes that victims restore a full human status when perpetrators undertake attempts at reconciliation and victims manage to reestablish the humanness of their perpetrators. In two studies, we tested this hypothesis and manipulated the perpetrators attempts at apologizing for their misconduct. Participants were either included or socially excluded and received a full or self-exonerating apology or a hostile message when they were excluded. Results indicated that victims dehumanized themselves and their ostracizers when they were socially excluded and managed to regain a full human status and rehumanized their perpetrators when a full apology was uttered. Moreover, regression analyses indicated that different humanness judgments (self, other, and meta-humanness) become tethered only when perpetrators apologized, while forgiving the perpetrator always correlated with the rehumanization of the self regardless of the perpetrator’s apology.

Can transitional amnesties promote restorative justice?

ABSTRACT I assess a justification for the granting of transitional amnesties conditional, at the minimum, upon full disclosure of wrongdoing by perpetrators. According to this rationale, such amnesties are morally legitimate because they foster restorative justice. I distinguish between two conceptions of restorative justice that I call the punishment-deprioritizing and punishment-prescribing conceptions. I argue that while conditional amnesties granted to perpetrators of minor offences conditional upon full disclosure, verbal apology and reparations could promote restorative justice well enough to justify them in the eyes of adherents of the punishment-deprioritizing conception, conditional amnesties in favour of perpetrators of serious human rights abuses, because they are unlikely ever to be conditional upon perpetrators’ carrying out burdensome reparations, are likely to promote restorative justice on the punishment-deprioritizing conception only to a limited extent and not enough to justify them from the standpoint of adherents to this conception. Conditional amnesties, I contend, cannot ever promote restorative justice on the punishment-prescribing conception because it holds that punishment is indispensable for the achievement of the aims of restorative justice and amnesties exempt perpetrators from criminal punishment.

Aligning Political Options and Aggregated Personal Opinions on the Issues

Much work has been done in studying how to aggregate voter opinions to decide a fair election. These models presuppose that each voter has a solid understanding of their choices and can express that opinion in the election process. We discuss why this is not always the case. Further, we explore some of the issues that arise when considering the multidimensional nature of both voter preference, with respect to the slate of issues in an election, and the platforms of the various candidates, with respect to the same slate of issues. In light of the complications we encounter and with full apologies to Jonathan Swift, a modest proposal is made for conducting future elections in a way that offers all of the voters a true chance to find a voice.

KRİZ İLETİŞİMİNDE KURUMSAL ÖZÜR YANITLARININ KAMU ÖFKESİ ÜZERİNDE ETKİSİ: DENEYSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Kriz durumlarında gerçekleştirilecek kriz iletişiminin en önemli yanını krizlere verilen yanıtlar oluşturmaktadır. Kurumların kriz durumlarında krize neden olan olayın ya da durumun sorumluluğunu üstlenmesi, sorumluluğu üstlendiğini nasıl ifade ettiği ve mağdurlara gösterdiği sempati düzeyi krizin getireceği olumsuzlukların yönünü olumluya çevirebilmesi açısından önemli görülmektedir. Çünkü kriz yanıtlarında kullanılan ifadelerin kamunun öfkesi üzerinde olumlu ya da olumsuz yönde etkisi olabileceği değerlendirilmektedir. Böylece krizin yönetiminde kullanılan yanıt dili kuruma olumlu ya da olumsuz sonuçlar getirebilecektir. Bu açıdan özür ifadelerinde kullanılan ifadelerin kamunun öfkesini azaltması hususunda ne kadar etkili olduğunu araştırmak önemlidir. Bu çalışmayı diğer kriz çalışmalarından ayrıştıran önem, kurumların özür yanıtlarında sadece sorumluluk kabulü ve sempati içeren ifadeleri kullanıp kullanmadığı değil, ayrıca hangi oranda sempatinin ve sorumluluğun kullanılarak kamunun öfkesinin rahatlatılıp rahatlatılamadığını araştırmaktır. Bu amaca yönelik, kriz yanıt türlerinin (kurumsal savunma) kamunun duygusal tepkilerinden birisi olan öfke üzerindeki etkisini incelemek için yarı deneysel araştırma tasarımı kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar 1) aktif sorumluluk ve yüksek sempati (tam özür); (2) aktif sorumluluk ve düşük sempati (taahhütlü özür); (3) pasif sorumluluk ve yüksek sempati (mazeretli özür) ve (4) pasif sorumluluk ve düşük sempati (kibirli özür) söylemleri içeren krize yanıt mesajlarına rastgele maruz kalmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular sonucunda aktif sorumluluğu olan bir özür ifadesinin, pasif sorumluluğu olan bir özür ifadesine göre; yine, yüksek düzeyde bir sempati ifadesinin, düşük düzeyde bir sempati ifadesi içeren bir tepki mesajına göre kamunun öfkesini daha fazla rahatlatamadığı ortaya konulmuştur.

Rights, Gifts, Repair

Rights, Gifts, Repair

Crisis responses in public hospitals: case studies in Hong Kong

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the medical incident responses from two public hospitals in Hong Kong, namely, Kowloon Hospital and Caritas Medical Centre, in order to improve the strategic preparation for crisis management in hospitals. Design/methodology/approach The paper analyses two medical incidents using Situational Crisis Communication Theory by Coombs (2007). The two case studies presented herein demonstrate the importance of consistency in terms of crisis responses. Findings For the first case, the crisis responses from different parties after the incident, including Hospital Authority, the doctor and the nurses from Kowloon Hospital, are contradicting to each other. First, Hospital Authority confirmed that the incident is solely an accident which is a denial response. Second, the doctor passed the responsibility to the nurses which is a scapegoating response. Third, the nurses tend to reduce the responsibility for the death of patient by excusing strategy. As a whole, their responses are inconsistent to each other. For the second case, Caritas had initially denied the responsibilities, but finally had given partial apology under public pressure. That makes people think that Caritas does not really regret. Originality/value Rebuilding posture should be used instead of denial and diminishment posture. However, public organization and civil servants are reluctant to use a full apology due to possible legal consequences. The apology ordinance would ease the pressure to express regret and sympathy.

Communicating with patients about breakdowns in care: a national randomised vignette-based survey

BackgroundMany patients are reluctant to speak up about breakdowns in care, resulting in missed opportunities to respond to individual patients and improve the system. Effective approaches to encouraging patients to...

Disclosure of Error in the Intensive Care Unit

Each year, as many as 98,000 hospital deaths in the United States can be attributed to medical error. Considering that at least half of all medical errors go unreported, the impact they have on mortality, morbidity, prolonged hospital stay, rising hospital costs, and the doctor-patient relationship cannot be overemphasized. At the heart of the dilemma are patients and their family members, who rely on clinicians to provide optimal medical care, devoid of mistakes and error, and want an apology if an error has taken place. In this review, we discuss the moral obligation of hospitals to disclose medical error, no matter what the impact. Whereas in the past, a paternalistic approach to medicine viewed this acknowledgment as weakness, there is now a consensus to advocate for full disclosure, apology, and discussions that facilitate early disclosure of error using teams representing administration, patient care liaisons, and treatment providers. Many institutions now recognize that medical errors are commonly the result of a breakdown of checks and balances, and an increasing number are implementing protocols that target system errors to prevent similar future occurrences. We examine institutions across the United States that take a proactive approach by assembling “communication and resolution” programs to address the concerns of patients and their families through the process of disclosure. We also explore barriers to disclosure, which are attributed to lack of training, fear of litigation, and the “shame and blame culture.” We discuss the benefit, to both patient and provider, of disclosure of accountability as we move toward a culture of strengthening systems and improving patient care and patient-provider relationships. Key words: apology, culture, disclosure, error, resolution

Corporate apology for environmental damage

Apologies are a powerful way to restore trust and reduce punishment costs in bilateral settings. But what do we know about public apologies for large scale man-made disasters? Herein we report on results from an experiment with apologies in a multilateral setting: a firm-caused environmental disaster. Subjects read about an oil spill scenario, and learned whether the oil firm made a full apology, a partial apology, or no apology, and whether the firm had a good, bad, or no environmental reputation. A partial apology is one that fails to accept full material responsibility for damages, such as by shifting the blame to another party. We find that full apologies and better reputation reduce the demand for punishment. However, full apologies and reputation are substitutes, with reputation being significantly more important. Additionally, apologies do not reduce the demand for compensation and may increase it if the firm is clearly a bad actor, or if admission of guilt is the only information subjects have. Our results help explain corporate social responsibility investments and greenwashing, and why many public apologies over an environmental disaster are only partial apologies.

Disclosure of Error in the Intensive Care Unit

Each year, as many as 98,000 hospital deaths in the United States can be attributed to medical error. Considering that at least half of all medical errors go unreported, the impact they have on mortality, morbidity, prolonged hospital stay, rising hospital costs, and the doctor-patient relationship cannot be overemphasized. At the heart of the dilemma are patients and their family members, who rely on clinicians to provide optimal medical care, devoid of mistakes and error, and want an apology if an error has taken place. In this review, we discuss the moral obligation of hospitals to disclose medical error, no matter what the impact. Whereas in the past, a paternalistic approach to medicine viewed this acknowledgment as weakness, there is now a consensus to advocate for full disclosure, apology, and discussions that facilitate early disclosure of error using teams representing administration, patient care liaisons, and treatment providers. Many institutions now recognize that medical errors are commonly the result of a breakdown of checks and balances, and an increasing number are implementing protocols that target system errors to prevent similar future occurrences. We examine institutions across the United States that take a proactive approach by assembling “communication and resolution” programs to address the concerns of patients and their families through the process of disclosure. We also explore barriers to disclosure, which are attributed to lack of training, fear of litigation, and the “shame and blame culture.” We discuss the benefit, to both patient and provider, of disclosure of accountability as we move toward a culture of strengthening systems and improving patient care and patient-provider relationships. Key words: apology, culture, disclosure, error, resolution

Disclosure of Error in the Intensive Care Unit

Each year, as many as 98,000 hospital deaths in the United States can be attributed to medical error. Considering that at least half of all medical errors go unreported, the impact they have on mortality, morbidity, prolonged hospital stay, rising hospital costs, and the doctor-patient relationship cannot be overemphasized. At the heart of the dilemma are patients and their family members, who rely on clinicians to provide optimal medical care, devoid of mistakes and error, and want an apology if an error has taken place. In this review, we discuss the moral obligation of hospitals to disclose medical error, no matter what the impact. Whereas in the past, a paternalistic approach to medicine viewed this acknowledgment as weakness, there is now a consensus to advocate for full disclosure, apology, and discussions that facilitate early disclosure of error using teams representing administration, patient care liaisons, and treatment providers. Many institutions now recognize that medical errors are commonly the result of a breakdown of checks and balances, and an increasing number are implementing protocols that target system errors to prevent similar future occurrences. We examine institutions across the United States that take a proactive approach by assembling “communication and resolution” programs to address the concerns of patients and their families through the process of disclosure. We also explore barriers to disclosure, which are attributed to lack of training, fear of litigation, and the “shame and blame culture.” We discuss the benefit, to both patient and provider, of disclosure of accountability as we move toward a culture of strengthening systems and improving patient care and patient-provider relationships. Key words: apology, culture, disclosure, error, resolution

The Patients' Perspective: Hematological Cancer Patients' Experiences of Adverse Events as Part of Care.

To describe in a sample of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of a hematological cancer: (a) the proportion who self-report experiencing an unexpected adverse event as part of their care; (b) how the adverse event was handled by the health-care organization; and (c) the sociodemographic, disease, and treatment characteristics associated with experiencing an adverse event. Cross sectional survey. Three Australian hematological oncology treatment centers. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of a hematological cancer. Participants were asked if they had ever experienced an adverse event in their cancer care. Those who did were asked about their perceptions concerning what the adverse event was related to, how much harm the event caused, who identified the adverse event, and how the health-care organization responded to the adverse event. Forty-two participants (26.4%) perceived that they had experienced an unexpected adverse event as part of their care. Most were told about the event as soon as it happened (62%) and were given an explanation about why the event occurred (75%). Fewer were given information about how to take the matter further if they wished (43%). Participants who were unemployed, retired, disabled, or performed home duties and those whose employment status was "other" had higher odds of reporting an adverse event than those in full- or part-time employment. There is a need for routinely querying patients during their treatment regarding the occurrence of unexpected adverse events. In addition, there is a need for improvement in the responses of health-care providers and the health-care system to these events in regard to full disclosure, apology, and options available to the patient for resolution.

Rapid Learning of Adverse Medical Event Disclosure and Apology

Despite published recommended best practices for full disclosure and apology to patients and families after adverse medical events, actual practice can be inadequate. The use of "cognitive aids" to help practitioners manage complex critical events has been successful in a variety of fields and healthcare. We wished to extend this concept to disclosure and apology events. The aim of this study was to test if a brief opportunity to review a best practice guideline for disclosure and apology would improve communication performance. Thirty pairs of experienced obstetricians and labor nurses participated in a 3-part exercise with mixed-realism simulation. The first part used a standardized actor patient to meet the obstetrical team. The second part used a high-fidelity simulation leading to an adverse medical event (retained sponge), and the third part used standardized actors, patient, and husband, who systematically move through stages of grief response. The participants were randomized into 2 groups, one was provided with a cognitive aid in the form of a best practice guideline for disclosure and apology and the other was only given time to plan. Four blinded raters working in pairs scored subjects on a 7-point scale using a previously developed assessment instrument modified for this study. Pooled ratings of the disclosure and apology discussion for the intervention group (n = 167, mean = 4.9, SD = 0.92) were higher than those from the control group (n = 167, mean = 4.3, SD = 1.21) (P < 0.0001). One specific element was rated higher for the intervention group than the control group; posture toward the patient (n = 27, mean = 5.1, SD = 0.82 versus n = 28, mean = 4.3, SD = 1.33) (P = 0.020). The elements of dealing with anger, dealing with depression, dealing with denial, bargaining, and acceptance were not different. Experienced practitioners performed better in a simulated disclosure and apology conversation after reviewing a cognitive aid in the form of a best practice guideline than a control group that was only given time to prepare.

PD17-03 IMPACT OF APOLOGY LAWS ON LITIGATION LENGTH

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making II1 Apr 2016PD17-03 IMPACT OF APOLOGY LAWS ON LITIGATION LENGTH Patrick H McKenna, Thomas W Bentley, and Christina J Sauder Patrick H McKennaPatrick H McKenna More articles by this author , Thomas W BentleyThomas W Bentley More articles by this author , and Christina J SauderChristina J Sauder More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1168AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Thirty-eight states have apology laws which allow defendants to exclude statements or expressions of sympathy regarding medical errors in liability lawsuits. Most states with apology laws simply protect physicians from expressions of sympathy (partial apology law), while a few go further and protect physicians against admission of fault (full apology law). Apology laws are meant to improve communication between patient and physician regarding medical errors. This should reduce patient anger, decrease litigation, and speed up settlements. We assessed whether state apology laws impact litigation length using data from the National Practitioner Databank Public Use Data File (NPDB), which contains information on all malpractice cases from 1991 to 2014. METHODS Using data from the NPDB, litigation length was compared between states with and without apology laws. In states with apology laws, litigation length was compared before and after the laws were enacted and between states with partial and full laws. RESULTS Litigation length was 3.3 ± 2.0 years in states with (N=38,940) and 5.6 ± 3.7 years in states without (N=102,528) apology laws (p<.001). In states with apology laws, litigation length was 4.4 ± 3.3 years before the law was enacted (N=165,556) and 3.3 ± 2.0 years afterwards (N=38,940) (p<.001). Litigation length was 2.6 ± 1.4 years in states with full apology laws (N=2281) and 3.3 ± 2.0 in states with partial laws (N=36,659) (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS Apology laws appear to expedite resolution of medical malpractice cases. Full apology laws appear to be more effective at this than partial laws. States benefit the most with implementation of full apology laws. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e399-e400 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Patrick H McKenna More articles by this author Thomas W Bentley More articles by this author Christina J Sauder More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Apology in victim–offender mediation

Victim–offender mediation practices bring conflicting parties together so they can engage in a two-way dialogue and ultimately negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution. The fact that apology may be a motivator for participating in the mediation process and that it is often a common outcome of mediation suggests that research on mediation ought to more carefully explore the nature of the apologies that are offered. The present study provides a qualitative exploration of the prevalence and nature of the apologies offered by offenders to their victims during face-to-face mediations. Fifty-nine mediation agreements recorded by the longest running mediation scheme in the UK were analysed. It was found that 50.8% of agreements contained mention of the perpetrator saying ‘I’m sorry’ or offering a partial apology (i.e. acknowledging harm and/or promising forbearance). Full apologies were absent in the mediation agreements. Agreements did not make explicit mention of the offender admitting responsibility or expressing remorse or regret. Finally, although the mediation agreements did not make any explicit mention of offenders offering reparation, they did record efforts at providing solutions to the conflict.

Effects of a victim's response to an offender's apology: When the victim becomes the bad guy

AbstractThe ‘apology‐acceptance’ script that may prevail during the victim–offender mediation process suggests that victims may feel obliged or pressured to accept an offender's offer of an apology. Violations of this expectation in terms of rejection of an apology or no recognition of it may influence the outcomes of mediation in several ways. Two experiments examined the effects of a victim's response to an offender's offer of a full apology on offenders' perceptions of the victim's response, emotional reactions, perceptions of the victim, attitudes towards the dispute and attitudes towards mediation. Experiment 1 compared the effects of a rejection, acceptance and no recognition of an apology, and Experiment 2 further investigated the effects of an acceptance versus no recognition of an apology. It was found that offenders who had their apology rejected considered the victim's response as least appropriate and were least satisfied by it. ‘Rejected’ offenders felt more anger towards the victim and had more negative impressions of the victim. Offenders who had their apology accepted felt more guilt and shame. They were, however, also more willing to reach an agreement and were more likely to perceive the conflict as being resolved. ‘Accepted’ offenders were also more likely to participate in mediation in the future and more willing to recommend mediation to others. The present research also demonstrated that no recognition of an apology has adverse effects similar to a rejection of an apology.

Foreign or domestic: who provides better customer service?

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of customer service employees’ (CSEs) competence and service recovery outcomes on service evaluations of foreign and domestic CSEs. Design/methodology/approach – Three experiments were conducted to test and validate the proposed hypotheses. The participants were told a cover story that they were either listening to (Study 2) or reading (Studies 1 and 3) a real conversation between a customer service representative of a bank and a customer and the authors wanted their views about the service encounter. While country of origin (COO) and competency were common independent variables across three studies, Study 2 included service recovery with a full refund and Study 3 had both full and partial refund and apology offered or not. Findings – Results from three experiments show that while competent CSEs are evaluated the same, regardless of their COO, the domestic CSE is evaluated more negatively than the foreign CSE when both are incompetent. The authors also find that when competent CSEs deliver no service recovery, the foreign CSE evaluations are significantly lower than the domestic one. Study 3 results show that this effect is mediated by participants’ ethnocentric beliefs. Research limitations/implications – For implications, this study provides a deeper understanding of the role of COO in services contexts. Future researchers can utilize the findings to investigate the important role that expectations play in determining service excellence and how it affects the COO effect. Practical implications – The paper provides managers in both offshoring client and provider firms with an understanding of the effects of offshoring on employee evaluations. It discusses the relevance/irrelevance of COO on the customer evaluations of service employees. Originality/value – The study investigates an under researched phenomenon – offshoring of services. This paper is one of the few looking at the role of different interaction factors, such as competence, recovery on service evaluations.

Blacklisting: admissions &amp; an apology, but the fight goes on

the multinational firms who orchestrated the human rights scandal forced to give evidence under oath. BSG want full public disclosure of the documentary evidence that the companies have kept hidden for decades. At a 2-day hearing from 7-8 December, the Court heard legal argument over the use of expert witnesses for calculating loss of earnings. John Hendy QC told the court that the estimated total damages for the 600 claimants is in the region of £60-70million, made up of £40m in loss of earnings and £20-30m in general damages (defamation, human rights, hurt to feelings etc..). Lawyers on behalf of blacklisted workers had applied to use the expertise of Dr Victoria Wass from Cardiff Business School, one of the leading labour market economists in the UK who has acted as an expert witness in numerous high profile cases in the past. The firms argued against the use of Dr. Wass, arguing that the ‘regression analysis’ that she was using was ‘too complicated’ and could not be fully understood by the court (even though virtually every university student in the world is taught regression analysis as a standard statistical tool nowadays). Dr Wass is able to provide a high level of precision in her estimates of loss because she has restricted access to micro data from the Office of National Statistics labour market database. Without an ounce of irony, lawyers for the blacklisting companies, told the court that having access to the ONS personal sensitive information could potentially be a breach of human rights and data protection! In the end, Lord Supperstone and Master Leslie refused the claimants submission - once again we find judges making findings in favour of big business and against the interests of the blacklisted workers. This may be a minor setback in a small skirmish but we are still going to win the war. The next provisional hearing date is 1 February 2016, and then the full trial is set to start in May 2016 and will last 10 weeks. The Blacklist Support Group would like to publicly thank the various legal teams for all the hard work they have carried out on our behalf over many years its very much appreciated. John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor was the keynote speaker at a packed Blacklist Support Group parliamentary meeting in Westminster on Monday 7th. McDonnell described blacklisting as “a deliberate attempt to undermine trade unions by victimising a layer of activists they could not buy off”. He said that “Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn and myself put in amendments to legislation on the issue of blacklisting over a period of decades” but lamented that ‘“no government took any notice”. He added “we are currently drawing up advice for Labour councils over public procurement regardAfter six years of denying everything the eight companies finally admitted their role in the blacklisting scandal INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 24 Volume 22 Issue 4 2015 DAVE SMITH is Secretary of the Blacklist Support Group and a TUC tutor, and is currently undertaking research at the University of the West of England in Bristol A fter six years of denying everything the eight companies being sued in a major High Court action for blacklisting revised their legal defence, finally admitting their role in the blacklisting scandal. The High Court claims brought by 571 blacklisted workers and scheduled for hearing in 2016 will now no longer need to hear arguments over the contractors’ liability: it is admitted that the 571 have a proper claim and so the argument now revolves around causation and loss: proving the links between being blacklisted , subsequent employment experience, and financial loss. The companies’ joint statement is reproduced below: A ‘full and unreserved apology’ ‘On 7 October 2015 we, the eight companies that comprise the Macfarlanes Defendants*, submitted a ReAmended Generic Defence to the Court. In this document we lay out clearly a number of admissions; these admissions are also covered in the accompanying summary which, we hope, will provide interested parties with an easily accessible reference. Both documents contain a full and unreserved apology for our part in a vetting information system run in the construction industry first through the Economic League and subsequently through The Consulting...

Situational crisis communication and interactivity: Usage and effectiveness of Facebook for crisis management by Fortune 500 companies

Through the lens of situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) and interactivity, this study examined the Facebook usage of Fortune 500 companies and the effectiveness with which these companies employed the platform for crisis management. Findings indicated that ‘justification’ and ‘full apology’ were the most commonly used crisis response strategies. Results also show instances where companies inappropriately match their responses to crisis situations. An analysis of 7080 messages further revealed a significant relationship between an organization’s involvement in two-way communication and the overall positivity of audience tone in reaction to the organization in question and its handling of crises. Suggestions are provided for organizations intending to employ social media for crisis communication.

United States Forces Korea's (USFK) Crisis Communication Strategies and Crisis Responses: The case of two Korean school girls' death

The study investigated USFK’s crisis communication responding to the case of two Koran girls’ death. The two girls were hit by an American tank accidently. The accident has resulted in anti-American demonstrations by a large number of South Korean. The current research attempted to see what problems USFK’s crisis communication with Korean publics. Through analyzing USFK news release in Korea and Army News (ARNEWS) in America regarding the case, the study answered what crisis communication strategies USFK used and How the USFK responded to the crisis. The results showed that USFK used full apology strategy and its crisis response was immediate, but prior reputation of USFK seemed making USFK’s effort fruitless.