Downloaded 455 times
Uploaded byTimothy Coombs
Explaining Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)
This document summarizes Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), which provides guidance on managing reputation during a crisis. SCCT evolved from attribution theory and focuses on shaping attributions of crisis responsibility. It categorizes crises on a continuum from victim to preventable based on perceived responsibility. SCCT recommends response strategies matched to the crisis type and reputational threat. Research tests SCCT assumptions and relationships between crisis responsibility, emotions like anger, and outcomes like negative word-of-mouth. Findings show anger mediates these relationships, demonstrating a "Negative Communication Dynamic." Future research areas are identified to further advance SCCT.
More Related Content
![Crisis Communication Simulation Exercise [Freberg]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/crisiscommunicationsimulationexerciseslideshare-141024103505-conversion-gate01-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Similar to Explaining Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)
![NMS [Autosaved] (2).pptxqwdhasbdadasdasdasda](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/nmsautosaved2-241022154020-fa0e249e-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Explaining Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)
- 1. Situational Crisis Communication Theory(SCCT) Develop Evolution Application
- 2. Overview: SCCT • Research Method Experimental • Strategic focus Reputation Repair • Function Managing Meaning • Phase Crisis • Communication Receiver & Context
- 3. Origins • Lists of response strategies and crisis types • Emphasis on situation • Connection to the practice • Attribution theory and marketing research
- 4. Attribution Theory • Peoplemotivated to find reasons for events • Attributions – Internal – External
- 5. Why care aboutattributions? • Attributions influence affect and behavior
- 6. Crises • Attributions shape – Affect concerning organization – Behaviors toward organization – Reputations (there is damage)
- 7. Crisis and Reputation •Reputational Capital • Build through good work • Crises spend some, but how much
- 8. Attributions of crisisresponsibility • Greater threat to reputation as they increase • Connection between response strategies and crisis type – Crisis types reflect crisis responsibility – Crisis response reflect acceptance of crisis
- 9.
- 10. Original Dimensions • Internal-External:locus of control from Attribution Theory • Intentional-Unintentional: controllability, purposeful by an actor or not • Shape attributions of crisis responsibility
- 11. Original Crisis types •Faux Pas: interpretation of organizational behavior – Organization considers positive or neutral – Stakeholders view are negative • Accidents: things happen • Terrorism: external attack • Transgression: organization places stakeholders at risk
- 12.
- 13. Modification: Crisis Types organized by Attributions of Crisis Responsibility Victim Accidental Preventable
- 14. Victim (very littlecrisis responsibility) • Natural disasters • Rumor • Workplace violence • Product tampering
- 15. Accidental (minimal crisis responsibility) • Challenges • Technical-error accidents • Technical-error product harm
- 16. Preventable (significant crisis responsibility) • Human-error accidents • Human-error product harm • Organizational misdeed – No injuries – Injuries – Management misconduct
- 17. Change to CrisisTypes • Shift from Grid to a Continuum • Dropped external control • Centered on crisis responsibility • New continuum based on survey research
- 18.
- 19. Veracity of evidence •Proof there is a crisis – True – False – Ambiguous
- 20. Application Today • Hiddenfactor • Choice to use denial • Ambiguity is key factor in accidental crises
- 21.
- 22. Revision Today • Victims •Potential victims • Voyeurs – News media – Social media
- 23. Damage • Harm inflictedby crisis – Severe – Minor
- 24. Current Application • Relevantbut mixed results • Future – Treat as susceptibility – Relationship to anxiety
- 25. Performance history • Pastrelationship with stakeholders – Positive – Negative
- 26. Currently an Intensifier •Positive prior reputation • Neutral/unknown • Negative prior reputation—the driver
- 27. Other Intensifier: CrisisHistory • No history of crises • No knowledge of history • Had a crisis in the past
- 29. Revision • No longeruse decision tree • List of recommendations
- 30. Original Response Strategies •Nonexistence – Denial – Clarification – Attack – Intimidation • Ingratiation – Bolstering – Praise others
- 31. Original Response Strategies •Distance – Excuse: deny intention and/or control – Justification: minimize harm done • Mortification • Suffering – Organization as victim
- 32. Revised Response Strategies •Arranged from – Defensive: protect organization – Accommodative: help the victims
- 33. Crisis Responses • Deny:no connection – Denial, Attack Accuser, and Scapegoat • Diminish: reduce responsibility – Excuse and Justification – Reinforce existing frame • Rebuild: attempt to improve reputation – Compensation and Apology
- 34. Crisis Responses • Bolstering:draw on goodwill – Reminder, Ingratiation, and Victimage – Supporting strategies
- 35. Reputational Threat • Howpeople perceive the crisis. • Strong threat requires stronger response (more perceived acceptance of responsibility)
- 36. Assess the Threat •Initial Assessment: Crisis Type • Frame used to view the crisis • Grouped by attributions of crisis responsibility – Victim – Accidental – Preventable
- 37. Intensifiers • Crisis history:similar crises in past • Prior relational reputation: how well or poorly organization has treated stakeholders
- 38. Velcro Effect • Historyof crises intensifies crisis responsibility • Negative prior reputation intensifies crisis responsibility
- 39. Boundaries • Financial resourcesare constraints – Afford the strategy? • Crisis can be frame by media (includes Internet) – May need to follow and not try to reframe
- 40. Ethical Base Response •Instructing Information: to protect selves – Warnings – Information about crisis (what happended) • Adjusting Information: cope psychologically – Express regret – Corrective action – Counseling
- 41. SCCT Recommendations 1. Allvictims or potential victims should receive instructing information, including recall information. – This can be called the “public safety response.” – This is one-half of the base response to a crisis. 2. All victims should be provided an expression of sympathy, any information about corrective actions, and trauma counseling when needed. – This can be called the “care response.” – This is the second-half of the base response to a crisis.
- 42. SCCT Recommendations 3. Forcrises with strong attributions of crisis responsibility (preventable crises and accidental crises with an intensifying factor), add compensation and/or apology strategies to the instructing information and care response.
- 43. SCCT Recommendations 4. Thecompensation strategy is used anytime victims suffer serious harm 5. The reminder and ingratiation strategies can be used to supplement any response 6. Denial and attack the accuser strategies are best used only for rumor and challenge crises 7. Suffering part of response if organization is a victim
- 44. Beliefs • Theory-driven (beyonddescription) • Evidence-based (tested)
- 45. Research to test •Assumptions • Relationships between variables – Existence – Strength
- 47.
- 48. Other outcomes • Emotion(anger) • Purchase intention • Negative word-of-mouth
- 49. Example of Researchin Detail: Negative Communication Dynamic
- 50. Crisis Affect • Emotionsgenerated by a crisis – Anger – Sympathy – Schadenfreude • Anger most common (McDonald & Hartel, 2000)
- 51. Anger • Typical reactionto a crisis • Can be a catalyst for behaviors – Negative word-of-mouth – Purchase intention (Jorgensen, 1996)
- 52. Anger as Energizer •Energize people to say or write negative things about an organization/product/service • We refer to as “The Negative Communication Dynamic”
- 53. Current Focus inCrisis Communication • Crisis and impact on reputation • Limited on purchase intention • Effects typically transitory—people forget • Any effects from crisis can dissipate quickly (McDonald & Hartel, 2000)
- 54. Potential Persistence ofAnger • Unhappy customers tell others (Power, 2006) • Similarly, stakeholders unhappy about a crisis and crisis management may tell others • Dissatisfaction leads to negative word-of- mouth
- 55. Word-of-Mouth • A powerfulforce in shaping consumer attitudes • Negative word-of-mouth more power than positive (Lacznial, DeCarlo & Ramaswami, 2001)
- 56. Lasting Effects ofWord-of-Mouth • Negative word-of-mouth spreads beyond initial stakeholders – Initially tell 6 to 15 people – They in turn tell others • Negative word-of-mouth can linger – Remain on blogs, web sites, and discussion boards after initial anger subsides.
- 57. Hypotheses • H1: Higherattributions of crisis responsibility and stronger feelings of anger from a crisis are associated with higher levels of intended negative word-of-mouth.
- 58. Hypotheses • H2: Angermediates the relationship between crisis responsibility and negative word-of- mouth. • H3: Anger mediates the relationship between crisis responsibility and purchase intention.
- 59. Results • Negative word-of-mouthand crisis responsibility correlated at .45 • Negative word-of-mouth and anger correlated at .63
- 60. Results • Anger didmediate the relationships between – Crisis responsibility and purchase intention – Crisis responsibility and negative work-of-mouth
- 61. Negative Communication Dynamic Visual Representation Anger Crisis Negative WOM
- 62. Visual Representation II Anger Crisis Purchase Intention
- 63. What does thismean for crisis managers?
- 64. Where to Next? • Effects of crisis response strategies on anger • Crisis factors that shape anger • Duration of crisis anger • Relationship of anger and schadenfreude