Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) PDF

Coombs, W. Timothy (2023): Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT). Refining and Clarifying a Cognitive-Based Theory of Crisis Communication. 2nd edition. In: Coombs, W. Timothy/Holladay, Sherry J. (Hrsg.): The Handbook of Crisis Communication. West Sussex (UK): S. 193-204....

Coombs, W. Timothy (2023): Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT). Refining and Clarifying a Cognitive-Based Theory of Crisis Communication. 2nd edition. In: Coombs, W. Timothy/Holladay, Sherry J. (Hrsg.): The Handbook of Crisis Communication. West Sussex (UK): S. 193-204. 14 Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) Refining and Clarifying a Cognitive-­Based Theory of Crisis Communication W. Timothy Coombs Introduction Some video game play exists in what is known as an open world. That means you are not limited to specific tasks, such as freeing the princess, winning a race, or defeating a boss. Instead, the users are free to explore the world crafted by the game creators and create their own adventures. Theories are much like an open world in gaming. Once a theory is created, other researchers apply and add to the theory, a process vital to the growth and development of a theory. However, along the way, there are bound to be misuses of the theory that enter the system and risk creating a bug, an error that produces problematic results. The bug for theories occurs when other researchers begin citing the misused piece as a guide for their own research and thus reproduce the error. This chapter provides a user’s guide for SCCT. Its purpose is to provide background on the basics of SCCT and an up-­to-­date version of SCCT. Some elements of SCCT have changed as research indicated problems with a few of the theory’s early ideas and other research integrated new ideas into the theory. These changes reflect the open world aspect of SCCT. The first ­section of the chapter reviews the critical elements of SCCT. The next section identifies some of the misuses of the theory that have emerged. These misuses reflect misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the theory that can detract from its utility. To be clear, I am not referring to novel uses of the theory but rather research that misinterprets or misrepresents key elements of SCCT. This is followed by SCCT’s emphasis on helping to create an evidence-­based approach to crisis communication. The chapter ends with future research directions that offer ways to explore further the open world of crisis communication using SCCT. Overview of SCCT Basics Shaped by rhetorical and account-­giving research in communication, SCCT is premised on the situational influences on what will constitute an optimal crisis response, one that m ­ aximizes benefits for stakeholders and the organization in crisis (Claeys and Coombs 2020). Attribution theory provides the foundation for SCCT. Attributions are cognitions about The Handbook of Crisis Communication, Second Edition. Edited by W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 194 W. Timothy Coombs the causes of events and circumstances (Weiner 1979; Weiner 1986). Crises are negative events and people will naturally seek to explain why they occurred. Early research involving product recalls linked attribution theory with crises (e.g. Mowen 1980). The attributional process leads people to assign varying levels of responsibility for the crisis to the organiza- tion, which is termed crisis responsibility (Coombs and Holladay 2002). The crisis response, the words and actions used to address the crisis, should reflect a level of crisis responsibility commensurate with the anticipated level of crisis responsibility stakeholders will assign to a crisis. But first and foremost, any crisis response should begin by addressing the physical safety and the psychological well-­being of the crisis victims, those who are adversely affected by a crisis (Coombs 2007). SCCT sought to connect theoretically the various lists of crisis types and crisis interven- tions (crisis response strategies) that have been proposed across various disciplines. To aid this connective work, research was conducted to identify clusters of crisis types and crisis interventions. Crisis types are the frames being used to interpret the crisis situation while the crisis interventions are the words and actions used in response to the crisis. Following the work of Sturges (1994), SCCT identifies three categories of crisis interventions: (i) instruct- ing information, (ii) adjusting information, and (iii) reputation management. Instructing information tells people how to protect themselves physically from a crisis. Adjusting infor- mation helps people to cope psychologically with a crisis. Reputation management attempts to rebuild the reputational damage a crisis inflicts upon an organization. As will be elabo- rated in the next section, crisis managers must begin each crisis management effort by ­providing instructing and adjusting information (Sturges 1994). SCCT refers to the combi- nation of instructing and adjusting information in the initial crisis response as the ethical base response (Coombs 2017). The ethical base response reflects the need for crisis managers to focus on victims’ needs during a crisis. The practitioner literature has long emphasized victim concerns in crisis com- munication (e.g. Jackson and Peters n.d.). More recently, researchers have begun exploring the focus on victim concerns through the concept of affective empathy. Affective empathy is the emotional response to a victim’s situation. Empathy leads to compassion and sympathy. Schoofs et al. (2022) identified the various ways crisis communication theory and practitioners emphasize empathy. Their work included SCCT’s use of the ethical base response as part of the focus on empathy. Most of the efforts to develop categories of crisis interventions (strategies) focused on repu- tation or related concepts. SCCT sought to cluster interventions into conceptually and func- tionally similar groupings. The clustering efforts were grounded using attribution theory, specifically the concept of crisis responsibility. Crisis responsibility refers to the degree to which people perceive the organization is responsible for the crisis and the degree to which the crisis intervention is perceived to take responsibility for the crisis. Crisis types and crisis interven- tions are core elements of SCCT. The crisis types provide the starting point for understanding how to assess crisis responsibility. Contextual modifiers also help to anticipate the level of crisis responsibility stakeholders are likely to attribute to an organization in crisis. The following overview of SCCT covers crisis types, crisis interventions, and contextual modifiers. Crisis Types The crisis types were clustered based upon similarity of perceptions of crisis responsibility. The cluster analysis produced three crisis type clusters: victim, accidental, and preventable. Victim crises create very weak attributions of crisis responsibility. Victim crises include natural disasters, workplace violence, and product tampering. The term “victim” was selected because the organ- ization can be a victim of such crises along with the stakeholders adversely affected by the crisis. Accidental crises create mild perceptions of crisis responsibility. Accidental crises include  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Situational Crisis Communication Theory 195 Table 14.1 Crisis cues. Natural disasters Acts of nature that damage a facility Workplace violence/outside Employees are harmed by an attack from an employee, former attack employee, or outsider Product tampering Some agent alters a product to make it harmful Technical-­error product harm A product is harmful to customers due to software or hardware malfunction Technical-­error accident An industrial or transportation accident is due to a software or hardware malfunction Human-­error product harm A product is harmful due an employee error Human-­error accident An industrial or transportation accident is due an employee error Management misconduct Managers make a decision that knowingly places stakeholders at risk or harms them Scansis Managers place stakeholders at risk for financial gain technical-­error product harm and technical-­error accidents. These crises are unfortunate events that sometimes happen and no one seems to control them. Preventable crises evoke strong perceptions of crisis responsibility. Preventable crises include human-­ ­ error product harm, human-­error accidents, and management misconduct crises. They are viewed as preventable because if people had acted differently, the crisis could have been avoided (Coombs and Holladay 2002). The assessment of how stakeholders are likely to perceive crisis responsibility is central to SCCT. Anticipating people’s perceptions of crisis responsibility is a two-­step process. The first step is to determine the crisis type. Each crisis provides cues about how people are likely to interpret the crisis situation. Crisis managers search for the cues in the crisis situation that ­create interpretive frames when determining which crisis type they are facing. Table 14.1 ­provides a summary of key crisis cues. Contextual Modifiers Step two involves assessing the contextual modifiers or those factors that can affect attributions of crisis responsibility. Two proven contextual modifiers are prior reputation/relationship and crisis history. Prior reputation/relationship is how stakeholders perceive the organization before the crisis. The key concern is if people dislike the organization before the crisis. A nega- tive prior reputation/relationship will likely increase perceptions of crisis responsibility (Coombs 2004; Coombs and Holladay 2001). Crisis history refers to whether or not the organization has experienced a crisis before. Having had a previous crisis will intensify attribu- tions of crisis responsibility, even if it is not the exact type of crisis (Eaddy and Jin 2018). Culture has been offered as a contextual modifier but has received limited testing (Huang et al. 2016). Frandsen and Johansen’s (2017) rhetorical arena also is a potential contextual modifier. The rhetorical arena is composed of the various voices speaking to the crisis. The messages created by those voices can shape attributions of crisis responsibility. For instance, if a government investigative agency suggests a crisis was caused by management encouraging employees to violate safety rules, the crisis is more likely to be perceived as management mis- conduct rather than human error (Coombs 2020). If contextual modifiers are identified, crisis managers determine whether the factors will increase or decrease attributions of crisis respon- sibility associated with the crisis type. The selection of crisis intervention is then based upon the anticipated level of crisis responsibility the crisis situation will generate.  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 196 W. Timothy Coombs Crisis Interventions The crisis interventions were clustered using perceptions of accepting responsibility for the crisis and focusing on the crisis victims. The crisis intervention clustering research investigated reputation repair strategies and did not include adjusting and instructing information strate- gies. Four clusters emerged from the crisis intervention cluster analysis: denial, diminish, deal, and bolstering. Denial strategies are defensive and seek to avoid crisis responsibility and ignore victims. Denial strategies include denial and scapegoating. Diminish strategies accept respon- sibility for the crisis but seek to minimize perceptions of crisis responsibility and demonstrate little concern for victims. The diminish strategies include justification and excuse. Deal strate- gies are the most accommodative because they accept responsibility for the crisis and focus on the victims. Deal strategies include apology and compensation. Bolstering strategies are sec- ondary strategies, meaning they should be used only in conjunction with other crisis interven- tions. Bolstering can remind people of the organization’s past good works or praise those helping during a crisis. There is little concern for victims or recognition of responsibility with bolstering strategies (Coombs 2022). SCCT posits that all crisis responses should begin with the ethical base response. Crisis man- agers then add crisis interventions commensurate with the amount of crisis responsibility stakeholders are likely to perceive during the crisis. Initially, SCCT recommended adding a diminish strategy for accident crises to reinforce the weak perception of crisis responsibility. However, studies have not shown support for any benefit from diminish strategies (Coombs 2020). This could be because the diminish strategies ignore victim concerns. Thus, SCCT no longer recommends the use of diminish strategies. SCCT recommends adding apol- ogy and/or compensation when perceptions of crisis responsibility are anticipated to be strong. Apology and compensation have proven beneficial in response to human-­error prod- uct harm and accident crises but not for management misconduct crises (Coombs and Tachkova 2019; Ma and Zhan 2016). I will elaborate on an issue concerning SCCT and man- agement misconduct recommendations shortly. SCCT recognizes that not all stakeholders will perceive a crisis in the same way nor will all stakeholders respond similarly to a crisis intervention (the crisis response). Strategic commu- nication is premised upon probabilities, not certainties. Crisis interventions are a form of strategic communication. Crisis interventions must address the concerns of those with the most negative reaction to a crisis rather than focus on those who are supportive of an organiza- tion. Moreover, crisis managers can anticipate how most people will interpret crisis responsibil- ity and how most people are likely to react to a crisis intervention. SCCT research provides value by offering insights into how most people are likely to react to a crisis and crisis interven- tions. Programmatic research grounded in the tenets of SCCT adds confidence to the ability to offer meaningful, evidence-­based recommendations to professionals. SCCT and Researchers: Common Errors when Applying SCCT Any time a theory becomes popular, there can be issues with people misinterpreting or misrep- resenting the theory. Misinterpretations occur when people overlook key points from the theory when trying to apply it. Misrepresentations occur when people wrongly make claims that do not exist within a theory, a factual error. Both are dangerous because knowledge is created through improper procedures, assumptions, and the faulty results that are produced from such efforts may be serially reproduced and lead additional researchers to contribute to problematic research. SCCT research reflects a smattering of examples of each, which is frus- trating to those who contribute to theory development and the body of knowledge derived from SCCT. However, researchers have generally applied SCCT properly. This section reviews  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Situational Crisis Communication Theory 197 four points related to SCCT that seem to be problematic for some researchers (this does not include cases where inadequate knowledge of experimental design leads to flawed research). The points include the use of denial, overlooking the ethical base response, equating crisis responsibility with blame, and forgetting to assess account acceptance. Denial and Crises Do Not Mix Denial is a problematic strategy and should never be used when an organization is actually involved in a crisis (Coombs et al. 2016). SCCT only referenced denial in relation to combat- ing rumors (Coombs 1995, 2007). To avoid any confusion about that point, SCCT refined its conceptualization of crises to separate paracrises from actual crises. A paracrisis is a risk that must be managed in public view of stakeholders (Coombs and Holladay 2012). Misinformation and disinformation are more precise terms that have replaced the term rumor. Misinformation is incorrect information that circulates about an organization while disinformation reflects a purposeful spreading of misinformation (Petratos 2021). Misinformation and disinformation are paracrises and are no longer considered part of the pantheon of crisis types in SCCT. In a related note, denial is no longer included in the SCCT list of crisis interventions. Denial is a suboptimal response that can create additional problems for the organization in crisis. Denial is problematic because it intensifies organizational damage from a crisis when the organization has any responsibility for the crisis (Coombs et al. 2016). Begin with the Ethical Base Response The first intervention in any response should be the ethical base response. As described earlier, the ethical base response is a combination of instructing and adjusting information (Sturges 1994). Instructing information tells people how to protect themselves physically from a crisis, such as not consuming contaminated food products involved in a product recall. Adjusting information helps people to cope psychologically with a crisis. Adjusting information includes explaining what happened, reporting actions being taken to prevent a repeat of the crisis, and expressing sympathy for victims. The ethical base response combines the two because it is common for instructing and adjusting information to cooccur (Holladay 2009). Researchers frequently overlook SCCT’s position that every crisis response must begin with the ethical base response prior to adding reputation repair strategies as needed. Moreover, the ethical base response is the only response required when attributions of crisis responsibility are low. This ethical base response oversight is not a problem for research that compares various crisis response strategies (interventions). It is less important to include the ethical base response if researchers are seeking to compare the effects of bolstering versus apology or justification. In the early development of SCCT, research compared various reputation repair strategies to explore patterns in people’s reactions to crisis interventions. Such research helped map the viability of various crisis interventions for crisis managers and that is valuable information. However, it is also important to consider how people react when various reputation repair strategies are used in conjunction with the ethical base response. This more complete test of crisis interventions more accurately reflects SCCT. This comprehensive test of crisis interven- tions accurately reflects ideas central to the ethos of SCCT. The research incorporating the ethical base response prompted a revision of the SCCT crisis intervention guidance. Using only the ethical base response is recommended when attribu- tions of crisis responsibility are low and reputation repair strategies only need to be added when crisis responsibility is high (Coombs 2017). Overlooking the primary ethical base response becomes problematic when researchers seek to compare SCCT’s recommended responses to guidance from other crisis theories. Failing to include the ethical base response as  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 198 W. Timothy Coombs part of the SCCT-­based crisis intervention does not accurately reflect an important tenet of the theory! For instance, it is inaccurate to claim SCCT only recommends apology or compensa- tion for a preventable crisis but failing to include the ethical base response. SCCT clearly states that the ethical base response must be used prior to employing any reputation building strate- gies. This omission has appeared in published research (e.g. Zhao et al. 2020). If researchers seek to compare the effects of SCCT responses to those from other theories, the ethical base response must be included to provide an accurate comparison between theories. In hindsight, the early SCCT research should have placed more emphasis on the ethical base response to accurately reflect its importance to the theory. Instead, the early SCCT research focused on understanding perceptions of crisis responsibility and the effects of the reputation repair strategies. SCCT began by documenting the connection between the key variables in the theory with an emphasis on crisis responsibility. The early SCCT research included efforts to develop clusters of crisis types and crisis interventions – grouping those similar to one another – and to identify possible crisis modifiers such as crisis history and prior reputation. The initial tests of crisis interventions focused on the reputation repair strategies (crisis inter- ventions) rather than the ethical base response (Coombs 2020). This was due in part to the belief that the ethical base response was provided because it was “the right thing to do,” not because it would benefit the organizational reputation. (Some later research has found little benefit to reputations once the ethical base response is provided [Page 2020]). Reputation repair strategies should affect post-­crisis reputations, hence, those became the focus. Crisis Responsibility Is more Akin to Accountability than Blame Crisis responsibility has been the centerpiece of SCCT that links crisis interventions with crisis types. How people are perceiving the crisis shapes the nature of the accounts that will be accept- able as crisis interventions. Stakeholders naturally make attributions when they learn about crises and those attributions will influence how they relate to the organization in crisis (Weiner 1986). But too often people equate responsibility with blame. Blame is considered negative, leading some researchers to dislike and to discount the term. Blame centers on the cause of the situation. Understanding what causes a crisis is central to any efforts to prevent a repeat of the crisis. It is more appropriate to think of crisis responsibility as being accountable for one’s actions. An organization can be accountable for a crisis without being the cause of the crisis. If a supplier illegally uses a lead-­based paint for children’s toys sold by your organization, your organization is accountable for the product harm crisis even though the organization did not perform the actions precipitating the crisis. Responsibility is part of accountability but the constructs are not isomorphic. Accountability is broader than responsibility because it includes a recognition of the need to be answerable for one’s actions (Wood and Winston 2005). While SCCT quantifies perceptions of crisis responsibility, it really is more accurate to say that crisis interventions reflect varying degrees of accountability rather than simply a willingness to accept responsibility. Stakeholders expect accountability for a crisis; it is problematic when organiza- tions are perceived as responsible for the crisis but skirt the issue of accountability. Crisis inter- ventions must embrace accountability and not seek to avoid discussions of crisis responsibility. Measure Account Acceptance SCCT research tends to be experimental. When crisis communication research manipulates the crisis intervention, researchers should test for account acceptance (Coombs and Holladay 2008). Account acceptance evaluates how people are reacting to the crisis interven- tion. It determines if people are satisfied with or accepting of the crisis intervention (the account offered by the organization). Logically, a crisis intervention should not have an effect  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Situational Crisis Communication Theory 199 if people do not accept the account. Account acceptance should moderate the relationship between the crisis intervention and any outcome variables (Fediuk et al. 2010). If the crisis intervention had no effect on the outcome variables, how do we know if that was a result of account acceptance or the crisis intervention? Assessing account acceptance helps researchers know if the results are a function of account acceptance or the crisis intervention. Why Theoretical Misrepresentation Is Problematic A review of the misinterpretations and misapplications of SCCT reflects larger problems that appear in academic research and undermine its integrity. Too often researchers rely upon second- ary sources of information (e.g. relying on another researcher’s review of literature rather than conducting one’s own literature review to personally ensure the accuracy of literature cited) or older, outdated treatments of a theory (e.g. older writings that do not include recent modifica- tions of a theory) rather than searching for the most up-­to-­date sources. Again, this results in misinterpretation and misapplication of a theory. If one article misrepresents or misinterprets a theory, future researchers may repeat that error by citing the published work. For instance, one article claimed SCCT recommended the use of denial for victim crises. That is a false statement. Denial was linked to rumors, not the entire class of victim crises. The article grossly misrepre- sented SCCT and researchers who rely only upon that information source will have a misguided view of the theory. By identifying a few common problems seen in applications of SCCT, there is a chance of breaking the chain of reproduced errors committed by a limited number of researchers who misrepresented or misinterpreted the theory. The moral of this discussion is that researchers must read widely and carefully to accurately represent the theories they use. SCCT and Professionals: Evidence-­Based Crisis Communication As a label, the term crisis denotes a need to focus attention and resources on a situation (Billings et al. 1980). That means managers do not use the term crisis lightly. I feel a primary goal of crisis communication research should be to offer insights to crisis management profes- sional. As applied communication research, crisis communication should help to solve the problems crises create. Crisis communication research can aid professionals by contributing to an evidence-­based approach to crisis communication. Evidence-­based approaches are used in a wide array of fields that utilize interventions, including medicine, business, and social work (Latham 2011). An evidence-­based approach is a fusion of research evidence and professional experience. Academic research can provide the evidence for professionals. Research results are evidence and the most prized evidence for an evidence-­based approach proves cause and effect. To be more precise, the research should demonstrate how a specific intervention creates a specific outcome (Latham 2011). Professionals can then interpret that evidence through the lens of their experiences to determine if and how they might apply that evidence to their situations. Researchers do not tell professionals how to manage a crisis. Rather, researchers suggest actions that professionals might use when managing a crisis. There seems to be a negative correlation between professional experience and the value of research evidence. Experienced crisis managers know most of the insights crisis communica- tion research generates. As noted earlier, SCCT’s emphasis on concern for victims is a com- mon refrain in the practitioner literature (Jackson and Peters n.d.). In such cases, the research offers additional evidence that the professional’s actions are the right thing to do. New crisis professionals may benefit more from research because the evidence supplements their more limited experiences. No matter the level of experience, the research evidence is interpreted by professionals to apply it to their current crisis situation.  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 200 W. Timothy Coombs Future Research Directions In 1995, both Image Restoration Theory and SCCT appeared in print (Benoit 1995; Coombs 1995). It is no surprise that crisis communication research exploded following the introduction of these two theories. Both theories provided crisis communication with new analytic tools. It is a mistake to believe that we already know all we need to know about crisis communication. Yes, we do understand the basics about what seems to work and not to work in crisis communication. However, it is folly to assume we cannot refine those insights and generate new insights as the environment in which crises emerge keeps changing. A perfect example is how social media platforms have impacted crisis communication (e.g. Liu et al. 2021). This section examines how future SCCT research should explore crisis interven- tions, crisis outcomes, and evaluation of the nature of crisis situations. Crisis Interventions Crisis intervention is a more precise term than crisis response strategies. Crisis communication is an intervention design to produce specific effects within stakeholders and the organization in crisis. Crisis response strategies are abstract. In strategic communication, strategies need to be operationalized as tactics. For instance, researchers have noted there are a number of ways to operationalize an apology (e.g. Bentley 2018). There also are various ways to express a particular crisis intervention. For example, there is interesting research examining the effects of using personal or impersonal language (Jahng and Hong 2017) and narrative or non-­ narrative text (Clementson and Beatty 2021) in crisis interventions. I have long believed there is a need to refine how crisis interventions are operationalized (e.g. Coombs 2015). By dem- onstrating that the way a crisis intervention is expressed affects how people react to the inter- vention, researchers are providing evidence that can help professionals enhance their crisis communication efforts. Exploring how various ways of expressing a crisis intervention affects their effectiveness provides useful evidence that can inform crisis communication efforts. SCCT provides a useful framework for conducting research that will refine the articulation of crisis interventions. Crisis Outcomes The early SCCT research focused on reputation as the crisis outcome because of the connec- tion between communication and reputation (e.g. Benoit 1995). However, this reputation focus had the unintended consequence of limiting the consideration of a broad range of crisis outcomes. The focus on reputation made the theory seem organization-­centric as opposed to victim well-­being focus. This could have contributed to obscuring the importance of focusing on how stakeholders/victims are affected by the crisis. Eventually, crisis outcomes were expanded to include purchase intention, potential negative word-­of-­mouth, and anger (Coombs 2007). Even this set of common crisis outcomes seems too restrictive and researchers should continue examining other meaningful crisis outcomes. For instance, more research is needed to unpack the effects of crises and crisis interventions on stakeholder identification (Coombs 2020). Another outcome to consider are the various emotions a crisis can evoke (Jin et al. 2012). The key is to focus judiciously on meaningful outcomes driven by theory and not simply outcomes added to see if that outcome might matter. Crisis communication has been critiqued as being too organization-­centric. The focus on reputation exacerbated that that criticism is fair when applied to outcomes. It is important to note that the common crisis outcomes of reputation, purchase intention, and negative word-­of-­mouth are all forms of stakeholder reactions. Even though the crisis outcomes are  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Situational Crisis Communication Theory 201 driven by stakeholders, the focus remains on how the outcomes relate to the organization. Presumably those outcomes have consequences for the health of the organization. Research could devote greater attention to how the crisis interventions affect stakeholders. More spe- cifically, there is very limited research addressing how the ethical base response affects stake- holder efforts to cope physically and mentally with the crisis. That topic is under-­researched but offers opportunities to connect to other literature such as victim well-­being and message comprehension. Assessing Crisis Situations SCCT builds upon the foundation of attributions to create crisis responsibility. SCCT follows the fundamental principle of attribution theory that suggests/states people make sense of situ- ations/explain situations in predictable ways based upon perceptions of responsibility. Attributions are cognitions and that is why SCCT is a cognitive-­based theory. The SCCT research seeks to explain how crisis managers can use cues surrounding the crisis situation to assess and to anticipate the level of crisis responsibility the situation is likely to generate among most stakeholders. Crisis types and contextual modifiers all provide cues for reading a crisis situation. The cues for crisis have been sufficiently refined to allow AI programs to be trained to code very accurately which crisis type is emerging from media reports about the crisis (Capestart 2021). Researchers also have explored ways to refine crisis history (a contextual modifier) to increase its utility for crisis managers (e.g. Eaddy and Jin 2018). As noted earlier, culture warrants more attention as a crisis modifier as does the rhetorical arena. For the rhe- torical arena, we need to understand how and when certain voices influence the crisis situation. Research integrating moral outrage into SCCT has identified a boundary condition for the theory. When a crisis engenders moral outrage, the crisis intervention recommenda- tions from SCCT no longer apply. Cognitive appraisal theory posits moral outrage is a moral emotion caused by perceptions of unfairness and exploitation. Appraisals are a form of cognition but are considered to be “hotter” than attributions. More specifically, ­attributions are based on reason while appraisals are based on emotions (Madrigal 2008). Moral outrage is a combination of anger and disgust making it different from anger. Furthermore, moral outrage creates a felt need to punish the offender (Antonetti and Maklan 2016). Both management misconduct and scansis crises (a combination of crisis and scandal) produce moral outrage (Tachkova and Coombs 2022). Moral outrage crises have strong attributions of crisis responsibility due to the perception of injustice. SCCT recommends adding apology and/or compensation to the ethical base response when crisis responsibility is high. However, in crises provoking moral outrage, research has shown that the SCCT ­recommended crisis intervention has no effect on the common crisis outcomes of reputation, purchase intention, anger, or negative word-­ of-­ mouth (Coombs and Tachkova 2019; Ma and Zhan 2016; Tachkova and Coombs 2022). Hence, moral outrage serves as a boundary condition for SCCT. Researchers have argued for moral outrage to be integrated into SCCT to create a triadic appraisal (Coombs and Tachkova 2019). The first appraisal is whether or not the situation is a crisis. The second appraisal is the level of perceived crisis responsibility. The third appraisal is the perceived level of moral outrage the crisis might evoke. According to cognitive appraisal theory, there are specific situation cues that indicate when moral outrage is likely to emerge. Those cues center on the perceptions of injustice and exploitation (Antonetti and Maklan 2016). Future research focused on moral outrage should provide additional insights into how crisis managers can identify the potential of a crisis to evoke moral outrage. Overall, researchers can contribute to SCCT by exploring how other cues might help crisis managers read a crisis situation more effectively.  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 202 W. Timothy Coombs Conclusion This chapter is not an exhaustive review of all research inspired by SCCT (see Ma and Zhan 2016) nor a discussion of its evolution (see Coombs 2020). The chapter has focused on the central elements of SCCT and its place within academic research and the profession. It also identified specific misinterpretation and misrepresentation problems found in a limited num- ber of SCCT studies to hopefully prevent reoccurrence of the problems and to caution researchers to be diligent when reading and designing research based on SCCT. The evidence-­ based nature of SCCT was spotlighted to demonstrate how crisis communication research can connect with the profession. The applied nature of crisis communication should be valued by researchers. The crisis communication research can make a difference in people’s lives. Finally, the chapter charted fruitful areas for future research involving SCCT and crisis communication in general. Theories have heuristic value and the more we learn about crisis communication, the more we realize there is still more to learn about it. The roots of SCCT appeared in print over 25 years ago (Coombs 1995) and the articulation of SCCT appeared over 20 years ago (Coombs and Holladay 2001; 2002). Since then, SCCT and Image Restoration Theory, have helped to facilitate the development of crisis communica- tion research. The body of literature related to SCCT continues to grow and enhances our understanding of crisis types, crisis interventions, and the connections between crisis types and crisis interventions, including modifiers that affect the connections. Researchers can partici- pate in the quest to improve how to assess crisis situations and to provide evidence to profes- sional crisis managers that can enhance crisis communication efforts in order to aid both organizations and stakeholders. SCCT’s framework has proven to be a valuable guide for exploring crisis communication theory and enhancing the practice. References Antonetti, P. and Maklan, S. (2016). An extended model of moral outrage at corporate social irrespon- sibility. Journal of Business Ethics 135 (3): 429–444. Benoit, W.L. (1995). Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration. Albany: State University of New York Press. Bentley, J.M. (2018). What counts as an apology? Exploring stakeholder perceptions in a hypothetical organizational crisis. Management Communication Quarterly 32 (2): 202–232. Billings, R.S., Milburn, T.W., and Schaalman, M.L. (1980). A model of crisis perception: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 300–316. Capestart (2021). Using AI to Predict Public Relations Crises and Recommend Effective Responses (and How Capestart Built the Solution). https://www.capestart.com/resources/blog/using-­ ai-­ to- ­aid-­crisis-­communications Claeys, A.S. and Coombs, W.T. (2020). Organizational crisis communication: suboptimal crisis response selection decisions and behavioral economics. Communication Theory 30 (3): 290–309. Clementson, D.E. and Beatty, M.J. (2021). Narratives as viable crisis response strategies: attribution of crisis responsibility, organizational attitudes, reputation, and storytelling. Communication Studies 72 (1): 52–67. Coombs, W.T. (1995). Choosing the right words: the development of guidelines for the selection of the “appropriate” crisis-­ response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly 8 (4): 447–476. Coombs, W.T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communication: insights from situational crisis communication theory. The Journal of Business Communication (1973) 41 (3): 265–289. Coombs, W.T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: the development and applica- tion of a situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review 10 (3): 163–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049.  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Situational Crisis Communication Theory 203 Coombs, W.T. (2015). The value of communication during a crisis: insights from strategic communica- tion research. Business Horizons 58 (2): 141–148. Coombs, W.T. (2017). Revisiting situational crisis communication theory: the influences of social media on crisis communication theory and practice. In: Social Media and Crisis Communication (ed. L. Austin and Y. Jin), 21–38. New York: Routledge. Coombs, W.T. (2020). Situational crisis communication theory: influences, provenance, evolution, and prospects. In: Crisis Communication (ed. F. Frandsen and W. Johansen), 121–140. Berlin: De Gruyer Mouton. Coombs, W.T. (2022). Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding, 6e. SAGE Publications. Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, S.J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situation: a fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research 13: 321–340. Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, S.J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly 16: 165–186. Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, S.J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: clarifying apology’s role and value in crisis communication. Public Relations Review 34 (3): 252–257. Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, J.S. (2012). The paracrisis: the challenges created by publicly managing crisis prevention. Public Relations Review 38 (3): 408–415. Coombs, W.T. and Tachkova, E.R. (2019). Scansis as a unique crisis type: theoretical and practical impli- cations. Journal of Communication Management 20 (4): 381–395. https://doi-­org.ezproxy.library. tamu.edu/10.1108/JCOM-­08-­2018-­00782. Coombs, W.T., Holladay, S.J., and Claeys, A.S. (2016). Debunking the myth of denial’s effectiveness in crisis communication: context matters. Journal of Communication Management. Eaddy, L.L. and Jin, Y. (2018). Crisis history tellers matter: the effects of crisis history and crisis informa- tion source on publics’ cognitive and affective responses to organizational crisis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 23 (2): 226–241. Fediuk, T.A., Pace, K.M., and Botero, I.C. (2010). Crisis response effectiveness: methodological consid- erations for advancement in empirical investigation into response impact. In: The Handbook of Crisis Communication (ed. W.T. Coombs and S.J. Holladay), 221–242. Chichester, UK, Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Frandsen, F. and Johansen, W. (2017). Organizational Crisis Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holladay, S.J. (2009). Crisis communication strategies in the media coverage of chemical accidents. Journal of Public Relations Research 21: 208–215. Huang, Y.H.C., Wu, F., and Cheng, Y. (2016). Crisis communication in context: cultural and political influences underpinning Chinese public relations practice. Public Relations Review 42 (1): 201–213. Jackson, P. and Peters, R. (n.d.). Issue anticipation/crisis management for beginning professionals. http:// patrickjacksonpr.com/Theories%20&%20Models/Issues%20Anticipation-­C risis%20Man agement%20For%20Beginning%20Professionals%20for%20PRSSA.pdf. Jahng, M.R. and Hong, S. (2017). How should you tweet?: the effect of crisis response voices, strategy, and prior brand attitude in social media crisis communication. Corporate Reputation Review 20 (2): 147–157. Jin, Y., Pang, A., and Cameron, G.T. (2012). Toward a publics-­driven, emotion-­based conceptualization in crisis communication: unearthing dominant emotions in multi-­staged testing of the integrated crisis mapping (ICM) model. Journal of Public Relations Research 24 (3): 266–298. https://doi. org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.676747. Latham, G.P. (2011). Becoming the Evidence-­Based Manager: Making the Science of Management Work for you. Boston: Davis-­Black. Liu, B.F., Jin, Y., Austin, L. et al. (2021). The social-­mediated crisis communication (SMCC) model: identifying the next frontier. In: Advancing Crisis Communication Effectiveness: Integrating Public Relations Scholarship with Practice (ed. Y. Jin, R.H. Reber and G.J. Nowak), 214–230. New York: Routledge.  10.1002/9781119678953.ch14, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119678953.ch14 by Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 204 W. Timothy Coombs Ma, L. and Zhan, M. (2016). Effects of attributed responsibility and response strategies on organiza- tional reputation: a meta-­analysis of situational crisis communication theory research. Journal of Public Relations Research 28 (2): 102–119. Madrigal, R. (2008). Hot vs. cold cognitions and consumers’ reactions to sporting event outcomes. Journal of Consumer Psychology 18 (4): 304–319. Mowen, J.C. (1980). Further information on consumer perceptions of product recalls. Advances in Consumer Research 7 (1): 519–523. Page, T.G. (2020). Measuring success: explications and measurement scales of instructing information and adjusting information. Public Relations Review 46 (4): 101952. Petratos, P.N. (2021). Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news: cyber risks to business. Business Horizons 64 (6): 763–774. Schoofs, L., Fannes, G., and Claeys, A.S. (2022). Empathy as a main ingredient of impactful crisis ­communication: the perspectives of crisis communication practitioners. Public Relations Review 48 (1): 102150. Sturges, D.L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: a strategy for organizational survival. Management Communication Quarterly 7: 297–316. Tachkova, E.R. and Coombs, W.T. (2022). Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons from the Edge. London: Routledge. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology 71 (1): 3. Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York, NY: Springer Verlag. Wood, J.A. Jr. and Winston, B.E. (2005). Toward a new understanding of leader accountability: defining a critical construct. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 11 (3): 84–94. Zhao, X., Zhan, M., and Ma, L. (2020). How publics react to situational and renewing organizational responses across crises: examining SCCT and DOR in social-­ mediated crises. Public Relations Review 46 (4): 101944.