Examining the Effects of Mutability and Framing on Perceptions of Human Error and Technical Error Crises: Implications for Situational Crisis Communication Theory

The Handbook of Crisis Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 181-204

  Coombs, W Timothy ^a   Holladay, Sherry J ^a  

^a EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Counterfactual thinking, mutability, and crises; Differences in attributions stakeholders make in human error and technical error types of accidents; Effects of mutability and framing on perceptions of human error and technical error crises; Halo of favorable reputation overriding attributions of crisis responsibility and reputational threat; Implications for situational crisis communication theory; Issue framing, crisis framing unfavorable prior reputation; Situational crisis communication theory (SCCT); Test of hypotheses one way ANOVAs used in testing H1; Understanding dynamics of crisis framing; Understanding human error versus technical error distinction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862528698     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781444314885.ch8     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Barton, L. (2001). Crisis in organizations II (2nd edn.). Cincinnati: College Division South-Western.
2. Brown, K. C. (2003). Laying down the law: Implications of reputation management for the C suite. The Gauge, 16(3): 1-2. Retrieved January 6, 2004 from www.thegauge.com/v16n3laydownlawprint.htm.
3. Brown, K. C., & Roed, B. (2001). Delahaye Medialink's 2001 media reputation index results. The Gauge, 14(2): 1-2. Retrieved January 6, 2004 from www.thegauge.com/SearchFolder/OldGauges/Vol15No2/mriPart1152.html.
4. Calabro, S. (2003). Microsoft claims top spot in latest reputation survey. PRWEEK, January 27: 1.
5. Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public's image and opinions about major corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 6: 36-46.
6. 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: 447-476.
7. Coombs, W. T. (2007a). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Coombs, W. T. (2007b). Protecting organizational reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3): 163-176.
9. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study of crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8: 279-295.
10. Coombs, W. T., & 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.
11. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16: 65-186.
12. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Reasoned action in crisis communication: An attribution theory-based approach to crisis management. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 95-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2006). Unpacking the halo effect: Reputation and crisis management. Journal of Communication Management, 10(2): 123-137.
14. Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26: 1091-1112.
15. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63: 1041-1066.
16. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43: 51-58.
17. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
18. Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Darden, W. R. (1992). Consumer assessments of responsibility for product-related injuries: The impact of regulations, warnings, and promotional policies. Advances in Consumer Research, 19: 870-877.
19. Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11: 205-242.
20. Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News coverage of the gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming and framing. Communication Research, 20: 364-383.
21. McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The revised causal dimension scale (CDII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18: 566-573.
22. McCombs, M., & Ghanem, S. I. (2001). The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 67-81). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36: 176-187.
24. McCroskey, J. C. (1966). An introduction to rhetorical communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25. Morris, M. W., & Moore, P. C. (2000). The lessons we (don't) learn: Counterfactual thinking and organizational accountability after a close call. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 737-765.
26. Morris, M. W., Moore, P. C., & Sim, D. L. H. (1999). Choosing remedies after accidents: Counterfactual thoughts and the focus on fixing "human error." Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6: 579-585.
27. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61: 1040-1067.
28. Patel, A., & Reinsch, L. (2003). Companies can apologize: Corporate apologies and legal liability. Business Communication Quarterly, 66: 17-26.
29. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
30. Reason, J. (1999). Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121: 133-148.
32. Shaw, D. L. & McCombs, M. E. (1977). The emergence of American political issues. St. Paul, MN: West.
33. Sherif, M., Sherif, C., & Nebergall, R. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: Saunders.
34. Stewart, T. D. (2002). Principles of research in communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
35. Sturges, D. L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy for organizational survival. Management Communication Quarterly, 7: 297-316.
36. Sturges, D. L., Carrell, B., Jr., Newsom, D., & Barrera, M. (1994). Crisis communication: Knowing how is good; knowing why is essential. In M. B. Goodman (Ed.), Corporate communication: Theory and practice (pp. 339-353). Albany: State University of New York Press.
37. Tyler, L. (1997). Liability means never being able to say you're sorry: Corporate guilt, legal constraints, and defensiveness in corporate communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 11: 51-73.
38. Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Effective crisis management through established stakeholder relationships: Malden Mills as a case study. Management Communication Quarterly, 11: 51-73.
39. Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attribution analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 738-748.
40. Wells, G. L., & Gavanski, I. (1989). Mental simulation of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 161-169.