journal review

Avininda Astya Brilyani

135120207121024

Attribution Theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research by W. Timothy Combs and Apologies and Public Relations Crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo by Keith Michael Hearit.

This paper contains my review from the journal “Attribution Theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research” by W. Timothy Combs and “Apologies and Public Relations Crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo” by Keith Michael Hearit.

From the first journal, the author explain about post crisis communication using attribution theory as a guide for the research. This journal discusses the role Attribution Theory has played and can continue to play in building scientifically tested evidence for crisis managers as well as providing an integrative mechanism for the diverse crisis research that spans a variety of disciplines. Crisis communication is a subspecialty of the public relations profession that is designed to protect and defend an individual, company, or organization facing a public challenge to its reputation. What we need in crisis communication is a shift towards evidence-based management, the use of scientific evidence to guide managerial decision-making (Rousseau, 2005).

In communication based crisis research, we have an over abundance of rhetorical studies that attempt to use descriptive data to claim issues of causality and theory building. There are also problems in preoccupations with finding genres in crisis communication that contribute little to theory development and testing. Apologia was a gateway for many into crisis communication. It was useful to think of organizations using communication to protect their public personas/reputations and provided a wealth of resources for developing crisis response strategies (Hearit, 2006). Crisis communication research should adopt the perspective of evidence based management. Attribution theory provides one useful sign for this evolutionary track. Crisis communication tactics during the post-crisis stage may include the following: reviewing and dissecting the successes and failures of the crisis management team in order to make any necessary changes to the organization, its employees, practices, or procedures, and providing follow up crisis messages as necessary. 

Attribution Theory posits that people look for the causes of events, especially unexpected and negative events. Most experts agree that a crisis is negative and unexpected. When using Attribution Theory, the threat of a crisis is largely a function of crisis responsibility/blame. Managers should evaluate the situation to determine which crisis response is best for the situation (Coombs, 1995, 2004; Mowen, 1980).  According to Bradford and Garrett (1995) applied Attribution Theory to ethical crises, a departure from the product harm line of research. Bradford and Garrett developed a model, based in Attribution Theory, which was designed to explain what crisis response to select based upon the nature of the ethical crisis. We find Attribution Theory has now been applied to a variety of crisis types. However, the research is made comparable by the theoretical linkage. With Attribution Theory as a connecting point, diverse streams of research can converge into to a river of post crisis communication knowledge that provides a mechanism for evidence based crisis communication.

The second journal is about Apologies and Public Relations Crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Analyzes the corporate apologetic discourses of three paradigmatic cases (at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo) and examines the use of persuasive descriptions and strategic dissociations preferred by these corporate apologists. Shows how organizations label their wrongdoing in a way that displays sorrow but limits culpability and use dissociations to distance themselves from the wrongdoing. Apology is central to discussions how crisis communication is used strategically to protect reputations during a crisis (Coombs et al., 2010). Apology's role in protecting reputations is found in three of the dominant crisis communication research lines: image restoration (Benoit, 1995), corporate apologia (Hearit, 1994). It is useful at this point to consider the strong connection between crises and reputations. When confronted with a threat or crisis, it is important to consider that internal members of the organization , stakeholders to the organization, and various publics perceive the image of an organization. Corporate apologia in crisis communication attempts to bridge consistency between organizational values and stakeholder values and expectations (Hearit, 1994). The response to each message must be observed and interpreted before deciding on and delivering the next response message. Since crises often necessitate the deliverance of apologia (Burke, 1970; Hearit, 1994; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Ware & Linkugel, 1973), and these statements can affect which crises end up in a courtroom (Patel & Reinsch, 2003), researchers have also concentrated on the postcrisis rhetoric and the image restoration of the individual or organization involved. 

References:

Hearit, K. M. (1994). Apologies and public relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Public Relation Review, 20(2), 113-125

Coombs, W. T. (2006). Attribution theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research. Public Relation Review, 33. 135-139