Examining the Public’s Responses to Crisis Communication From the Perspective of Three Models of Attribution

Journal of Business and Technical Communication Apr 2015

Examining the Public’s Responses to Crisis Communication From the Perspective of Three Models of Attribution

Jung-Yoon Yum Korea University ; Se-Hoon Jeong

Abstract

This study applies three models of attribution to examine the public’s responses to corporate crises. Using Kelley’s covariation model and Coombs’s situational crisis communication theory, the study shows that distinctiveness information has strong and robust effects, consistency information has some effects, and consensus information has no effects on attributions of corporate responsibility, purchase intentions, and punitive opinions. Based on Weiner’s model, this study finds that attributions of corporate responsibility result in punitive opinions guided by retributive rather than utilitarian motivations.

Journal: Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published: 2015-04-01
DOI: 10.1177/1050651914560570
Open Access: Closed
Topics: multimodality multilingual writers

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

Baniya (2025)

Intersectional Disaster Response in the Globalized World Via Equitable Crisis C…

Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Yim et al. (2019)

Why Legitimacy Matters in Crisis Communication: A Case Study of the “Nut Rage” …

Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Yao et al. (2019)

Facial Expressions and Verbal Response Strategies in Postcrisis Communication

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Cites in this index (2)

Choi et al. (2013)

Analysis of the Interactive Relationship Between Apology and Product Involvemen…

Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Horsley et al. (2002)

Toward a Synthesis Model for Crisis Communication in the Public Sector

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Also cites 40 works outside this index ↓

10.1111/0162-895X.00248

↗
10.1177/002194360203900302

↗
10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.659

↗
10.1509/jimk.16.1.72

↗
10.1177/0893318995008004003

↗
10.1177/0021943604265607

↗
10.1300/J057v12n03_13

↗
10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.016

↗
10.1002/9781444314885.ch1

↗
10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_04

↗
10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1304_03

↗
10.2307/1519806

↗
10.1177/0093854885012003003

↗
10.1177/0021943603261748

↗
10.1086/209135

↗
10.1177/0146167297234001

↗
10.1037/10628-000

↗
10.1111/j.2044-8309.1983.tb00564.x

↗
10.1080/00909882.2012.712709

↗
10.1080/10410230701626877

↗
10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.03.010

↗
10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.003

↗
10.1177/0021943613497056

↗
10.1177/0093650204267936

↗
10.1037/h0077725

↗
10.1037/h0032602

↗
10.1086/208756

↗
10.1177/1077699012455388

↗
10.2307/2647507

↗
10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004

↗
10.1108/03090560410560227

↗
10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00438.x

↗
10.1016/0022-1031(92)90043-J

↗
10.1177/0021943605279057

↗
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00011.x

↗
10.1093/ijpor/12.3.259

↗
10.1007/s11002-007-9018-x

↗
10.1023/A:1009017532121

↗
10.4324/9781410615749

↗
10.1007/BF02683293

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 16 View in citation network →