All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.

Revisiting the effectiveness of base crisis response strategies in comparison of reputation management crisis responses
Unformatted Document Text:  Revisiting the effectiveness of base crisis response strategies 13 H1a posited that for a victim crisis type, employing the combination of base crisis response and denial reputation management crisis response strategy will be more effective than other strategies in lowering the public‟s attribution of crisis responsibility. The results revealed there were no significant differences in the levels of crisis responsibility attribution among the five crisis response strategies (F (4,116) = 2.0, p = .101, η p 2 = .06). When comparing the mean scores, participants blamed the company the most when rebuilding reputation management strategy was used alone (M = 4.1, SD = 1.4), whereas when the base crisis response strategy (M = 2.9, SD = 1.4) was used, participants attributed the lowest crisis responsibility level to the company. The LSD post-hoc test revealed that the difference in the blame level between the base strategy and rebuilding strategy was significant (p < .01). However, though the combination of base and denial combination strategy was the second most effective after the base strategy in lowering the blame levels, the difference between the combination of base and denial strategies and other strategies in lowering blame levels was not significant (see Table 1). Therefore, H1a was not supported. -------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here ---------------------------------------- H1b posited that the combination of base crisis response and rebuilding reputation management crisis response strategies will be more effective in lowering the public‟s attribution of crisis responsibility than other strategies. The results revealed that there were significant differences in the attribution of crisis responsibility levels across the five crisis response strategies (F (4,116), p = .02, η p 2 = .09), indicating that the public‟s attribution of crisis

Authors: Kim, Sora. and Sung, Kang Hoon.
first   previous   Page 15 of 31   next   last

background image
Revisiting the effectiveness of base crisis response strategies 
H1a posited that for a victim crisis type, employing the combination of base crisis 
response and denial reputation management crisis response strategy will be more effective than 
other strategies in lowering the public‟s attribution of crisis responsibility. The results revealed 
there were no significant differences in the levels of crisis responsibility attribution among the 
five crisis response strategies (F (4,116) = 2.0, p = .101, η
 = .06). When comparing the mean 
scores, participants blamed the company the most when rebuilding reputation management 
strategy was used alone (M = 4.1, SD = 1.4), whereas when the base crisis response strategy (M 
= 2.9, SD = 1.4) was used, participants attributed the lowest crisis responsibility level to the 
company. The LSD post-hoc test revealed that the difference in the blame level between the base 
strategy and rebuilding strategy was significant (p < .01). However, though the combination of 
base and denial combination strategy was the second most effective after the base strategy in 
lowering the blame levels, the difference between the combination of base and denial strategies 
and other strategies in lowering blame levels was not significant (see Table 1). Therefore, H1a 
was not supported.  
Insert Table 1 about here 
H1b posited that the combination of base crisis response and rebuilding reputation 
management crisis response strategies will be more effective in lowering the public‟s attribution 
of crisis responsibility than other strategies. The results revealed that there were significant 
differences in the attribution of crisis responsibility levels across the five crisis response 
strategies (F (4,116), p = .02, η
 = .09), indicating that the public‟s attribution of crisis 

All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 15 of 31   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.