All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

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 16 effective than the combination of base and denial strategies in generating positive CE, PE, supportive BI, and PI. Therefore, H2b was not supported. As to RQ1 asking relative effectiveness of base crisis response strategy compared to reputation management strategies, the results revealed that in the victim crisis type, the base crisis response strategy was more effective (M = 2.9, SD = 1.4) than denial only reputation management strategy (M = 3.7, SD = 1.5) or rebuilding only reputation management strategy (M = 4.1, SD = 1.4) in lowering attribution of crisis responsibility (F (2, 70) = 4.2, p < .02, η p 2 = .11). LSD post-hoc tests revealed that base only response was significantly more effective in lowering the public‟s attribution of crisis responsibility than denial only reputation management strategy (p < .006). However, in the preventable crisis type, there were no significant differences among the base crisis response and reputation management strategies in the crisis responsibility attributions (F (2, 68) = 1.5, p = .24, η p 2 = .04). In other words, employing reputation management response strategies was no better than using only base crisis response strategy in a preventable crisis. As to the other public response variables, the results revealed that there were no significant differences across the three strategies in the public‟s responses in the victim crisis type (CE (F (2, 69) = .689, p =.510, η p 2 =.020), PE (F (2, 69) = .090, p =.914, η p 2 =.003), supportive BI (F (2, 69) = 2.101, p =.130, η p 2 =.057) and PI (F (2, 69) = .330, p =.720, η p 2 =.009) as well as in the preventable crisis type, (CE (F (2, 68) = 1.06, p = .351, η p 2 = .808), PE (F (2, 68) = .021, p = .979, η p 2 = .001), supportive BI (F (2, 68) = .079, p = .924, η p 2 = .002) and PI (F (2, 68) = .828, p = .441, η p 2 = .024). Therefore, our results found that reputation management

Authors: Kim, Sora. and Sung, Kang Hoon.
first   previous   Page 18 of 31   next   last



background image
Revisiting the effectiveness of base crisis response strategies 
16 
 
 
 
effective than the combination of base and denial strategies in generating positive CE, PE, 
supportive BI, and PI. Therefore, H2b was not supported.  
As to RQ1 asking relative effectiveness of base crisis response strategy compared to 
reputation management strategies, the results revealed that in the victim crisis type, the base 
crisis response strategy was more effective (M = 2.9, SD = 1.4) than denial only reputation 
management strategy (M = 3.7, SD = 1.5) or rebuilding only reputation management strategy (M 
= 4.1, SD = 1.4) in lowering attribution of crisis responsibility (F (2, 70) = 4.2, p < .02, η
p
2
 = .11). 
LSD post-hoc tests revealed that base only response was significantly more effective in lowering 
the public‟s attribution of crisis responsibility than denial only reputation management strategy 
(p < .006).  However, in the preventable crisis type, there were no significant differences among 
the base crisis response and reputation management strategies in the crisis responsibility 
attributions (F (2, 68) = 1.5, p = .24, η
p
2
 = .04). In other words, employing reputation 
management response strategies was no better than using only base crisis response strategy in a 
preventable crisis.  
As to the other public response variables, the results revealed that there were no 
significant differences across the three strategies in the public‟s responses in the victim crisis 
type (CE (F (2, 69) = .689, p =.510, η
p
2
 =.020), PE (F (2, 69) = .090, p =.914, η
p
2
 =.003), 
supportive BI (F (2, 69) = 2.101, p =.130, η
p
2
 =.057) and PI (F (2, 69) = .330, p =.720, η
p
2
 =.009) 
as well as in the preventable crisis type, (CE (F (2, 68) = 1.06, p = .351, η
p
2
 = .808), PE (F (2, 
68) = .021, p = .979, η
p
2
 = .001), supportive BI (F (2, 68) = .079, p = .924, η
p
2
 = .002) and PI (F 
(2, 68) = .828, p = .441, η
p
2
 = .024). Therefore, our results found that reputation management 


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
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 18 of 31   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.