Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Blame-Giving Crisis Communications are Persuasive: A Dual-Influence Model and Its Boundary Conditions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Companies faced with a crisis sometimes blame others in their communications, when they feel that responsibility for the negative event lies elsewhere. Research has argued that stakeholders often react negatively to this type of message, because they perceive them as an unfair attempt to deny responsibility. In four experiments, examining blame directed at an employee and a supplier, we complement existing research by demonstrating that blame-giving messages can be persuasive in certain circumstances. Blame-giving communications can improve perceptions of firm ethicality more than apologies or an absence of corporate communication. This effect, in turn, reduces negative word-of-mouth intentions. The study identifies several boundary conditions for this effect. For blame-giving to be effective, a credible third party needs to identify who is responsible for wrongdoing, and the company needs to use vivid communication with detailed information about the culprit. Furthermore, blame-giving can backfire: when stakeholders doubt the company’s honesty, this type of messaging is seen as manipulative. The study contributes to a developing research stream on the relative effectiveness of different types of crisis communications by demonstrating that, in certain circumstances, blame-giving messages are more persuasive than apologies. Moreover, our analysis offers guidelines on how to design these messages to make them acceptable to stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting we examine this key moderator.

  2. As in Study 1, we used the MICOM procedure to confirm full metric invariance across the two ambiguity conditions (Hair et al. 2017).

  3. The article used to prime high suspicion read as following: “Company Found Cheating on its Financial Reporting. A recent news article about Mintos, Inc., a producer of semi-conductor products used in the information technology industry, reported that the company was a success story. In the article, the CEO of the company was quoted as saying, “Mintos, Inc. has been extremely profitable … with profits increasing by $20 million over the last two quarters.” Accounting auditors have since then reviewed the financial statements of Mintos Inc. and found that the financial figures were fabricated. In fact, the company’s profits were actually down by approximately $37 million over the entire year. Auditors have condemned this example of deception caused by serious financial misreporting. Company executives have declined to comment”. The article that did not prime suspicion read as following: “VW Crossover Concept Combines Sports Car Design with SUV Elements. Volkswagen has revealed its latest design study, the Concept A, a crossover between a sports car and a compact SUV. The concept combines a sleek coupe-style silhouette with the raised stance of an SUV. Designed to respond to customer demand, the concept is powered by a 150 HP TwinCharger, with a six gear transmission and an all-wheel drive system. As one company executive put it, “We’re at the forefront of crossover technology. This concept is likely to find its way into production soon although design changes will certainly happen in response to consumer testing”.

  4. As in previous studies, the MICOM procedure supports full metric invariance across the priming conditions (Hair et al. 2017).

References

  • Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1948). ABC’s of scapegoating. Anti-defamation League: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016). An extended model of moral outrage at corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Associated Press. (2018). Paris St-Germain face football inquiry and lawsuit over racial profiling, The Guardian. Retrieved November 9, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/nov/09/paris-st-germain-football-leaks-inquiry-lawsuit-racial-profiling.

  • Baghi, I., Rubaltelli, E., & Tedeschi, M. (2009). A strategy to communicate corporate social responsibility: Cause related marketing and its dark side. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(1), 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunk, K. H. (2012). Un/ethical company and brand perceptions: Conceptualising and operationalising consumer meanings. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 551–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M. D., Talaifar, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 149–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundy, J., Pfarrer, M. D., Short, C. E., & Coombs, W. T. (2017). Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1661–1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(3), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, W. T. (2015). The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research. Business Horizons, 58(2), 141–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2), 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, M. (2016). Five thousand three hundred Wells Fargo employees fired over 2 million phony accounts. CNN Money. Retrieved September 9, 2016 from https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-created-phony-accounts-bank-fees/index.html.

  • Erickson, S. L., Weber, M., & Segovia, J. (2011). Using communication theory to analyze corporate reporting strategies. International Journal of Business Communication, 48(2), 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), 398–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Formentin, M., Bortree, D. S., & Fraustino, J. D. (2017). Navigating anger in Happy Valley: Analyzing Penn State’s Facebook-based crisis responses to the Sandusky scandal. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 671–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2010). Crisis communication, complexity, and the cartoon affair: A case study. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The Handbook of Crisis Communication. Wiley-Blakwell: Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangloff, K. A., Connelly, B. L., & Shook, C. L. (2016). Of scapegoats and signals: Investor reactions to CEO succession in the aftermath of wrongdoing. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1614–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grégoire, Y., Laufer, D., & Tripp, T. M. (2010). A comprehensive model of customer direct and indirect revenge: Understanding the effects of perceived greed and customer power. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(6), 738–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guckian, M. L., Chapman, D. A., Lickel, B., & Markowitz, E. M. (2018). “A few bad apples” or “rotten to the core”: Perceptions of corporate culture drive brand engagement after corporate scandal. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(1), 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, J., & Moeller, S. (2014). Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 281–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, R. L., Jr., Ganesan, S., & Klein, N. M. (2007). Interactional service failures in a pseudorelationship: The role of organizational attributions. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. D. (1995). Treachery by any other name: A case study of the Toshiba public relations crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, R., Skinner, S. J., & Taylor, V. A. (2005). Consumers’ evaluation of unethical marketing behaviors: The role of customer commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenni, K., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the identifiable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 235–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, Y. (2010). Making sense sensibly in crisis communication: How publics’ crisis appraisals influence their negative emotions, coping strategy preferences, and crisis response acceptance. Communication Research, 37(4), 522–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, Y. (2014). Examining publics’ crisis responses according to different shades of anger and sympathy. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(1), 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, P. A., & Block, L. G. (1997). Vividness effects: A resource-matching perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 295–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, M. L., & Boatwright, B. C. (2018). Ritualistic sacrifice in crisis communication: A case for eliminating scapegoating from the crisis/apologia lexicon. Public Relations Review, 44(4), 514–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 688–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 92–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohbuchi, K. I., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Fluency of consumption imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 442–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2013). Explaining consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility: The role of gratitude and altruistic values. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, Z. K., Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Keefer, L. A. (2012). A dual-motive model of scapegoating: Displacing blame to reduce guilt or increase control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R., Pontari, B. A., & Christopher, A. N. (2001). Excuses and character: Personal and social implications of excuses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89(2), 155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, S., Aloysius, J. A., & Davis, F. D. (2006). Multiple prospect framing and decision behavior: The mediational roles of perceived riskiness and perceived ambiguity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, J. W., Van Hoof, J. J., Ter Keurs, H., & Van Vuuren, M. (2012). Effects of apologies and crisis responsibility on corporate and spokesperson reputation. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 501–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. C., & Ostrom, A. L. (2006). Complaining to the masses: The role of protest framing in customer-created complaint web sites. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 220–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. E. (1993). The fiction of corporate scapegoating. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(10), 779–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ybarra, O. (2002). Naive causal understanding of valenced behaviors and its implications for social information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NEOMA Business School, France, Rouen Campus, Rouen, France

    Paolo Antonetti

  2. University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Ilaria Baghi

Authors
  1. Paolo Antonetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ilaria Baghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Antonetti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the studies presented were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee at the authors’ host institutions and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1022 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Measurement model
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antonetti, P., Baghi, I. When Blame-Giving Crisis Communications are Persuasive: A Dual-Influence Model and Its Boundary Conditions. J Bus Ethics 172, 59–78 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04370-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04370-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation