Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135–139

Attribution Theory as a guide for post-crisiscommunication research

W. Timothy Coombs ∗Communication Studies, Eastern Illinois University, 600 Lincoln Avenue, Charleston, IL 61920, USA

Received 1 November 2006; received in revised form 1 November 2006; accepted 20 November 2006

Abstract

The field of crisis communication is poised to take the next in its evolution. Now is the time to move beyond the limits of thecase study methods that shape the field’s development and shift to empirical methods. As the field matures, crisis managers needrecommendations that are based on scientifically tested evidence rather than speculation. The argument for scientifically testedevidence for action is based on the evidence-based in management and medicine. This article discusses the role Attribution Theoryhas played and can continue to play in building scientifically tested evidence for crisis managers as well as providing an integrativemechanism for the diverse crisis research that spans a variety of disciplines.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Crisis communication; Attribution Theory; Crisis

Post-crisis communication, what management says and does after a crisis, is a robust area of research incommunication and management. While prolific, the post-crisis communication research is often disjointed andatheoretical. Much of the extant writings consist of lists of what “to do” and what “not to do” drawn from case studies.Moreover, the case studies tend to be based on mediated accounts of the crisis and do not involve interviews withthose involved in the crisis. What is underrepresented are theory-based studies designed to systematically identifyand model the key variables in post-crisis communication. We “know” little about how people react to crises or crisisresponses given the lack of experimental study of the phenomenon (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000; Dawar &Pillutla, 2000; Dean, 2004; Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 1998). What we need in crisis communication is a shift towardsevidence-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 descrip-tive 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 formany into crisis communication. It was useful to think of organizations using communication to protect their publicpersonas/reputations and provided a wealth of resources for developing crisis response strategies (Hearit, 2006). Butthat does not mean the genre should be the focal point of crisis communication. Some researchers seem bent on findinga new genre in every new crisis. Every crisis does have unique features. However, is it right to have a genre of one?Is not genre to be based on a pattern emerging from a number of works? Furthermore, of what value is discovering

∗ Tel.: +1 217 581 3324.E-mail address: wtcoombs@eiu.edu.

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.016

136 W.T. Coombs / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135–139

another genre of crisis communication? While a valuable start for crisis communication, we seemed to have exhaustedthe yields from apologia. Post-crisis communication research can offer greater value to theory and practitioners if thereis a grander picture that can unite and integrate the various “genres” in to usable applied knowledge.

Rhetorical cases’ studies provided the roots for the study of crisis communication in the communication field. Itawakened us to the need to focus on what organizations say and do as well keyed us to the value of the situation ininfluencing crisis responses. However, the time has come to embrace the evolution of the field and influx of empiricalstudies of crisis communication (e.g., Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005; Dean, 2004; Huang, Lin, & Su, 2005).Crisis communication research should adopt the perspective of evidence-based management. This piece argues thatAttribution Theory provides one useful beacon for this evolutionary track.

1. Attribution Theory as a guide

Two key traits of crises are that they are unexpected (we might know one might hit but not when) and negative. Theseare also the key characteristics that Attribution Theory expert Bernard Weiner identified as driving people’s need tosearch for causes of an event (Weiner, 1985,1986). It is logical to connect crises and Attribution Theory. Stakeholderswill make attributions about the cause of a crisis; they will assess crisis responsibility. Was the crisis a result ofsituational factors or something the organization did? Indeed, extant research forges a link between Attribution Theoryand crises (e.g., Bradford & Garrett, 1995; Coombs, 1995; Hartel, McColl-Kennedy & McDonald, 1998; Jorgensen,1994,1996; McDonald & Hartel, 2000; Stockmyer, 1996).

The attributions stakeholders make about crisis responsibility have affective and behavioral consequences for anorganization (Coombs & Holladay, 2005; McDonald & Hartel, 2000). If the organization is deemed responsible, thereputation will suffer. In turn, stakeholders may exit the relationship and/or create negative word-of-mouth. Managementhas a vested interest in preventing either of these two negative outcomes.

1.1. Early application of Attribution Theory to crisis

The first true studies of crisis communication appear in the management literature with works appearing in the 1980s.While the study of apologia pre-dates the 1980s, its application to crisis communication did not occur until the later1980s. Mowen (1980) was among the first to systematically broach the idea of a crisis response. Mowen also initiatedan important conceptual link for crisis communication, the use of Attribution Theory. Wiener (1986) built AttributionTheory on the premise that people need to assign responsibility for events. Attribution Theory posits that people lookfor the causes of events, especially unexpected and negative events. Most experts agree that a crisis is negative andunexpected. 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).

Product harm crises were used for the initial development of crisis communication. For product harm crises, fourcrisis response strategies have served as the focal point of research: denial, forced compliance, voluntary compliance,and super effort. Denial involves the organization claming there is no threat from their product. Voluntary complianceoccurs when the government forces a recall or other remediation efforts. Voluntary compliance is when a companyrecalls or takes remediation efforts on its own accord. Super efforts involve voluntary compliance plus compensationand an extensive communication campaign to promote the effort (Siomkos & Kurzbard, 1994).

Researchers have documented that crises have negative effects on market share, sales of the recalled product,stock prices, purchase intention, and sales of other products by the company (taint-the-line) (Dawar, 1998; Siomkos& Kurzbard, 1994). The crisis response can reduce or eliminate these negative effects. It is important to note thatmanagement researchers look beyond reputation (character) to include other variables. Again, this is not just apologia.The management recognition of various outcomes more accurately reflects the demands faced by crisis managers. Theyare not just wrestling with reputational concerns but with legal and financial ones as well.

Bradford and Garrett (1995) applied Attribution Theory to ethical crises, a departure from the product harm line ofresearch. Bradford and Garrett developed a model, based in Attribution Theory, which was designed to explain whatcrisis response to select based upon the nature of the ethical crisis. We find Attribution Theory has now been appliedto a variety of crisis types. However, the research is made comparable by the theoretical linkage. The research sharessimilar theoretical and methodological assumptions.

W.T. Coombs / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135–139 137

1.2. Situational crisis communication theory

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) applies Attribution Theory based ideas to a wider array of crises.SCCT draws upon experimental methods and social–psychological theory. This is true to the Attribution Theory rootsof SCCT. SCCT advances and test hypotheses related to how perceptions of the crisis situation affect the crisis responseand the effects of crisis responses on outcomes such as reputation, emotions, and purchase intention. SCCT researchextends and is comparable to the early product harm and ethical crises research found in the management and marketingliteratures.

SCCT begins with the crisis manager examining the crisis situation in order to assess the level of the reputationalthreat of a crisis. The threat is the amount of damage a crisis could inflict on the organization’s reputation if no action istaken. Three factors in the crisis situation shape the reputational threat: (1) initial crisis responsibility, (2) crisis history,and (3) relationship history/prior reputation. Crisis managers follow a two-step process for using these three factors toassess the reputational threat.

The first step in assessing the reputational threat is to determine the initial crisis responsibility attached to a crisis.Initial crisis responsibility is a function of stakeholder attributions of personal control for the crisis by the organization– how much stakeholders believe organizational actions caused the crisis (Coombs, 1995). Research has consistentlydemonstrated that increased attributions of crisis responsibility produce lower reputational scores – is a greater repu-tational threat (Coombs & Holladay, 1996,2002,2004). The initial assessment is based upon the crisis type. The crisistype is how the crisis is being framed. Frames are cues that stakeholders use to interpret crises (Coombs & Holladay,2002; Dowling, 2002). A crisis type is a frame that indicates how people should interpret the crisis events. Was theevent an accident, sabotage, or criminal negligence?

SCCT posits that each crisis type generates specific and predictable levels of crisis responsibility—attributions oforganizational responsibility for the crisis. SCCT research has identified three crisis clusters based upon attributions ofcrisis responsibility by crisis type: (1) victim cluster has very weak attributions of crisis responsibility (natural disasters,workplace violence, product tampering, and rumor) and the organization is viewed as a victim of the event; (2) accidentalcluster has minimal attributions of crisis responsibility (technical-error accident, technical-error product harm, andchallenge) and the event was considered unintentional or uncontrollable by the organization; and (3) intentional clusterhas very strong attributions of crisis responsibility (human-error accident, human-error product harm, and organizationalmisdeed) and the event was considered to be purposeful (Coombs & Holladay, 2002).

By identifying the crisis type, the crisis manager can determine how much crisis responsibility stakeholders willattribute to the organization at the onset of the crisis. In turn, crisis responsibility indicates the initial reputationalthreat because crisis responsibility has been proven to be negatively related to organizational reputation (Coombs &Holladay, 1996,2001).

The second step in assessing the threat involves two intensifying factors, consistency and distinctiveness, derivedfrom Kelley’s principle of covariance (Kelley, 1972; Kelley & Michela, 1980; Martinko, Douglas, Ford & Gundlach,2004). Consistency is operationalized as crisis history; whether or not an organization has had a similar crisis in the past.Consistency is high if an organization previously has had similar events. A history of crises suggests an organizationhas an ongoing problem that needs to be addressed. The organization is consistently having problems.

Distinctiveness is operationalized as relationship history/prior reputation; how well or poorly an organization hastreated stakeholders in other contexts. Distinctiveness is low if the organization has a history of treating stakeholdersbadly. An organization shows little consideration for stakeholders across a number of domains, not just in this crisis.The crisis is not distinctive. Either high consistency or low distinctiveness increases the threat from a crisis. Eachindicates that the crisis is part of a pattern of behaviors rather than an isolated incident (Coombs, 2004).

Distinctiveness (relationship history/prior reputation) and consistency (crisis history) have both a direct and indirecteffect on the reputational threat posed by the crisis. Either low distinctiveness or high consistency will intensifyattributions of crisis responsibility thereby indirectly affecting the reputational threat. Moreover, the two factors havea direct effect on the reputational threat that is separate from crisis responsibility (Coombs, 2004). Crisis history(consistency) and relationship history/prior reputation (distinctiveness) are used to adjust the initial assessment of thethreat. SCCT posits that either a crisis history or a negative relationship history/prior reputation will intensify thereputational threat. Applied to crisis management, a victim crisis becomes treated as an accident crisis and an accidentcrisis becomes treated as an intentional crisis when either consistency is high (crisis history) or distinctiveness is low(negative relationship history) (Coombs & Holladay, 2001,2004).

138 W.T. Coombs / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135–139

The crisis response strategies vary in their perceived acceptance of responsibility for the crisis. SCCT’s general tenantis that as the reputational threat and negative affect increases, crisis managers should utilize crisis response strategieswith the requisite level of accepting crisis responsibility. Put another way, crisis managers need to accept grater levelsof responsibility as the reputational threat intensifies. SCCT has been applied beyond reputation. The factors shapingthe reputational threat also serve to shape the affect generated by crisis and purchase intentions (Coombs & Holladay,2005). Refer to Coombs (2006) for a fuller discussion of SCCT recommendations for post-crisis communication.

2. Integrative nature of Attribution Theory

Attribution Theory provides a common set of concepts and shared methods that allow for easier integration ofresearch findings from different researchers. Kelly’s covariation principle is an example. Kelley’s work is built onthe concepts of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency (Kelley & Michela, 1980). Studies that share the use ofcovariation can be compared. The research will share experimental methods and how the variables should relate to oneanother. Exact operationalization of variables might differ but the consistent conceptualization of concepts results insimilar operationalizations. The shared concepts and methods made it possible to integrate a number of diverse productharm crisis studies into one larger set of recommendations for crisis managers (Laufer & Coombs, 2006).

The idea for evidence-based management is derived from evidence-based medicine. The focus is on using scientif-ically proven results to guide actions in medicine and now management (Rousseau, 2005). This piece argues that weshould extend the ideas to create evidence-based crisis communication and move away from the speculation offeredby cases built from mediated reports of crises. Attribution Theory provides a mechanism for integrating the variousstudies of crisis communication to build a set of principles for evidence-based crisis communication.

3. Summary

Post-crisis communication research should continue along its newer, empirical track. Such research is providingtested results to crisis managers rather than speculation based on case studies. We move away from decisions basedon unsystematic data toward evidence-based decisions. Attribution Theory is an historical and still viable theory forintegrating crisis communication research. A common theoretical link allows for the integration of research from variousresearchers in diverse fields. We begin to build upon one another’s work and see how the pieces can begin to be integratedinto a larger whole. Moreover, there is a broad research agenda to pursue based upon Attribution Theory. A partiallist would include application of fundamental attribution error to crises and implications for crisis communication, theability of crisis response strategies to shape perceptions of the crisis frames, how crisis response strategies can triggerthe discounting principle, and relationship of crisis frames to counter-factual thinking. With Attribution Theory as aconnecting point, diverse streams of research can converge into to a river of post-crisis communication knowledge thatprovides a mechanism for evidence-based crisis communication.

References

Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journalof Marketing Research, 27, 203–214.

Arpan, L. M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2005). Stealing thunder: Analysis of the effects of proactive disclosure of crisis information. PublicRelations Review, 31, 425–433.

Bradford, J. L., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). The effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to accusations of unethical behavior. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 14, 875–892.

Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the “appropriate” crisis response strategies.Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 447–476.

Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communications: Insights from situational crisis communication theory. Journal ofBusiness Communication, 41, 265–289.

Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of PromotionManagement, 12, 241–260.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study of crisis communication. Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 8, 279–295.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situation: A fusion of the relational management and symbolicapproaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 321–340.

W.T. Coombs / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135–139 139

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communicationtheory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 165–186.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Reasoned action in crisis communication: An attribution theory-based approach to crisis management. InD. P. Millar, & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 95–115). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). Exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect and crisis. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J.Hartel (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations: Volume 1: The effect of affect in organizational settings (pp. 271–288). New York: Elsevier.

Dawar, N. (1998). Product-harm crises and the signaling ability of brands. International Studies of Management & Organization, 28, 109–119.Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of

Marketing Research, 27, 215–226.Dean, D. W. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity: Effects of corporate reputation, response, and responsibility for a crisis event. Journal

of Business Communication, 41, 192–211.Dowling, G. (2002). Creating corporate reputations: Identity, image and performance. New York: Oxford University Press.Hartel, C., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & McDonald, L. (1998). Incorporating attribution theory and the theory of reasoned action within an affective

events theory framework to produce a contingency predictive model of consumer reactions to organizational mishaps. Advances in ConsumerResearch, 25, 428–432.

Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers.

Huang, Y. H., Lin, Y. H., & Su, S. H. (2005). Crisis communicative strategies in Taiwan: Category, continuum, and cultural implication. PublicRelations Review, 31, 229–238.

Jorgensen, B. K. (1994). Consumer reaction to company-related disasters: The effect of multiple versus single explanations. Advances in ConsumerResearch, 21, 348–352.

Jorgensen, B. K. (1996). Components of consumer reaction to company-related mishaps: A structural equation model approach. Advances inConsumer Research, 23, 346–351.

Kelley, H. H. (1972). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501.Laufer, D., & Coombs, W. T. (2006). How should a company respond to a product harm crisis? The role of corporate reputation and consumer-based

cues. Business Horizon, 10(2), 123–137.Martinko, M. J., Douglas, S. C., Ford, R., & Gundlach, M. J. (2004). Dues paying: A theoretical explication and conceptual model. Journal of

Management, 30, 49–69.McDonald, L., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2000). Applying the involvement construct to organisational crises. In Proceedings of the Australian and New

Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (pp. 799–803). Gold Coast, Australia: Griffith University, Department of Marketing.Mowen, J. C. (1980). Further information on consumer perceptions of product recalls. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 519–523.Rousseau, D. M. (2005). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of Management Review, 31, 256–269.Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook

21. Thousand Oaks (pp. 231–276). CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Siomkos, G. J., & Kurzbard, G. (1994). The hidden crisis in product harm crisis management. European Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 30–41.Stockmyer, J. (1996). Brands in crisis: Consumer help for deserving victims. Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 429–435.Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychology Review, 92, 548–573.Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.