IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i16p10244-d890836.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crisis Management for Sustainable Corporate Value: Finding a Construal Fit between Social Distance, Crisis Response, and Crisis Severity

Author

Listed:
  • Hyun Jee Oh

    (Debiasing and Lay Informatics (DaLI) Lab, Center for Applied Social Research, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA)

  • Jeesun Kim

    (Department of Mass Communication, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012, Korea)

  • Chang-Dae Ham

    (Department of Advertising, College of Media, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61801, USA)

Abstract

Despite growing research on public attributions of crisis responsibility, little is known about the role of perceived social distance to organizations in conjunction with crisis severity and crisis response strategies. Applying construal level theory (CLT) to the crisis communication context, we examined the role of the construal fit between social distance, crisis severity, and crisis response strategy in determining crisis responsibility, negative word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions, and anger. A two (social distance to a crisis: close vs. distant) × two (crisis response strategy: defensive vs. accommodating) × two (crisis severity: low vs. high) between-subjects experiment revealed two interaction effects: (1) the interaction effect of social distance and crisis response strategy on anger and negative WOM and (2) the interaction effect of social distance and crisis severity on negative WOM. No interaction effects emerged with respect to crisis responsibility. We discuss the theoretical contribution of this study’s results—namely, how social distance to a crisis impacts public reactions to crisis response strategies. We also outline the practical implications for achieving a better construal fit between social distance and crisis response strategy for effective crisis communication, which may serve as an opportunity for sustainable corporate management.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyun Jee Oh & Jeesun Kim & Chang-Dae Ham, 2022. "Crisis Management for Sustainable Corporate Value: Finding a Construal Fit between Social Distance, Crisis Response, and Crisis Severity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:16:p:10244-:d:890836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10244/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10244/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    2. Angela Y. Lee & Punam Anand Keller & Brian Sternthal, 2010. "Value from Regulatory Construal Fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(5), pages 735-747, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mendini, Monica & Peter, Paula C. & Gibbert, Michael, 2018. "The dual-process model of similarity in cause-related marketing: How taxonomic versus thematic partnerships reduce skepticism and increase purchase willingness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 195-204.
    2. Janssen, Catherine & Swaen, Valérie & Du, Shuili, 2022. "Is a specific claim always better? The double-edged effects of claim specificity in green advertising," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 435-447.
    3. Lee, Alice J. & Ames, Daniel R., 2017. "“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 16-28.
    4. Kareklas, Ioannis & Muehling, Darrel D. & King, Skyler, 2019. "The effect of color and self-view priming in persuasive communications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 33-49.
    5. Kim, Joonkyung & Zhao, Min & Soman, Dilip, 2023. "Converging vs diverging: The effect of visual representation of goal structure on financial decisions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 362-377.
    6. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    7. Mantovani, Danielle & Tazima, Deborah Iuri, 2016. "Arte visual e foco regulatório na avaliação dos consumidores," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 56(2), March.
    8. Yi He & Qimei Chen & Dana L. Alden, 2016. "Time will tell: managing post-purchase changes in brand attitude," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 791-805, November.
    9. Jong Yoon Lee & Jae Hee Park & Jong Woo Jun, 2019. "Brand Webtoon as Sustainable Advertising in Korean Consumers: A Focus on Hierarchical Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-10, March.
    10. Skarmeas, Dionysis & Leonidou, Constantinos N., 2013. "When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1831-1838.
    11. Mark Groza & Mya Pronschinske & Matthew Walker, 2011. "Perceived Organizational Motives and Consumer Responses to Proactive and Reactive CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 639-652, September.
    12. Aaker, Jennifer L. & Brumbaugh, Anne M. & Grier, Sonya A., 2000. "Non-target Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes," Research Papers 1578, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    13. T. Poehlman & Ravi Dhar & John Bargh, 2016. "Sophisticated by Design: the Nonconscious Influence of Primed Concepts and Atmospheric Variables on Consumer Preferences," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 3(1), pages 48-61, March.
    14. Khantimirov, Denis & Karande, Kiran, 2018. "Complaint as a persuasion attempt: Front line employees’ perceptions of complaint legitimacy," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 68-76.
    15. Puccinelli, Nancy M. & Goodstein, Ronald C. & Grewal, Dhruv & Price, Robert & Raghubir, Priya & Stewart, David, 2009. "Customer Experience Management in Retailing: Understanding the Buying Process," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 15-30.
    16. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    17. Román, Sergio & Riquelme, Isabel P. & Iacobucci, Dawn, 2023. "Fake or credible? Antecedents and consequences of perceived credibility in exaggerated online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    18. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 2002. "Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions : The attenuating role of decision justifiability," Other publications TiSEM 44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Rosbergen, Edward & Wedel, Michel & Pieters, Rik, 1997. "Analyzing visual attention tot repeated print advertising using scanpath theory," Research Report 97B32, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    20. Singh, Jaywant & Crisafulli, Benedetta & Quamina, La Toya & Xue, Melanie Tao, 2020. "‘To trust or not to trust’: The impact of social media influencers on the reputation of corporate brands in crisis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 464-480.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:16:p:10244-:d:890836. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.