IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v172y2021i1d10.1007_s10551-019-04370-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Paolo Antonetti

    (NEOMA Business School, France)

  • Ilaria Baghi

    (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Paolo Antonetti & Ilaria Baghi, 2021. "When Blame-Giving Crisis Communications are Persuasive: A Dual-Influence Model and Its Boundary Conditions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 59-78, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:172:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-019-04370-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-019-04370-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-019-04370-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-019-04370-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ilaria Baghi & Enrico Rubaltelli & Marcello Tedeschi, 2009. "A strategy to communicate corporate social responsibility: cause related marketing and its dark side," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 15-26, January.
    2. Folkes, Valerie S, 1984. "Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Approach," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(4), pages 398-409, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Petia K. Petrova & Robert B. Cialdini, 2005. "Fluency of Consumption Imagery and the Backfire Effects of Imagery Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(3), pages 442-452, December.
    5. Simona Romani & Silvia Grappi & Richard Bagozzi, 2013. "Explaining Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Gratitude and Altruistic Values," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 193-206, May.
    6. Katja Brunk, 2012. "Un/ethical Company and Brand Perceptions: Conceptualising and Operationalising Consumer Meanings," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 111(4), pages 551-565, December.
    7. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    8. Coombs, W. Timothy, 2015. "The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 141-148.
    9. Venkatraman, Srinivasan & Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D., 2006. "Multiple prospect framing and decision behavior: The mediational roles of perceived riskiness and perceived ambiguity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-73, September.
    10. Cotte, June & Coulter, Robin A. & Moore, Melissa, 2005. "Enhancing or disrupting guilt: the role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 361-368, March.
    11. Paolo Antonetti & Stan Maklan, 2016. "An Extended Model of Moral Outrage at Corporate Social Irresponsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 429-444, May.
    12. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    13. Keller, Punam Anand & Block, Lauren G, 1997. "Vividness Effects: A Resource-Matching Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(3), pages 295-304, December.
    14. James C. Ward & Amy L. Ostrom, 2006. "Complaining to the Masses: The Role of Protest Framing in Customer-Created Complaint Web Sites," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(2), pages 220-230, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Palmeira, Mauricio & Hartmann, Nathaniel N. & Chan, Eugene & Sekar, Samuel B., 2023. "Don’t blame the powerless: The impact of hierarchy on reactions to responses to ethical scandals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    2. Valor, Carmen & Antonetti, Paolo & Zasuwa, Grzegorz, 2022. "Corporate social irresponsibility and consumer punishment: A systematic review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1218-1233.
    3. Breeda Comyns & Pierre‐Xavier Meschi & Anne Norheim‐Hansen, 2023. "Firms' responses to environmental misconduct accusations under the condition of contested practice complexity: Evidence from the palm oil production industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5332-5348, December.

    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. Ilaria Baghi & Paolo Antonetti, 2021. "The higher they climb, the harder they fall: The role of self‐brand connectedness in consumer responses to corporate social responsibility hypocrisy," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1216-1230, July.
    2. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    3. Paolo Antonetti & Ilaria Baghi, 2023. "Projecting lower competence to boost apology effectiveness: Underlying mechanism and boundary conditions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 695-715, May.
    4. Paolo Antonetti & Ilaria Baghi, 2021. "How the sender’s positioning and the target’s CSR record influence the effectiveness of scapegoating crisis communications," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 411-423, December.
    5. Carlos Orús & Raquel Gurrea & Carlos Flavián, 2017. "Facilitating imaginations through online product presentation videos: effects on imagery fluency, product attitude and purchase intention," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 661-700, December.
    6. Choi, Jungsil & Park, Hyun Young, 2021. "How donor's regulatory focus changes the effectiveness of a sadness-evoking charity appeal," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 749-769.
    7. Huber, Michaela & Van Boven, Leaf & McGraw, A. Peter & Johnson-Graham, Laura, 2011. "Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 283-293, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    10. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:397-406 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Golovacheva, E., 2016. "When consumers activate persuasion knowledge: Review of antecedents and consequences," Working Papers 6440, Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University.
    14. Akrout, Houcine & Mrad, Mona, 2023. "Measuring brand hate in a cross-cultural context: Emic and Etic scale development and validation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    15. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    16. Pinar Yildirim & Andrei Simonov & Maria Petrova & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2024. "Are Political and Charitable Giving Substitutes? Evidence from the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 8030-8043, November.
    17. Zimand-Sheiner, Dorit & Ryan, Tanya & Kip, Sema Misci & Lahav, Tamar, 2020. "Native advertising credibility perceptions and ethical attitudes: An exploratory study among adolescents in the United States, Turkey and Israel," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 608-619.
    18. Siret, Iris & Sabadie, William, 2022. "Public complaining: A blessing in disguise? Educational calling as a benevolent process that gives consumers voice on brands’ social media," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 476-490.
    19. Adena, Maja & Hager, Anselm, 2020. "Does online fundraising increase charitable giving? A nation-wide field experiment on Facebook," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-302, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    20. Hutzinger, Clemens & Weitzl, Wolfgang J., 2021. "Co-creation of online service recoveries and its effects on complaint bystanders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 525-538.
    21. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    22. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:492-502 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2011. "Let Me See You! A Video Experiment on the Social Dimension of Risk Preferences," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(2), pages 211-225, August.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:172:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-019-04370-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.