THE EFFECT OF CORPORATE APOLOGY RESPONSES ON PUBLIC ANGER IN CRISIS COMMUNICATION: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 21 - 44, 28.03.2020

Salih Gürbüz

https://doi.org/10.19145/e-gifder.639219

Cited By: 4

Öz

The most important aspect of crisis communication in crisis situations is the responses to crises. It is considered important that corporations assume responsibility for the event or situation that causes the crisis in crisis situations, how they express responsibility and the level of sympathy they show to the victims can turn the direction of the negative effects of the crisis to positive. Because, it is considered that the expressions used in crisis responses may have a positive or negative effect on public anger. Thus, the response language used in the management of the crisis can bring positive or negative results to the corporations. In this respect, it is important to analyze how effective the expressions are used in apology expressions in order to reduce public anger. The importance that distinguishes this study from other crisis studies is not only whether corporations use expressions containing responsibility and sympathy in their response to apology, but also to what extent sympathy and responsibility can relieve public anger. For this purpose, experimental research design was used to analyze the effect of crisis response types on anger, one of the public's emotional responses. Participants were randomly exposed to messages of response to the crisis, including 1) active responsibility and high sympathy (full apology); (2) active responsibility and low sympathy (registered apology); (3) passive responsibility and high sympathy (excused apology); and (4) passive responsibility and low sympathy (arrogant apology). As a result of the findings, it was evaluated that the effect of an apology with active responsibility was not different than an apology with passive responsibility in relieving anger. It was also evaluated that a high level of sympathy could not relieve the public's anger more than a response message containing a low level of sympathy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Crisis Management, Crisis Communication, Corporate Apology Responses, Apology Functions

KRİZ İLETİŞİMİNDE KURUMSAL ÖZÜR YANITLARININ KAMU ÖFKESİ ÜZERİNDE ETKİSİ: DENEYSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Kriz durumlarında gerçekleştirilecek kriz iletişiminin en önemli yanını krizlere verilen yanıtlar oluşturmaktadır. Kurumların kriz durumlarında krize neden olan olayın ya da durumun sorumluluğunu üstlenmesi, sorumluluğu üstlendiğini nasıl ifade ettiği ve mağdurlara gösterdiği sempati düzeyi krizin getireceği olumsuzlukların yönünü olumluya çevirebilmesi açısından önemli görülmektedir. Çünkü kriz yanıtlarında kullanılan ifadelerin kamunun öfkesi üzerinde olumlu ya da olumsuz yönde etkisi olabileceği değerlendirilmektedir. Böylece krizin yönetiminde kullanılan yanıt dili kuruma olumlu ya da olumsuz sonuçlar getirebilecektir. Bu açıdan özür ifadelerinde kullanılan ifadelerin kamunun öfkesini azaltması hususunda ne kadar etkili olduğunu araştırmak önemlidir. Bu çalışmayı diğer kriz çalışmalarından ayrıştıran önem, kurumların özür yanıtlarında sadece sorumluluk kabulü ve sempati içeren ifadeleri kullanıp kullanmadığı değil, ayrıca hangi oranda sempatinin ve sorumluluğun kullanılarak kamunun öfkesinin rahatlatılıp rahatlatılamadığını araştırmaktır. Bu amaca yönelik, kriz yanıt türlerinin (kurumsal savunma) kamunun duygusal tepkilerinden birisi olan öfke üzerindeki etkisini incelemek için yarı deneysel araştırma tasarımı kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar 1) aktif sorumluluk ve yüksek sempati (tam özür); (2) aktif sorumluluk ve düşük sempati (taahhütlü özür); (3) pasif sorumluluk ve yüksek sempati (mazeretli özür) ve (4) pasif sorumluluk ve düşük sempati (kibirli özür) söylemleri içeren krize yanıt mesajlarına rastgele maruz kalmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular sonucunda aktif sorumluluğu olan bir özür ifadesinin, pasif sorumluluğu olan bir özür ifadesine göre; yine, yüksek düzeyde bir sempati ifadesinin, düşük düzeyde bir sempati ifadesi içeren bir tepki mesajına göre kamunun öfkesini daha fazla rahatlatamadığı ortaya konulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kriz yönetimi, kriz iletişimi, Kurumsal özür yanıtları, Özür fonksiyonları

Kaynakça

• ADKINS, Gabriel L. (2010). Organizational Networks in Disaster Response: An Examination of the US Government Network’s Efforts in Hurricane Katrina, (Editörler: Coombs, W. T., ve Holladay, S. J.). Handbook of Crisis Communication, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 93-114.
• ARING, Charles D. (1958). Sympathy and empathy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 167(4), 448-452.
• BENOIT, William L. ve DREW, Shirley (1997). Appropriateness and effectiveness of image repair strategies. Communication reports, 10(2), 153-163.
• CHOI, Yoonhyeung ve LIN, Ying-Hsuan (2009). Consumer responses to Mattel product recalls posted on online bulletin boards: Exploring two types of emotion. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(2), 198-207.
• CHOI, Yoonhyeung ve LIN, Ying-Hsuan (2009). Individual difference in crisis response perception: How do legal experts and lay people perceive apology and compassion responses?. Public relations review, 35(4), 452-454.
• COHEN, Jonathan R. (1999). Advising clients to apologize. Southern California Law Review,72, 1009–1073.
• COOMBS, W. Timothy, Holladay, J. Sherry ve Tachkova, Elina (2019). Crisis Communication, Risk Communication, and Issues Management, (Editör: Brigitta R. Brunner). Public Relations Theory Application and Understanding. Wiley & Sons Inc: USA.
• COOMBS, W.Timothy (2010). Parameters for Crisis Communication, (Editörler: Coombs, W. T., ve Holladay, S. J.). Handbook of Crisis Communication, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 17-53.
• COOMBS, W. Timothy ve Holladay, Sherry J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: Clarifying apology's role and value in crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 252-257.
• COOMBS, W. Timothy ve Holladay, Sherry J. (2007). The Negative Communication Dynamic: Exploring The İmpact Of Stakeholder Affect On Behavioral İntention. Journal Of Communication Management, 11, 300-312.
• COOMBS, Timothy ve Schmidt, Lainen (2000). An empirical analysis of image restoration: Texaco's racism crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(2), 163-178.
• COOMBS, W. Timothy (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of public relations research, 11(2), 125-142.
• COOMBS, W. Timothy (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.
• ÇAMDERELİ, Mete (2004). Ana Çizgileriyle Halkla İlişkiler. Salyangoz Yayınları: İstanbul.
• DARWALL, Stephen (1998). Empathy, sympathy, care. Philosophical Studies, 89(2), 261-282.
• DECETY, Jean, ve CHAMINADE, Thierry (2003). Neural correlates of feeling sympathy. Neuropsychologia, 41(2), 127-138.
• ERDOĞAN, İrfan (2006). Teori ve Pratikte Halkla İlişkiler. ERK: Ankara.
• ENGLEHARDT, Kimberly Joy, SALLOT, Lynne M. ve SPRINGSTON, Jeffrey K. (2004). Compassion without blame: Testing the accident decision flow chart with the clash of ValuJet flight 592. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 127-156.
• FEARN-BANKS, K. (2016). Crisis communications: A casebook approach. Routledge.
• FRANTZ, Cynthia McPherson ve BENNIGSON, Courtney (2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 201-207.
• GRIFFIN, Mitch, BABIN, Barry J. ve ATTAWAY, Jill S. (1991). An empirical investigation of the impact of negative public publicity on consumer attitudes and intentions. ACR North American Advances. Erişim adresi: http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/7182/volumes/v18/NA-18.
• KIM, Sora (2016). Crisis Communication Research In South Korea. (Editörler: Andreas Schwarz vd.). The Handbook of International Crisis Communication Research, Wiley Blackwell: UK.
• LEE, Betty Kaman (2004). Audience-oriented approach to crisis communication: A study of Hong Kong consumers’ evaluation of an organizational crisis. Communication research, 31(5), 600-618.
• LEE, Suman ve CHUNG, Surin (2012). Corporate apology and crisis communication: The effect of responsibility admittance and sympathetic expression on public's anger relief. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 932-934.
• LERNER, Jennifer S. ve TIEDENS, Larissa Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger's influence on cognition. Journal of behavioral decision making, 19(2), 115-137.
• MCDONALD, Lynette M., SPARKS, Beverly ve GLENDON, A. Ian (2010). Stakeholder reactions to company crisis communication and causes. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 263-271.
• MCCULLOUGH, Michael E., WORTHINGTON JR, Everett L. ve RACHAL, Kenneth C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(2), 321.
• MEJRI, Mohamed ve DE WOLF, Daniel (2013). Crisis communication failures: The BP case study. IJAME. Mar.-April. 2013, 2(2), 48-56.
• MERT, İbrahim Sani ve AYDIN, Bayram Oğuz (2018). Kriz İletişiminde Mesaj Stratejileri: Ermenek Kömür Madeni Krizine Yönelik Uzman Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. Journal Of Social Sciences Institute/Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(16).
• MITCHELL, Monique, BROWN, Kenneth, MORRIS-VILLAGRAN, Melinda, ve VILLAGRAN, Paul (2001). The effects of anger, sadness and happiness on persuasive message processing: A test of the negative state relief model. Communication Monographs, 68(4), 347-359.
• NADLER, Arie, ve LIVIATAN, Ido (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary's expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients' trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 459-470.
• PACE, Kristin M., FEDIUK, Tomasz A. ve BOTERO, Isabel C. (2010). The acceptance of responsibility and expressions of regret in organizational apologies after a transgression. Corporate communications: An international journal, 15(4), 410-427.
• PATEL, Ameeta ve REINSCH, Lamar (2003). Companies can apologize: Corporate apologies and legal liability. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(1), 9-25.
• PİRA, Aylin (2005). Halkla İlişkiler İçin Okumalar. Dönence: İstanbul.
• ROBBENNOLT, Jennifer K. (2003). Apologies and legal settlement: An empirical examination. Michigan law review, 102(3), 460-516.
• SCHER, Steven J. ve DARLEY, John M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 26(1), 127-140.
• VURAL, Z. Beril Akıncı ve BAT, Mikail (2013). Teoriden Pratiğe Kurumsal İletişim. İletişim Yayınları: İstanbul.
• WEINER, Bernard, GRAHAM, Sandra, PETER, Orli ve ZMUIDINAS, Mary (1991). Public confession and forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 281-312.
• WISPÉ, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(2), 314-321.