423918

423918Jin et al.Communications Review

© The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.

CRXXXX10.1177/0093650211

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Article
Communication Research

Examining the Role of Social 2014, Vol 41(1) 74­–94

© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
Media in Effective Crisis sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0093650211423918
Management:  The Effects crx.sagepub.com

of Crisis Origin, Information

Form, and Source on Publics’
Crisis Responses

Yan Jin1, Brooke Fisher Liu2, and Lucinda L. Austin3

Abstract
Publics increasingly use social media during crises and, consequently, crisis communication
professionals need to understand how to strategically optimize these tools. Despite this
need, there is scarce theory-grounded research to understand key factors that affect how
publics consume crisis information via social media compared to other sources. To fill this
gap, an emerging model helps crisis managers understand how publics produce, consume,
and/or share crisis information via social media and other sources: the social-mediated
crisis communication model (SMCC). This study tests essential components of the SMCC
model through a 3 (crisis information form) x 2 (crisis information source) x 2 (crisis
origin) mixed-design experiment (N = 338).The findings indicate the key role of crisis origin
in affecting publics’ preferred information form (social media, traditional media, or word-of-
mouth communication) and source (organization in crisis or third party), which influences
how publics anticipate an organization should respond to a crisis and what crisis emotions
they are likely to feel when exposed to crisis information.

Keywords
crisis communication, social media, crisis response, crisis origin, crisis emotion

During the 2009 U.S. salmonella outbreak, a Health and Human Services Twitter account
had 3,000 followers (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2009). During the 2010 Colorado wildfires,

1
School of Mass Communications,Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond
2
University of Maryland, College Park
3
School of Communication, Elon University, Elon, NC

Corresponding Author:
Yan Jin, 901 W. Main Street, Richmond,VA 23284.
Email: yjin@vcu.edu

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 75

a map created by a University of Colorado student identifying evacuation areas and

response efforts received 1,825,095 views (Stephens, 2010). These and numerous other
examples highlight publics’ increasing interest in using social media during crises, and,
consequently, crisis managers’ need to understand how to best strategically optimize these
tools. Despite this need, there is scarce theory-grounded research to understand key factors
that affect how publics consume crisis information via social media compared to other
sources. Such research is especially important to conduct given that many communicators
have reservations about the credibility of social media (Wright & Hinson, 2009).
Through a 3 x 2 x 2 mixed-design experiment (N = 338), this study tested essential
components of a new model: the social-mediated crisis communication model (SMCC;
Jin & Liu, 2010; Liu, Jin, Briones, & Kuch, in press). Grounded in relationships among
social media, traditional media, and offline word-of-mouth communication, this model
helps crisis managers decide if and how to respond to influential online content creators
through considering the crisis origin as well as the crisis information form and source. The
findings indicate the key role of crisis origin in affecting publics’ preferred information
form (social media, traditional media, or word-of-mouth communication) and source
(organization in crisis or third party), which affects how publics anticipate an organization
should respond to a crisis and what crisis emotions they are likely to feel when exposed to
crisis information. These findings run counter to dominant crisis management theories,
such as situational crisis communication theory (e.g., Coombs & Holladay, 2009), which
do not distinguish the effect of crisis information form and source on publics’ acceptance
of crisis messages, providing support for the SMCC model.

Theoretical Framework
In this section, we first define social media, crises, and issues. We then summarize the
SMCC model (Jin & Liu, 2010; Liu et al., in press) and review research associated with
the primary SMCC components tested in this study.

Definitions
Social media is “an umbrella term that is used to refer to a new era of Web-enabled appli-
cations that are built around user-generated or user-manipulated content, such as wikis,
blogs, podcasts, and social networking sites” (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2010).
In this study we operationalize social media broadly as various digital tools and applica-
tions that facilitate interactive communication and content exchange among and between
publics and organizations, as have others (e.g., Wright & Hinson, 2009).
An organizational crisis is the “perception of an unpredictable event that threatens
important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s perfor-
mance and generate negative outcomes” (Coombs, 2007a, pp. 2-3). An organizational issue
is a “contestable point, a difference of opinion regarding fact, value, or policy, the resolution
of which has consequences for the organization’s strategic plan and future success or failure”
(Heath & Palenchar, 2009, p. 93). Issues emerging online can be more unpredictable than

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

76 Communication Research 41(1)

issues that emerge offline, given the rapid evolution of different types of social media
available for a vast spectrum of publics to voice their opinions and emotions, which lead to
new challenges facing crisis managers in terms of how to monitor issues created and dis-
seminated via social media (Coombs, 2008).

The Role of Social Media in Organizational Crisis Communication

During crises, publics’ social media usage increases (Pew Internet & American Life
Project, 2006), leading some experts to conclude that public participation is the new norm
in crisis management (Baron, 2010). For example, a survey by the American Red Cross
revealed that 69% of adults believe that emergency responders should be monitoring social
media sites to quickly send help, and 74% expect response agencies to answer social media
calls for help within an hour (“Web Users Increasingly Rely,” 2010). Furthermore, publics
who are active social media users or become active during crises assign a higher level of
credibility to social media coverage than to traditional mass media crisis coverage (Horrigan
& Morris, 2005; Procopio & Procopio, 2007; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007). For all publics,
social media provide emotional support after crises through enabling publics to virtually
band together, share information, and demand resolution (Choi & Lin, 2009; Stephens &
Malone, 2009). This online participation during crises often is replicated in offline partici-
pation in crisis resolution (Dutta-Bergman, 2006).
These findings suggest that organizations no longer have a choice about whether to
integrate social media into crisis management; the only choice is how to do so. Therefore, it
is surprising that only 29% of U.S. companies have formal social media policies (eMarketer,
2010), and most public relations practitioners do not believe social media are as credible or
as accurate as mainstream media (Wright & Hinson, 2009). As Coombs (2008) noted, “The
rapid evolution of new media often results in the practice of public relations getting ahead
of research. The practice of crisis communication is ahead of research in terms of social
media” (p.1). Despite a plethora of attention to the use of social media in public relations
professional publications, research is still needed to provide evidence-based guidelines to
make the business case for integrating social media into crisis management practices. For
example, Taylor and Kent (2010) found that 66% of the articles on social media in the
Public Relations Society of America’s Public Relations Tactics started with the assumption
that the value of social media is a given. In the area of crisis communication where stakes
are often high, it is especially important to provide evidence-based guidelines to effectively
meet publics’ expectations for communication via social media. To this end, we now sum-
marize an emerging model that starts to address this challenge: the SMCC model.

Social-Mediated Crisis Communication (SMCC) Model

Jin and Liu (2010) proposed the blog-mediated crisis communication (BMCC) as a roadmap
for deciding if and how to respond to influential blogs before, during, and after crises. The
model states that crisis managers must first identify which bloggers key publics designate
as influential because it is not possible to monitor all blogs. As such the model defines

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 77

influence as derived from bloggers’ issue involvement and self-involvement and posits
that bloggers exert the most influence when their information authority and credibility
both are high. Therefore, the model contends that influential blogs affect blog followers
by providing issue-fit opinion leadership that addresses followers’ informational and emo-
tional needs during a crisis. In addition, the model posits that influential blogs affect non–
blog followers indirectly through providing media with crisis information and offline
word-of-mouth communication between blog followers and non–blog followers. Finally,
the BMCC model provides a matrix for evaluating blogs’ influence and recommended
blog-mediated crisis communication strategies.
After testing the BMCC model with 40 American Red Cross communicators, researchers
made significant revisions to the model. First, the model was renamed the SMCC model to
better reflect that crises can be sparked and spread online through a variety of social media
platforms and offline social interactions, not just by influential bloggers (Briones et al.,
2011). As Smith (2010) noted, researchers should consider “a socially distributed model of
public relations, in which individuals with little recognized stake in an organization initiate
and fulfill public relations responsibilities through online interactivity” (p. 333). This
renaming of the model also was supported by survey research indicating that publics increas-
ingly use social networking sites such as Facebook instead of blogs (ECAR, 2008; Lenhart,
Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010) and the growth of Twitter as an effective crisis manage-
ment tool (Sutter, 2009).
The model renaming also led researchers to rethink the key publics featured in the model:
(a) Influential bloggers were converted to influential social media creators, (b) blog follow-
ers were converted to social media followers, and (c) non–blog followers were converted
to social media inactives (Liu et al., in press) based on publics types currently identified in
social media literature (e.g., Bernoff, 2010; Li & Bernoff, 2008; Li, Bernoff, Fiorentino, &
Glass, 2007). In addition, to better depict the ubiquity of on and offline opinions shared
among key publics, the SMCC model more clearly indicated how offline word-of-mouth
communication occurs among the organization(s) responding to an issue/crisis, influential
social media creators, social media followers, and social media inactives. Researchers
added a grey box (rather than the multiple arrows used in the original model) to indicate
who participates in this offline word-of-mouth communication (see Figure 1; Liu et al., in
press). Furthermore, the arrow types were converted to two types of relationships: solid
arrows for direct relationships (e.g., social media and traditional media directly inform
each others’ crisis coverage) and dotted arrows for indirect relationships (e.g., social media
inactives receive crisis information reported by social media indirectly from social media
followers). The arrow types also were modified to more fully indicate two-way flows
between key publics and crisis information sources such as the two-way flow between
social media and influential social media creators.
Finally, to reflect factors that affect how organizations respond to crises via traditional
media, social media, and offline word-of-mouth communication, the SMCC model added
five considerations that emerged from the American Red Cross interviews: crisis origin,
crisis type, infrastructure, message content, and message form. These factors are listed
under the organization in the center of the redesigned model (see Figure 1). Having the

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

78 Communication Research 41(1)

Figure 1. Social-mediated crisis communication model (Liu, Jin, Briones, & Kuch, in press).

organization as the central source for crisis information, however, does indicate that only
one organization is involved in any given crisis. As Atkins (2010) noted, “A disaster or
crisis event rarely if ever has an impact that is limited to only one organization or entity. . . .
Planning which is limited to the consideration of singular organizational perspectives is
likely to fail” (p. 95). Therefore, the SMCC model represents a single organization’s crisis
management considerations while acknowledging that other organizations serve as addi-
tional sources of crisis information that affect how publics’ respond to crises.
Crisis origin refers to whether the crisis was initiated from an internal organizational
issue (e.g., mismanaging funds) or from an issue external of the organization (e.g., a severe
weather incident occurs that the American Red Cross responds to), which affects attribution
of responsibility and, thus, the available crisis response strategies. For example, in a study
of Hong Kong audiences’ reactions to crises, Lee (2004) found that publics were more nega-
tive, less sympathetic, and less trustful of organizations that denied responsibility for inter-
nally generated crises. Crisis type—victim, accident, or intentional—theoretically affects
how organizations should respond to crises that emerge on- or off-line as indicated in
situational crisis communication theory (Coombs, 2011), but, in the case of the American
Red Cross, communicators predominately relied on providing instructing or adapting
information. Therefore, the revised SMCC model encourages organizations to more care-
fully consider how crisis type affects publics’ acceptance of crisis responses.
Organizational infrastructure indicates whether the crisis should be best handled through
a centralized organizational message or localized by individual branches, affiliates, or
chapters. In the case of the American Red Cross, communicators revealed that centralized

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 79

messages helped chapters deliver consistent messages and overcome resource constraints
that limited their abilities to create original social media content. Content and form refer to
attributes of the crisis message that provide emotional support for impacted publics, similar
to what Coombs (2011) calls instructing and adapting information. Content refers to the
information included in the message that helps publics respond to and make meaning of the
crisis, and form is how the message is conveyed (e.g., via a Tweet, press release, etc.). In
the case of the American Red Cross communicators, content decisions often were deferred
to National Headquarters, but the preferred form was Twitter followed by Facebook. This
study continues to refine our understanding of strategically managing crises on- and off-
line through zooming in on four key variables highlighted in the SMCC model discussed
in greater detail below: crisis origin, message strategy, crisis information form, and crisis
information source.
Crisis messages strategies as a function of crisis origin. The SMCC model (Liu et al., in
press) indicates that the crisis origin affects attribution of responsibility and, thus, the avail-
able crisis response strategies. In other words, publics perceive a crisis with an internal ori-
gin as more controllable than a crisis with an external origin and, thus, assign higher
attribution of responsibility for crises with internal origins (Coombs, 2011; Jorgensen, 1993;
Lyon & Cameron, 2004; Weiner, 1986).
In terms of available crisis response strategies, Coombs (1998) argued that an organiza-
tion’s reaction to conflict might vary from defensive to accommodative. Defensive strate-
gies deflect crisis responsibility and become less effective when organizations are viewed
as responsible for a crisis. Defensive strategies include attacking the accuser, denial, and
excuse. Accommodative strategies emphasize image repair, which is needed as image
damage increases, and include ingratiation, corrective action, and full apology. Furthermore,
Coombs and Holladay (2005) mapped postcrisis communication reputation-building strate-
gies on a range of actions from defensive responses (denial, scapegoat, excuse, and justifica-
tion) to accommodative responses (compensation and apology), stating that an organization
can incur more financial expenses when more accommodative strategies are used. More
recently, Jin (2010) found that publics tend to experience anger, which leads to more sup-
port of defensive organizational crisis responses, if the offense is perceived as from some-
one outside the organization and against publics or their well-being.
In addition, based on the continuum model of advocacy and accommodation embedded
in the contingency theory of strategic conflict management, Jin (2010) categorized organi-
zational crisis responses ranging from defensive strategies to accommodative strategies.
Although a more accommodative stance generally led to the utilization of strategies
such as ingratiation, corrective action, and apology, a more advocating stance led to the
utilization of strategies such as attack, deny, excuse, and justify. In testing crises with an
internal locus of control, Lyon and Cameron (2004) found that apologetic or more accom-
modative responses were most appropriate, which was also recommended by Coombs
(1998). In the SMCC model (Liu et al., in press), locus of control is called crisis origin:
whether the crisis was initiated from an internal organizational issue or from an issue exter-
nal to the organization, affecting attribution of responsibility and, thus, the available crisis
response strategies. Thus, we propose:

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

80 Communication Research 41(1)

Hypothesis 1.1: Publics are more likely to accept an organization’s defensive crisis
strategies when the crisis origin is external.
Hypothesis 1.2: Publics are more likely to accept an organization’s accommodative
crisis strategies when the crisis origin is internal.

Form and source. The SMCC model further indicates that selecting the appropriate crisis
message strategy is a function of form and source, in addition to attribution of responsibility
(Jin & Liu, 2010; Liu et al., in press). Form is how the message is conveyed (e.g., via a
Tweet, press release, etc.) and source is who the information is sent by (e.g., by the organiza-
tion featured in the center of the SMCC model, journalists, bloggers, other organizations,
etc.). Although form and source largely are ignored by crisis communication scholars, there
is emerging support for examining how these factors affect crisis message acceptance. For
example, in some cases publics assign a higher level of credibility to social media than to
traditional mass media as a form for obtaining crisis information (Horrigan & Morris, 2005;
Procopio & Procopio, 2007; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007). Publics’ involvement in a crisis
also affects the crisis information forms they seek out (Avery, 2010a). Furthermore, Twitter
as an information form has been found to be especially effective for communicating with
publics actively involved a crisis (Briones et al., 2011; Smith, 2010). Scholars such as
Schultz, Utz, and Göritz (2011) have suggested that the medium may be more important
than the message.
In terms of source, emerging research also indicates value in further exploring this factor
in a crisis management context. As several scholars have noted, most crisis research focuses
on a single organization as the source for crisis information and rarely on the larger set of
entities involved in a crisis response (e.g., Atkins, 2010; Waymer & Heath, 2007). When
source is considered in crisis communication research, it largely is in the context of which
information sources are quoted within media coverage of crises (e.g., Littlefield & Quenette,
2007; Liu, 2010) or specific attributes of single organizational sources such as a spokesper-
son’s ethnicity (e.g., Arpan, 2002). In the SMCC model, operationalized from publics’
points of view, crisis information source amounts to who sent out the message regarding a
given crisis. Although the sources can come from a wide array of channels, the SMCC
model categorizes the sources as either the organization (official crisis information reported
by the organization at the center of the crisis) or a third party (any groups or individuals
outside the organization, including other publics and the media). Outside the realm of crisis
communication research, the source of information has been established as critical for
establishing trust and credibility (e.g., Avery, 2010b; Callison, 2001), which affect message
acceptance. Therefore, to explore the potential effects of crisis information form and source
on publics’ acceptance of crisis information strategies we ask:

Research Question 1.1: How, if at all, is publics’ acceptance of organizational crisis

strategies affected by crisis origin and crisis information form?
Research Question 1.2: How, if at all, is publics’ acceptance of organizational crisis
strategies affected by crisis origin and crisis information source?

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 81

Crisis Emotions as a Function of Crisis Origin

Emerging research finds that publics seek out social media because they uniquely provide
emotional support during crises (e.g., Choi & Lin, 2009; Jin & Liu, 2010). The type of
emotional support publics receive from all source types can directly affect their perception
of crisis response strategies (Coombs & Holladay, 2005) as publics deal with their feelings
(Jin, 2009, 2010). Research finds an association between high crisis responsibility and
negative public emotions (Choi & Lin, 2009; McDonald, Sparks, & Glendon, 2010) as well
as crisis engagement and all public emotions (McDonald et al., 2010; Yang, Kang, &
Johnson, 2010). Also, specific emotions have been tied to undesirable crisis outcomes. For
example, anger predicts negative purchase intentions and negative word-of-mouth com-
munication (Coombs, 2007b). Also, fear leads to negative word-of-mouth communication
for crises that have internal causes (McDonald et al., 2010).
Choi and Lin (2009) proposed two types of emotions: attribution-independent emotions,
and attribution-dependent emotions, both identified in understanding affective compo-
nents of the situational crisis communication theory (SCCT). Choi and Lin suggested emo-
tions such as anger and contempt are likely elicited from the attribution process. In addition,
according to the cognitive appraisal theory (e.g., Lazarus, 1991), other types of emotions
(i.e., fear) without clear direction of attribution or blame might be categorized into attribution-
independent crisis emotions. Choi and Lin further suggested that more research needs to be
conducted to explore whether crisis emotions might change as a function of crisis type,
depending on the locus of control (internal or external) and attribution of crisis responsibil-
ity. This corresponds to the SMCC model’s argument on examining crisis origin, which
defines whether the crisis was initiated from an internal organizational issue or from an
issue external to the organization. Crisis origin thus is directly related to the attribution of
responsibility: External crisis origin links to low organizational responsibility attribution,
whereas internal crisis origin links to high organizational responsibility attribution. To
answer this call for future research, this study integrates the conceptualization of crisis attri-
bution from the perspective of SCCT and the crisis origin argument for better understanding
of how crisis origins are associated with different crisis emotions as a result of different
crisis attribution.
First, for attribution-independent emotions such as fear, Jin (2009) found that low
perceived crisis controllability and high uncertainty contributed to more feelings of fright.
Jin (2009, 2010) also suggested that publics tend to feel more anxiety, another type of
attribution-independent emotions, when they perceive the crisis situation as uncertain yet
somewhat controllable. Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 2.1: Publics will feel more attribution-independent emotions (anxiety,

apprehension, and fear) when the crisis origin is external.

Second, for attribution-dependent emotions, anger has been studied extensively in crisis
communication (Coombs & Holladay, 2005). For example, Turner (2007) found that
anger can motivate people to take control of a situation and ameliorate the problem at

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

82 Communication Research 41(1)

hand from a behavioral perspective. According to Jin (2010), the core relational theme
underlying anger is a demanding offense against “me” and “mine” (Lazarus, 1991), as
individuals react with anger when they believe “the other person, either through neglect
or intentionally, treats us with disrespect” (Lindner, 2006, p. 275). Jin (2009, 2010) found
that publics tend to experience anger when facing a demanding offense from an organi-
zation against them or their wellbeing. The ego involvement of the public is engaged to
preserve their identity or benefit in the situation. Reports of felt anger were also found
to increase as perceptions of crisis responsibility increased (Coombs & Holladay, 2005).
As McDonald et al. (2010) summarized, internal controllable crises usually resulted in
anger. Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 2.2: Publics will feel more attribution-dependent emotions (anger, contempt,
and disgust) when the crisis origin is internal.

The SMCC model posited that one of the primary reasons publics use social media
during crises is for emotional venting and/or seeking emotional support (Jin & Liu, 2010).
Scholars are beginning to incorporate emotions into tests of SCCT (e.g., Choi & Lin, 2009;
Coombs & Holladay, 2005), but much more research is needed in this area (Coombs, 2010).
The most recently published study on emotions and SCCT concluded that attribution-
independent and attribution-dependent emotions simultaneously affect perceived organi-
zational crisis responsibility and perceived postcrisis organizational reputation (Choi &
Lin, 2009). Although researchers have included crisis information form in their studies
(e.g., Choi and Lin analyzed consumer messages exchanged on online bulletin boards),
information form has not been fully explored as a factor that might affect the effectiveness
of crisis communication. Furthermore, to date, scholars have not specifically examined
how information source affects publics’ crisis emotions independently or jointly with
information form. Therefore, to explore the potential effect of crisis information form and
source on publics’ acceptance of crisis information strategies we ask:

Research Question 2.1: How, if at all, are publics’ crisis emotions affected by cri-
sis origin and the crisis information form?
Research Question 2.2: How, if at all, are publics’ crisis emotions affected by cri-
sis origin and the crisis information source?

Method
The effects of crisis information form and source were examined via a 3 x 2 x 2 mixed-
design experiment with college students. As one of the most important stakeholders of
higher education institutions, college students and their support of the university is critical
(Sung & Yang, 2008). Students’ perceptions of the university during university crises
are also important (Jin, Len-Rios, & Park, 2010). In this case, the SMCC model applies
to how a university should communicate to students, one of its key internal publics, as
a crisis arises.

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 83

The first factor was a between-subjects variable: crisis origin (external vs. internal). The
other two factors were within-subjects variables: (1) crisis information form: word-of-mouth
(WOM) versus social media (SM) vs. traditional media (TM), and (2) crisis information
source: third party versus organization.

Stimuli Development
To develop the stimuli reflecting crisis situations involving our participants we interviewed
a purposive and convenient sample of 22 college students from the same university about
their experience of crisis situations and how they use media prior to, during, and after a
crisis that affected them directly. Students were selected through an initial online question-
naire regarding their daily media habits: A pool of 39 students completed an online ques-
tionnaire via a participant pool system, and from these responses individuals were invited
to participate in in-depth, in-person interviews. The researchers stopped conducting inter-
views once the major categories identified in the propositions displayed depth and varia-
tions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Interview responses suggested a pool of crisis situations that seemed to be most rele-
vant and important for college students in the given university. The top-ranked crises from
the interviews, based on their relevance and importance from the students’ perspectives,
were then incorporated into two sets of six fictitious crisis situation scenarios to be used in
the experiment, incorporating the crisis information source and form conditions as within-
subjects variables and organizational crisis responsibility as a between-subjects variable,
respectively: (a) bomb threat (TM + Third Party), (b) riots (SM + Third Party), (c) bliz-
zard (WOM + Third Party), (d) disease outbreak (SM + Organization), (e) embezzlement
(WOM + Organization), and (f) violent partying (TM + Organization). In all scenarios, the
organization was the university where the participants attended school. The crisis infor-
mation in each scenario came from a combination of sources (either the university
as the organization in crisis or a third party) and forms (face-to-face communication,
Facebook, or campus newspaper), embedded in the context of whether publics perceived
the crisis origin as external (i.e., the organization is not responsible for the crisis) or internal
(i.e., the organization is responsible for the crisis).

Participants and Procedures

A total of 338 participants completed the study in May 2010 via a participant pool system
at a large East Coast university. Young adults were chosen for this study as research shows
they are more frequent users of social media and their social media use often sets trends
for how the population as a whole views technology (ECAR, 2008; Lenhart et al., 2010).
In this study, the participants’ self-reported use of social media (i.e., blogs, online videos,
Facebook, and Twitter) was measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with response options
ranging from 1 = not at all to 7 = all the time. The results showed that the participants used
Facebook very frequently (M = 5.06, SD = 1.72), followed by online videos (M = 3.68,
SD = 1.83), blogs (M = 2.57, SD = 1.87), and Twitter (M = 2.15, SD = 1.89).

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

84 Communication Research 41(1)

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) 162 participants received
experimental stimuli designed with internal crisis origin (i.e., high organizational crisis
responsibility), and (2) 176 participants received experimental stimuli designed with exter-
nal crisis origin (i.e., low organizational crisis responsibility). Within each group, six crisis
situation stimuli were presented in six different orders by using counterbalance to randomly
distribute variables and prevent order effects, such those caused by participant fatigue.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the orders. The within-subjects design in
each group exposed individual participants to all condition combinations of crisis informa-
tion forms and sources. Within-subjects design decreases the need for a larger participant
pool and reduces the error variance associated with individual differences, such as IQ, inter-
est and familiarity levels, and demographics, since the conditions are exactly equivalent
with respect to individual difference variables. Therefore, our mixed design focused on the
relative effect of crisis information form and source on the individual within each group,
while testing the between-subjects effects as a function of crisis origin.

Measures
The dependent variables for acceptance of a number of different organizational crisis
responses and discrete negative emotions were measured by using a series of indexes in
the questionnaire instrument.
Acceptance of organization’s crisis response strategies. Eighteen organizational crisis com-
munication responses taken from SCCT research (e.g., Coombs, 2011) and incorporated
into the SMCC model were presented for participants to respond to by indicating “how
acceptable each of the actions taken by the University could be,” measured on a 7-point
Likert-type scale where 1 = not acceptable at all to 7 = totally acceptable. Without theoreti-
cal expectation of crisis response factors correlating to one another, to extract maximum
variance from the data set with orthogonal components (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), prin-
cipal components analyses with varimax rotation was performed, which rendered 4 different
groups of crisis responses, explaining 62.83% variance: defensive responses (alpha = .81),
supportive responses (alpha = .82), evasive responses (alpha = .81), and accommodative
responses (alpha = .78). On the basis of Jin’s (2010) study, we further grouped defensive
and evasive responses as defensive strategies, whereas supportive and accommodative strat-
egies were grouped as accommodative crisis responses.
Crisis emotions. Nine negative emotions, selected based on crisis emotions literature
(e.g., Choi & Lin, 2009; Jin, 2009, 2010), were listed for the participants to provide their
likelihood of feeling each of these emotions by asking, “What happened in the situation
made me feel . . .” measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = very unlikely to 7 =
very likely. Aiming at a theoretical solution uncontaminated by unique and error variability
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), as well as considering the possible crisis emotion factors
themselves might be correlated, principal axis factoring, strongly preferred by Comrey
(1988), with promax rotation (one type of oblique rotation used when correlation between
factors are expected theoretically) were performed. The results suggested three different
types of crisis emotions felt by the participants, explaining variance 2.91, 2.84, and 2.82

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 85

accordingly: (1) attribution-independent emotions (alpha = .89) of anxiety, apprehension,

and fear; (2) attribution-dependent emotions (alpha = .84) of disgust, contempt, and
anger; and (3) self-attributed emotions (alpha = .91) of embarrassment, guilt, and shame.
The first two clusters of crisis emotions were, according to Choi and Lin’s (2009), argu-
ment of grouping crisis emotions as attribution-dependent and attribution-independent
ones. Thus, in this study, we included the indices of attribution-independent emotions and
attribution-dependent emotions as the crisis emotions measures.

Manipulation Checks and Data Analyses

One manipulation check index was included to determine whether the two groups of
participants perceived the organizational crisis responsibility differently, as crisis attri-
bution was the between-subjects variable. In addition, two manipulation check items were
included to determine whether the participants perceived the crisis information form and
source, as within-subjects variables, in the same direction as the stimuli being manipulated.
For crisis origin, a 3-item scale of responsibility developed by Griffin, Babin, and Darden
(1992) and applied by Coombs (2004) to crisis communication was used (alpha = .65). Each
item was measured with a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly
agree in response to (a) “Circumstances, not [the university], are responsible for what hap-
pened in the situation,” (b) “The blame for what happened in the situation lies with [the
university],” and (c) “The blame for what happened in the situation lies in the circum-
stances, not [the university].” An ANOVA found a significant difference between the exter-
nal origin group and the internal origin group in the tests (internal origin: M = 4.85, SD =
0.86; external origin: M = 3.25, SD = 1.50), F(1, 2008) = 857.559, p < .001, par. η2 = .294.
Therefore, the manipulation of crisis origin was successful.
For crisis information source, participants were asked to respond to, “In this scenario,
the information about what happened was delivered by/came from the University” (as
opposed to a nonuniversity source), selecting the number that best indicated their agreement
with 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. An ANOVA found a significant difference
between the third-party source and organizational source in the tests (third party: M = 4.31,
SD = 2.13; organization: M = 4.79, SD = 2.10), F(1, 2006) = 26.117, p < .001, par. η2 = .013.
Therefore, the manipulation of crisis information source was successful.
For crisis information form, participants were asked to respond to, “In this scenario,
the information about what happened was delivered by/came from . . . ,” selecting the
number that best indicated their agreement with each of the three listed items (i.e., word
of mouth, Facebook, and online news), with 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
A MANOVA found significant differences between every pair of the three crisis infor-
mation forms: WOM condition: F(2, 1994) = 9.543, p < .001, par. η2 = .009; SM condi-
tion: F(2, 1994) = 25.874, p < .001, par. η2 = .025; TM condition: F(2, 1994) = 15.180,
p < .001, par. η2 = .015. Therefore, the manipulation of crisis information form was
successful.
Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to examine the main effects of crisis origin
(see Table 1). Two-and three-way interactions between crisis origin and crisis information

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

86 Communication Research 41(1)

Table 1. Main Effects of Crisis Origin

Crisis origin

Dependent measures Internal External F

Acceptance of defensive crisis strategies
 Defensive 3.12 (0.07)*** 3.45 (0.06)*** 13.751***
 Evasive 3.95(0.08)*** 3.46(0.08)*** 19.710***
Acceptance of accommodative crisis strategies
 Supportive 4.96 (0.08) 5.07 (0.08) 0.860
 Accommodative 4.50 (0.07)* 4.30 (0.07)* 4.159*
Crisis emotions
  Attribution independent 3.99 (0.08)* 3.75 (0.08)* 4.367*
  Attribution dependent 4.16 (0.08)*** 3.69 (0.08)*** 17.058***

Note: Cell entries are estimated marginal means. Pairwise planned comparisons are adjusted for Bonfer-
roni multiple comparisons. Standard errors are in parentheses. Significance for the multivariate F is based
on estimates of the marginal means for the Wilk’s Lambda statistic.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

form and source were also examined to further analyze how source and form exert effects,
jointly with crisis origin, on different measures.

Results
Acceptance of Organizational Crisis
Strategies From Defensive to Accommodative
Our study yielded results that largely supported our hypotheses on the main effects of crisis
origin on publics’ acceptance of organizational crisis strategies. Crisis origin was also
found to interact with both crisis information form and source.
Defensive crisis strategies. Hypothesis 1.1 proposed that publics are more likely to accept
an organization’s defensive crisis strategies when the crisis origin is external. On one hand,
for defensive responses, significant between-subjects main effects of crisis origin were evi-
dent, F(1, 298) = 13.751, p < .001, par. η2 = .044. External origin (i.e., low organizational
crisis responsibility) led to participants’ higher acceptance of the organization’s defensive
responses (M = 3.449, SE = 0.062) than internal crisis origin did (M = 3.115, SE = 0.065;
p < .001). On the other hand, for evasive responses, significant between-subjects main
effects of crisis origin were present, F(1, 321) = 19.710, p < .001, par. η2 = .058. External
origin (i.e., low organizational crisis responsibility) led to participants’ higher acceptance
of the organization’s evasive responses (M = 3.948, SE = 0.077) than internal crisis origin
did (M = 3.458, SE = 0.080; p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 1.1 was supported.
Accommodative crisis strategies. Hypothesis 1.2 proposed that publics are more likely to
accept an organization’s accommodative crisis strategies when the crisis origin is internal.

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 87

Significant between-subjects main effects of crisis origin were present, F(1, 310) = 4.159, p
< .05, par. η2 = .013, regarding publics’ acceptance of an organization’s accommodative
responses. Internal crisis origin (i.e., high organizational crisis responsibility) led to partici-
pants’ higher acceptance of the organization’s accommodative responses (M = 4.504, SE =
0.073) than external crisis origin did (M = 4.296, SE = 0.071; p < .05). However, no signifi-
cant main effects were detected in terms of publics’ acceptance of an organization’s sup-
portive responses. Thus, Hypothesis 1.2 was partially supported.
How crisis origin interacts with crisis information source and form. Two two-way interactions
revealed significant results as related to publics’ acceptance of evasive responses as one
type of defensive crisis message strategy. Research Question 1.1 asked how, if at all, is
publics’ acceptance of organizational crisis responses affected by crisis origin and crisis
information form. Crisis origin was found to interact with crisis information form, F(2, 642) =
3.596, p < .05, par. η2 = .011. When crisis origin was external (i.e., low organizational
responsibility), participants were most likely to accept an organization’s evasive responses
(M = 4.167, SE = 0.086; p < .05) if the crisis information was delivered through traditional
media.
Research Question 1.2 asked how, if at all, is publics’ acceptance of organizational crisis
responses affected by crisis origin and crisis information source. Crisis origin was found to
interact with crisis information source, F(1, 321) = 3.890, p < .05, par. η2 = .012. When crisis
origin was external (i.e., low organizational responsibility), participants were most likely to
accept the organization’s evasive responses (M = 4.024, SE = 0.082; p < .05) if the crisis
information was sent by the organization.

Crisis Emotions in SMCC Context

Our study yielded mixed results when it came to the main effects of crisis origin on crisis
emotions. Three-way interactions between crisis origin, crisis information form, and
source were detected.
Attribution-independent emotions. Hypothesis 2.1 proposed that publics feel more attribution-
independent emotions (i.e., anxiety, apprehension, and fear) when the crisis origin is
external. Significant between-subjects main effects of crisis origin were detected, F(1, 300) =
4.367, p < .05, par. η2 = .014. However, internal crisis origin (i.e., high organizational
responsibility) led to more attribution-independent emotions (M = 3.987, SE = 0.082) than
external crisis origin did (M = 3.750, SE = 0.079; p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 2.1 was not
supported.
Attribution-dependent emotions (anger, contempt, and disgust). Hypothesis 2.2 proposed
that publics feel more attribution-dependent emotions (i.e., anger, contempt, and disgust),
when the crisis origin is internal. Significant between-subjects main effects of crisis origin
were evident, F(1, 300) = 17.058, p < .001, par. η2 = .054. Internal crisis origin (i.e., high
organizational responsibility) indeed led to more external attribution–dependent emotions
(M = 4.164, SE = 0.082) than external crisis origin did (M = 3.692, SE = 0.079; p < .001).
Thus, Hypothesis 2.2 was supported.
How crisis origin interacts with crisis information source and form. Research Questions
2.1 and 2.2 asked how, if at all, are publics’ crisis emotions affected by crisis origin,

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

88 Communication Research 41(1)

information form, and source. Both two- and three-way interactions were evident,
which further explained how crisis information source and form might moderate
the effects of crisis origin on crisis emotions. First, two-way interactions of crisis
origin and crisis information source were detected, F(1, 300) = 13.540, p < .01, par. η2 =
.043. When crisis origin was internal (i.e., high organizational responsibility), partici-
pants reported the most attribution-dependent emotions (M = 4.551, SE = 0.094;
p < .01) if the crisis information was sent by a third party.
Second, significant three-way interactions between crisis origin, crisis information
source, and form revealed interesting results, F(2, 602) = 9.374, p < .001, par. η2 = .030.
When the crisis origin was internal (i.e., high organizational responsibility), participants
reported the most attribution-dependent emotions when the crisis information was sent by
a third party using social media (M = 5.428, SE = 0.123; p < .001).

Discussion
The results indicate the complex nature of crisis communication in the new era of socially
mediated crisis communication. These findings also shed light on the importance of stra-
tegically matching crisis information form and source, depending on the crisis origin, for
organizations to respond to crises more effectively.

Effects of Internal Crisis Origin

Internal crisis origin leads to stronger crisis emotions and anticipation of more accommo-
dative organizational crisis responses: Publics seem to be more likely to accept the orga-
nization’s accommodative responses, taking a collaborative approach to a tough situation.
This finding supports the observations from Jin’s (2010) and Jin, Pang and Cameron’s
(2010) studies, based on the contingency theory of strategic conflict management. Crisis
managers should consider recommending accommodative organizational responses to
crises if evidence shows that publics perceive the organization is to blame for the crisis.
Our findings also indicate that when publics perceive the crisis origin as internal, they tend
to feel more crisis emotions in general regardless of attribution-independent emotions
(such as anxiety, apprehension, and fear) or attribution-dependent ones (such as anger,
contempt, and disgust).
When publics perceive the crisis origin as external, they are more likely to accept an
organization’s defensive responses. This insight provides justification for crisis managers
when proposing a more advocating stance for the organization to take by defending itself
when the organization has low perceived responsibility for the crisis.
In addition, if the crisis information is disseminated by a third party through social media,
publics’ attribution-dependent emotions such anger, contempt, and disgust are likely to be
intensified or aggravated when the crisis origin is internal. This finding supports previous
research that found an association between high crisis responsibility and negative public
emotions (Choi & Lin, 2009; Jin, 2010; Jin et al., 2010; McDonald et al., 2010) but
adds that the source and form of crisis information further affect publics’ affective crisis
responses. Findings from this study suggest if an organization is to blame for a crisis, crisis

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 89

managers might need to especially focus on how to deal with negative emotions expressed
to the organization and be prepared to address antiorganization information spread through
social media.

Effects of External Crisis Origin

When publics perceive the crisis origin as external, publics are most likely to accept an
organization’s evasive responses if the crisis information is sent by the organization. This
finding supports previous research indicating that publics perceive a crisis with an internal
origin as more controllable than a crisis with an external origin (Coombs, 2007; Jin, 2010;
Jin et al., 2010; Jorgensen, 1993; Lyon & Cameron, 2004; Weiner, 1986), but adds that
evasive information is most effective when disseminated by an organization rather than a
third party. These findings imply that crisis managers need to be cautious about how to
position the organization properly when a crisis happens. Organizations should react pro-
actively, utilizing official organizational social media channels to establish information
authority and accessibility if the organization is not the cause of the crisis. As Jin (2010)
mentioned, organizations can play the important role of crisis coping facilitator in circum-
stances where publics are in need of information clarification and reduction of uncertainty
and negative feelings. Crisis managers and communicators should consider presenting
further information and even partnering with publics and third parties to cope with the
crisis situation collectively.

Limitations and Future Research

Through a content analysis of the extant crisis communication research, Avery, Lariscy,
Kim, and Hocke (2010) concluded that “Overall, it seems that the body of work could be
less descriptive and more prescriptive through richer scholarly commentary and criticism”
(p. 192). This study takes a first step in refining the SMCC’s model components that predict
how crisis origin as well as crisis information form and source affect how publics respond
to crisis communication strategies. As an initial step, however, the study is limited in
several aspects, which suggest directions for future research to advance effective crisis
communication knowledge.
First, the experiment included only one public, college students, in a series of university
crisis situations. Additional experiments are needed with different publics and different
crisis situations that highly involve these publics, so as to test whether the causal effects
of crisis information form and source hold valid and reliable across different publics.
Furthermore, additional research is needed to further segment public types by media con-
sumption habits and level of involvement with the organization in crisis. For example, Li
and Bernoff (2008) classified publics into seven categories: creators, conversationalists,
critics, collectors, joiners, spectators, and inactives. Future research should examine
whether subcategories need to be added to the SMCC model’s three main public types. For
example, within social media followers there could be conversationalists, critics, collectors,
joiners, and spectators. Second, the study only examined the effects of crisis origin, crisis

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

90 Communication Research 41(1)

information form, and source during the crisis response phase. Additional research is needed
for precrisis and crisis recovery phases to provide a more thorough and comprehensive
picture of how different crisis origins, forms, and sources function along the crisis cycle. In
addition, even at the stage of crisis response, substages need to be further segmented. For
example, publics could respond differently depending on whether it is the first time they
are ever exposed to a given crisis or they have heard about the crisis and are in the process
of deciding what to do and how to react.
Third, the current study focused on comparing the differential effects different forms
and sources exert on individuals’ responses, taking the direction of crisis attribution into
consideration. It would be important for future research to also explore the synergistic
impact of multiple forms and sources of crisis information dissemination. A series of field
experiments using ongoing real crisis situations would be most appropriate.
Despite the above limitations, the findings from this study suggest the importance of the
effects of crisis origin and crisis information form and source on publics’ acceptance of
crisis messages and publics’ emotional responses to crises. Crisis origin affects publics’
preferred information forms and sources in times of crisis, impacts how publics expect the
organization to respond to a crisis, and affects the types of emotions they are likely to feel
after receiving crisis response messages. These findings indicate the importance of revisit-
ing dominant crisis response theories to explore how the introduction of social media influ-
ences crisis communication and support the validity of the inclusion of variables in the
SMCC model, such as crisis origin, form, and source.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Arpan, L. M. (2002). When in Rome: The effects of spokesperson ethnicity on audience evaluation of crisis
communication. Journal of Business Communication, 39(3), 14-26.
Atkins, G. L. (2010). Organizational networks in disaster response: An examination of the U.S. government
network’s efforts in Hurricane Katrina. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), Handbook of crisis
communication (pp. 93-114). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Avery, E. J. (2010a). Contextual and audience moderators of channel selection and message reception of
public health information in routine and crisis situations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(4),
378-403.
Avery, E. J. (2010b). The role of source and the factors audience rely on in evaluating credibility of health
information. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 81-83.
Avery, E. J., Lariscy, R. W., Kim, S., & Hocke, T. (2010). A quantitative review of crisis communication
research in public relations from 1991-2009. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 190-192.

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 91

Baron, G. (2010, November 15). Response suggestions and public participation the new norm in response
management. Crisis Comm. Retrieved from http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/
crisis-comm/Response-Suggestions-and-Public-111510.html
Bernoff, J. (2010). Social technographics: Conversationalists get onto the ladder. Retrieved from: http://
forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2010/01/ conversationalists-get-onto-the-ladder.html
Booz Allen Hamilton. (2009, July). Social media and risk communications during times of crisis. Retrieved
from http://www.boozallen.com/consulting-services/services_article/42420696.
Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American
Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 37-43.
Callison, C. (2001). Do PR practitioners have a PR problem? The effect of associating source with public
relations and client-negative news on audience perceptions of credibility. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 13(3), 219-234.
Choi, Y., & Lin, Y.-H. (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.
Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychol-
ogy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754-761.
Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better under-
standing of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(3), 177-191.
Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communication: Insights from situational
crisis communication theory. Journal of Business Communication, 41(3), 265-289.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputation during a crisis: The development and application
of Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 163-176.
Coombs, W. T. (2008). Crisis communication and social media. Essential Knowledge Project. Retrieved from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/essential_knowledge/detail/crisis_communication_and_social_media.
Coombs, W. T. (2010). Pursuing evidence-based crisis communication. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay
(Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp. 719-725). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Coombs, W. T. (2011). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). An exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect and crises.
In N. Ashkansay, W. J. Zerve, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), The effect of affect in organizational settings:
Research on emotion in organizations (pp. 263-280). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2009). Further explorations of post-crisis communication: Effects of
media and response strategies on perceptions and intentions. Public Relations Review, 35(1), 1-6.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2006). Community participation and Internet use after September 11: Complemen-
tarity in channel consumption. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 469-484.
ECAR. (2008). Social networking sites. Students and Information Technology, pp. 81-98. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0808/rs/ers08086.pdf
eMarketer. (2010, February 3). Few companies have policy for employee use of social networks. Retrieved
from http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1007493
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Darden, W. R. (1992). Consumer assessments of responsibility for product-
related injuries: The impact of regulations, warnings, and promotional policies. Advances in Consumer
Research, 19, 870-877.

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

92 Communication Research 41(1)

Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. J. (2009). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy
changes (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Horrigan, J. B., & Morris, S. (2005). Data memo. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org
Jin, Y. (2009). The effects of public's cognitive appraisal of emotions in crises on crisis coping and strategy
assessment. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 310-313.
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.
Jin, Y., & Liu, B. F. (2010). The blog-mediated crisis communication model: Recommendations for
responding to influential external blogs. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(4), 429-455.
Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2010). The role of emotions in crisis responses: Inaugural test of the
integrated crisis mapping (ICM) model. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(4),
428-452.
Jin, Y., Park, S., & Len-Rios, M. (2010). Strategic communication of hope and anger: A case of Duke
University’s conflict management with multiple publics. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 63-65.
Jorgensen, B. K. (1993). Components of consumer reaction to company-related mishaps: A structural
equation model approach. Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 346-351.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University.
Lee, B. T. (2004). Audience-oriented approach to crisis communication: A study of Hong Kong consumers’
evaluation of an organizational crisis. Communication Research, 31, 600-618.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile Internet use among teens
and young adults. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org
Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press
Li, C., Bernoff, J., Fiorentino, R., & Glass, S. (2007). Social technographics®: Mapping participation in
activities forms the foundation of a social strategy. Cambridge, MA: Forrester Research, Inc.
Lindner, E. G. (2006). Emotion and conflict: Why it is important to understand how emotions affect conflict
and how conflict affects emotions. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook
of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 268-293). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Littlefield, R. S., & Quenette, A. M. (2007). Crisis leadership and Hurricane Katrina: The portrayal of
authority by the media in natural disasters. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(1), 26-47.
Liu, B. F. (2010). Distinguishing how elite newspapers and A-list blogs cover crises: Insights for managing
crises on and offline. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 28-34.
Liu, B. F., Jin, Y., Briones, R., & Kuch, B. (in press). Managing turbulence in the Blogosphere: Evaluat-
ing the Blog-Mediated Crisis Communication Model with the American Red Cross. Journal of Public
Relations Research.
Lyon, L., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A relational approach examining the interplay of prior reputation and
immediate response to a crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(3), 213-241.
McDonald, L. M., Sparks, B., & Glendon, A. I. (2010). Stakeholder reactions to company crisis communi-
cation and causes. Public Relations Review, 26, 263-271.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2006). Blogger callback survey. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org.

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

Jin et al. 93

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2010). Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/topics/
Web-20.
Procopio, C. H., & Procopio, S. T. (2007). Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans? Internet com-
munication, geographic community, and social capital in crisis. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 35(1), 67-87.
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis
communication via Twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 20-27.
Smith, B. G. (2010). Socially distributing public relations: Twitter, Haiti, and interactivity in social media.
Public Relations Review, 36(4), 329-335.
Stephens, K. (2010, October 20). Social media during crisis response: Five general lessons for emer-
gency managers. Retrieved from http://idisaster.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/social-media-during-
crisis-response-some-general-lessons
Stephens, K. K., & Malone, P. (2009). If the organizations won’t give us information . . .: The use of multiple
new media for crisis technical translations and dialogue. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(2),
229-239.
Sung, M., & Yang, S.-U. (2009). Student-university relationships and reputation: a study of the links
between key factors fostering students’ supportive behavioral intentions towards their university.
Higher Education, 57, 787-811.
Sutter, J. D. (2009, April 30). Swine flu creates controversy on Twitter. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.
cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/27/swine.flu.twitter.
Sweetser, K. D., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a relationship man-
agement tool. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 340-342.
Tabachnick, B., G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2010). Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public relations:
A content analysis of the PRSA’s Public Relations Tactics. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 207-214.
Turner, M. M. (2007). Using emotion in risk communication: The anger activism model. Public Relations
Review, 33(2), 114-119.
Waymer, D., & Heath, R. L. (2007). Emergent agents: The forgotten publics in crisis communication and
issues management research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(1), 88-108.
Web users increasingly rely on social media to seek help in a disaster: New Red Cross survey shows that
74 percent expect response agencies to answer social media call for help within an hour. (2010, August
10). Daily Dog. Retrieved from http://bulldogreporter.com.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. (2009). An updated look at the impact of social media on public relations
practices. Public Relations Journal, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/
Spring_09
Yang, S., Kang, M., & Johnson, P. (2010). Effects of narratives, openness to dialogic-communication and
credibility on engagement in crisis communication through organizational blogs. Communication
Research, 37(4), 473-497.

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015

94 Communication Research 41(1)

Author Biographies
Yan Jin (PhD, University of Missouri-Columbia) is an associate professor at the School of
Mass Communications, Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research focuses on crisis
communication, strategic conflict management, and how emotions influence public relations
decision making and publics’ responses.

Brooke Fisher Liu (PhD, University of North Carolina) is an assistant professor in the depart-
ment of Communication, University of Maryland. Her research primarily examines how gov-
ernment organizations manage communication during crisis and non-crisis situations.

Lucinda L. Austin (PhD, University of Maryland College Park) is an assistant professor in the
School of Communications, Elon University. Her research focuses on publics’ perspectives and
meaning-making of health and risk communication campaigns and organization-public rela-
tionship building.

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at National School of Political on March 26, 2015