Emotions Matter in Crisis

Abstract

This experiment revealed that emotional news frames (anger-inducing vs. sadness-inducing) affect people’s emotional response to a corporate crisis such as a cell phone battery explosion accident. The distinct emotions induced by different news frames influenced individuals’ information processing (i.e., heuristic vs. systematic processing) and the evaluation of the company differently. Participants exposed to anger-inducing crisis news read the news less closely and had more negative attitudes toward the company than those exposed to sadness-inducing news. Also, emotional frames affected how individuals perceived the different types of corporate responses (relief-focused message vs. punishment-focused message; emotional appeal vs. no emotional appeal). The advantage of emotional appeals was found contingent on how the crisis was previously framed by the media. Findings demonstrate a potential for developing effective corporate response strategies in a given crisis situation, considering the type of crisis, how it has been framed by the media, the publics’ emotional responses, and the use of emotional appeals.

Full text

http://crx.sagepub.com/
Communication Research
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/38/6/826
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0093650210385813
2011 38: 826 originally published online 10 January 2011Communication Research
Hyo J. Kim and Glen T. Cameron
Response to Crisis News Framing and Corporate Crisis Response
Emotions Matter in Crisis: The Role of Anger and Sadness in the Publics'
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Communication ResearchAdditional services and information for
http://crx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://crx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/38/6/826.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jan 10, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Nov 15, 2011Version of Record >>
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Communication Research
38(6) 826 –855
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0093650210385813
http://crx.sagepub.com
1
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
2
University of Missouri, Columbia
Corresponding Author:
Hyo J. Kim, PhD, Assistant Professor, School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological
University, 31 Nanyang Link, Singapore 637718
Email: hjkim@ntu.edu.sg
Emotions Matter in
Crisis: The Role of Anger
and Sadness in the Publics’
Response to Crisis News
Framing and Corporate Crisis
Response
Hyo J. Kim
1
and Glen T. Cameron
2
Abstract
This experiment revealed that emotional news frames (anger-inducing vs. sadness-
inducing) affect people’s emotional response to a corporate crisis such as a cell phone
battery explosion accident. The distinct emotions induced by different news frames
influenced individuals’ information processing (i.e., heuristic vs. systematic processing) and
the evaluation of the company differently. Participants exposed to anger-inducing crisis
news read the news less closely and had more negative attitudes toward the company
than those exposed to sadness-inducing news. Also, emotional frames affected how
individuals perceived the different types of corporate responses (relief-focused message
vs. punishment-focused message; emotional appeal vs. no emotional appeal). The advantage
of emotional appeals was found contingent on how the crisis was previously framed by
the media. Findings demonstrate a potential for developing effective corporate response
strategies in a given crisis situation, considering the type of crisis, how it has been framed
by the media, the publics’ emotional responses, and the use of emotional appeals.
Keywords
crisis communication, emotions, appraisal theory, framing
Organizational crisis is defined as “a low-probability, high-impact event that threatens the
viability of the organization and is characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and means
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 827
of resolution” (Pearson & Clair, 1998, p. 60). Crisis communication literature has exam-
ined how an organization can effectively communicate with its key publics before, during,
and after such crises. Although several studies have focused on various crisis response
strategies, which are appropriate to certain crisis situations, Coombs (2006) pointed out
that most studies examined crisis response strategies in an organization-based perspective,
without enough consideration of the stakeholders’ perceptions. He argued for the need to
examine stakeholders’ own perceptions of the crisis strategies used by the organization.
This study advances Coombs’ arguments by examining how publics perceive crisis situ-
ations in the first place. Based on the theoretical framework of framing research, this study
assumes that the publics’ perception of a given crisis will be influenced by how the media
describe it. Specifically, this study focuses on how emotional factors play a critical role in
this process of crisis framing. Nabi (2002) found that different versions of news stories on
domestic terrorism, each of which was designed to elicit anger, fear, or neither emotion, did
induce different emotions. In addition, assuming that different news frames to a crisis
would influence the publics’ emotional responses, this study examines how the publics’
different emotional responses would in turn influence their perceptions of the organiza-
tion’s subsequent responses to the crisis.
According to Nabi (2003), a growing body of research has supported the notion that
different emotions can promote different degrees of message processing (e.g., Bodenhausen,
Sheppard, & Kramer, 1994; Nabi, 2002; Tiedens & Linton, 2001). Nabi (2003) refers to
this notion as “the emotion-as-frame perspective” (p. 230), meaning that “discrete, context-
relevant emotions selectively affect information processing, recall, and judgment” (p. 228).
Specifically, Nabi (2003) revealed that emotions can serve a framing function, such that
“repeated pairing of certain emotions with particular ideas or events shapes the way in
which one interprets and responds to those events” (p. 227).
Based on her findings, the present study aims to examine how emotional news coverage
of a corporate crisis (anger-inducing vs. sadness-inducing) may provide frames to influ-
ence people’s emotional response as well as subsequent perceptions. For instance, suppose
seven people were injured in an airplane crash last night. If the news coverage emphasizes
the airlines’ intentional negligence regarding the accident, anger might dominate people’s
first response. On the other hand, if the news story focuses on the victims’ personal lives or
their suffering families, people may feel sad. Then again, if the media emphasize that this
kind of accident can occur again, fear would be the dominant emotion. Such dominant
emotions elicited by the media coverage will likely influence the publics’ subsequent pro-
cessing of the corporate response regarding the crisis. Consequently, understanding how
the publics perceive, feel about, and evaluate the corporate responses would be critical
when an organization develops effective strategies to manage crisis situations. Although
researchers in psychology have extensively examined how emotions influence cognitive
processing, it was not until recently that the role of emotions was examined in the area of
media framing, crisis communication, and public relations. In the past 5 years, a series of
researchers have examined emotional responses of the publics in crisis communication
(e.g., Choi & Lin, 2009; Coombs, Fediuk, & Holladay, 2007; Jin, 2009; Jin & Pang, 2010;
Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2007). Those researchers point to the potential role of emotions in
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

828 Communication Research 38(6)
the publics’ responses to an organization’s crisis response strategies. The current study will
specifically focus on the emotions of anger and sadness, which we believe can play a criti-
cal role in a variety of crisis contexts. In this experimental study, a fictitious crisis situation
was presented to two participant groups; one group read a story manipulated to induce
anger, while another read the same information via the sadness-inducing news frame.
According to the appraisal theories of emotions, anger and sadness should influence how
the participants process the subsequent messages from the company and in turn how they
evaluate and judge the company. This study will provide practical implications to develop
effective crisis communication strategies, which deal with the publics’ cognitive percep-
tions as well as emotional responses in a given crisis situation.
Taken together, the purpose of this study is to understand how emotional news coverage
on a corporate crisis could function as frames to influence the publics’ emotional response
to a given corporate crisis and how the elicited emotions affect the publics’ subsequent
information processing. Based on such understandings, this study also examines how an
organization can develop effective responses in a given crisis situation.
Literature Review
Crisis Communication and Emotion
Crisis communication is defined as “the collection, processing, and dissemination of infor-
mation required to address a crisis situation” (Coombs, 2010, p. 20). Over the past decade,
the crisis communication field has grown rapidly, producing an increasing volume of
related research. Since practitioners ignited the initial crisis communication research
mainly through case studies in the 1990s, academics have conducted a series of case stud-
ies and content analyses based on specific theoretical frameworks such as the image repair
framework (e.g., Benoit & Brinson, 1999). For a more detailed review, see Coombs, 2010.
In time, another line of researchers began extending the crisis communication field
through theory building and testing, so as to offer generalizable findings and theoretical
predictions. Most notable among these efforts is the development of the situational crisis
communication theory (SCCT; Coombs, 2004; Coombs & Holladay, 2002). Applying
attribution theory (Weiner, 1986, 1995) to the context of crisis communication (Hazleton,
2006), SCCT examines how crisis situations (i.e., crisis type, crisis history, and prior
reputation) shape the publics’ crisis responsibility attributions, which in turn influence
their reputation perceptions (i.e., favorable vs. unfavorable evaluations), affects, and
behavioral intentions regarding the organization (Coombs, 2007). SCCT then posits that
crisis managers should utilize the threat level posed by a crisis to determine the appropri-
ate responses, which would also influence the publics’ attitudes and their affective and
behavioral responses (Coombs, 2010). A set of crisis response strategies (e.g., denial,
diminish, rebuild, and reinforcing) was proposed “to repair the reputation, to reduce nega-
tive affect and to prevent negative behavioral intentions” (Coombs, 2007, p. 170).
Coombs and his colleagues did consider the concept of emotions in their SCCT frame-
work (e.g., Coombs & Holladay, 2002, 2004). According to SCCT, stronger attributions of
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 829
crisis responsibility increase stronger feelings of anger and schadenfreude (drawing plea-
sure from the pain of others), while reducing feelings of sympathy (Coombs & Holladay,
2005). The stronger the negative emotions (i.e., anger and schadenfreude), the less likely
publics are to report behavioral intentions that are supportive of an organization (Coombs
& Holladay, 2004; Rudolph et al., 2004). However, in the most recent SCCT model, emo-
tion was posited to influence behavioral intentions, but not attitudes (Choi & Lin, 2009).
More importantly, the SCCT model did not consider that diverse emotions elicited by a
crisis situation can influence people’s responsibility attributions. That is, the model did not
consider that decision making could be driven by both “emotions” and “logic,” to the same
degree that the literature argues (e.g., Gordon & Arian, 2001). Thus, in order to better
understand the role of emotions in crisis communication, it is necessary to examine how
emotions affect the publics’ attribution process. That is, as Choi and Lin (2009) argue, “it
is important to examine how attribution independent emotions, along with attribution
dependent emotions, can influence outcome variables in SCCT” (p. 199).
Meanwhile, another line of researchers also called for an emotion-based perspective to
crisis communication, suggesting that emotions are one of the anchors in the publics’ inter-
pretation of crisis situations (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2010). Jin, Pang, and Cameron (2007)
have developed the integrated crisis mapping model (ICM) aimed at understanding the
diverse emotions that publics would likely experience in a crisis. The ICM proposes that
the four primary negative emotions (i.e., anger, sadness, fright, and anxiety) would be elic-
ited by different types of crises, which would then influence the publics’ coping strategy
preference and organizational strategy acceptance. The ICM model is meaningful for effec-
tive crisis management in that the model called attention to the primary publics’ emotional
demands so as to develop an organization’s response strategies in accordance with the
emotional needs of the publics (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2010). Nevertheless, the ICM has
room for development. The ICM and SCCT both emphasize that the publics’ emotions are
shaped by the crisis type and/or situations. For instance, the SCCT argues that “the crisis
type is how the crisis is being framed” (Coombs, 2007, p. 116). However, these models did
not pay much attention to the role of news media in inducing different emotional responses
among the publics in crisis. Considering that most publics will learn about a crisis from the
news media, which can elicit certain emotions about the crisis (Choi & Lin, 2009), it is
critical that crisis managers understand how the news media shape the publics’ emotions
about the crisis. These emotions would in turn influence the publics’ subsequent attribu-
tions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions.
The current study intends to advance the literature on emotions and crisis communica-
tion by examining how the news media induce the publics’ emotions regarding a corporate
crisis. Thus the present study proposes a theoretical framework of crisis information pro-
cessing (see Figure 1), with special attention to the effects of news framing and the publics’
initial emotions elicited by the news coverage. This framework describes two phases: (1)
how the emotional frames of crisis news influence the publics’ initial emotions, which in
turn affect their information processing and evaluations and (2) how different types of
crisis responses from an organization influence the publics’ credibility perceptions, blame
attribution, and attitudes and behavioral intentions. Based on this framework, the current
study will conduct an experiment to test whether and how the crisis news coverage can
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

830 Communication Research 38(6)
elicit differential emotions about the crisis from the publics and how the organization can
develop the optimal response strategies to meet the different emotional needs of the pub-
lics. Before posing the hypotheses, the next section will first review the framing literature
with a focus on how different news frames influence the publics’ emotional responses to an
organizational crisis.
“Media Influence What People Feel”—Framing Theory
Entman (1993) defines framing as selection and salience in a news story:
To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient
in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem defini-
tion, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for
the item described. (p. 52)
Specifically, Entman (1991) noted that news frames may be emphasized through such
elements as “keywords, metaphors, concepts, symbols, and visual images” (p. 7). In a simi-
lar vein, Gitlin (1980) defines media frames as “persistent patterns of cognition, interpreta-
tion, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which symbol handlers
routinely organize discourse, whether verbal or visual” (p. 7). More specifically, Pan and
Kosicki (1993) suggest four structural dimensions of news frames: “syntactical, script,
thematic, and rhetorical structures” (p. 59). Syntactical structure includes the “headline,
lead, episodes, background, and closure,” which means sequential and stable arrangement
of words or phrases into sentences. Script structure provides a description of events and
Initial
Attitudes
toward the
Company
Crisis
Information
Processing
Public’s Final Responses
- Credibility Perceptions
- Blame Attributions
- Attitudes toward the Company
- Behavioral Intentions
Crisis News
Framing
Corporate Response
Strategies
Initial
Emotions
Elicited
H1
H2
H3, H4,
RQ1
PHASE I PHASE II
Figure 1. Model of crisis information processing
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 831
activities in a stable way, such as “who, what, when, where, why, and how” (Pan & Kosicki,
1993, p. 60). Thematic structures in a story consist of a main theme, subthemes, and sup-
porting elements. Finally, rhetorical structure is related to journalists’ writing style, involv-
ing five framing devices such as “metaphors, exemplars, catchphrases, depictions, and
visual images” (1993, p. 61). Although the term framing has come into widespread use, so
much so that it now possesses multiple meanings in the research literature (Shen & Dillard,
2007), most of the studies seem to share a general conceptualization of framing: “The
media can play an important role in influencing not only what issues are presented to mass
audiences, but also how these are perceived, and what importance the publics should attach
to them” (Durrant, Wakefield, McLeoud, Clegg-Smith, & Chapman, 2003). That is, the
way information is presented via news elements can influence the way people perceive the
issue.
While a majority of previous research on news framing has focused on the framing
effects on individuals’ thoughts, opinions, or evaluations in terms of cognitive processing,
Nabi (2003) called attention to the media framing effects on the audience’s emotions.
Specifically, she proposed that a frame can promote particular emotional responses as well
as cognitive responses. For example, in one study she uses a story about crime to focus on
how a potential threat might elicit fear, while how another story with different frames
might elicit anger. In another study, Nabi (2002) found that different versions of news sto-
ries on domestic terrorism, each of which was designed to elicit anger, fear, or neither
emotion, did, as expected, induce different emotions from participants.
Similarly, in the context of political communication, a series of researchers (Brewer,
2001; Gross & D’Ambrosio, 2004; Masters & Sullivan, 1993; Nabi, 1998) found that emo-
tional responses can be contingent on how the policy-related message is framed. In a simi-
lar line, Shen and Dillard (2007) found that different message frames (advantage vs.
disadvantage) of Public Service Announcements (e.g., smoking, glaucoma, and pedestrian
safety) did elicit different emotional responses. Lindsey (2005) also showed that different
message frames of bone marrow donation advertising induced different levels of guilt
feelings.
Meanwhile, the aforementioned researchers examined the framing effects on an audi-
ence’s emotions in a different message context, based on the common theoretical ground of
appraisal theory. The main concepts of appraisal theory provide a helpful theoretical frame-
work for the present study, suggesting that an elicited emotion itself can function as a frame
to influence an audience’s subsequent information processing. This point is discussed in
more detail in the following section.
“Emotion Influences What People Think”—Appraisal
Tendency Framework
Appraisal theorists (e.g., Fridja, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1984; Scherer, Schorr, &
Johnstone, 2001) examined the process by which emotions are elicited as a result of an
individual’s subjective interpretation or evaluation of important events or situations (i.e.,
“appraisal”). They viewed emotions as an individual’s automatic or conscious response,
produced through one’s subjective evaluation about the encounter with significant events
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

832 Communication Research 38(6)
in the environment. According to Lanctôt and Hess (2007), although different appraisal
theories vary regarding the number of appraisal categories and the detailed definitions of
those categories, there is substantial commonality. Scherer (1999) grouped a series of
appraisals into four categories: appraisals related to (1) the intrinsic characteristics of the
stimulus, (2) the significance of the event in terms of the individual’s goals, (3) the indi-
vidual’s ability to cope with the situation, and (4) the compatibility of the event with
subjective norms. That is, an individual experiences “emotion” as a consequence of his or
her subjective evaluation (i.e., appraisal) regarding an event as “pleasant or unpleasant,
conducive or not conducive to one’s goals, as changeable or not, and as compatible or
incompatible with norms” (Lanctôt & Hess, 2007, p. 207).
Han, Lerner, and Keltner (2007) addressed how specific emotions carry over from past
situations to color future judgments in the context of consumer marketing, based on the
Appraisal-Tendency Framework (ATF; Lerner & Keltner, 2000, 2001; Lerner & Tiedens,
2006). The ATF is one of the well-known appraisal theories, which is a “more nuanced
emotion-specific approach” (Cavanaugh, Bettman, Luce, & Payne, 2007, p. 169). Lerner
and Keltner (2000, 2001) proposed the ATF as a theoretical basis for distinguishing the
effects of discrete emotions on sequential consumer judgments. According to the ATF,
specific emotions can evoke particular appraisal tendencies that affect specific cognitive
processing and, subsequently, decision making. Cavanaugh et al. (2007) argued that a sig-
nificant application of the ATF to consumer behavior is that “the emotional consequence of
one choice situation may then serve as an incidental emotion for a following choice (p.
170).” This proposition of the ATF provides useful insights for our attempts to examine
how the publics’ emotional response to a corporate crisis influences their subsequent judg-
ments. As the ATF proposes, emotions cause an implicit “cognitive predisposition” to
appraise future events in line with the central appraisal patterns that characterize the emo-
tions. The ATF summarizes these processes as “appraisal tendencies.” More specifically,
Han et al. (2007) addressed the appraisal-tendency influences on judgments through two
categories: depth-of-processing effects and content effects.
First, as for the depth-of-processing effects, Lerner and Tiedens (2006) addressed how
specific emotions influence the depth of thought. Specifically, Tiedens and Linton (2001)
found that high-certainty emotions (e.g., anger, happiness) make individuals feel certain
about subsequent situations and lead to heuristic processing, whereas low-certainty emo-
tions (e.g., sadness, fear, hope) result in systematic processing. Similarly, Bodenhausen,
Sheppard, and Kramer (1994) found that anger (a high-certainty emotion) has been shown
to induce heuristic processing and that sadness (a low-certainty emotion) leads to system-
atic processing. Small and Lerner (2008) also compared the effects of sadness and anger on
welfare policy preferences and found that the differences in depth of processing in sadness
and anger resulted in the differences in policy preferences.
Taken together, these lines of research are meaningful in that they demonstrate how
emotions promote different information processing depending on the type of emotions
elicited by the media message. However, these studies focused on the role of incidental
emotions, rather than the message-related emotions, and therefore would be somewhat
limited when applied in the strategic communication area.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 833
Nabi (2007) proposed a complementary approach that integrates appraisal theories and
framing theory to argue that message-relevant emotions are themselves frames that, once
elicited, differentially influence cognitive processing and decision making. Nabi (2007)
also noted that “the information made accessible from memory, the information we seek
out or avoid, and the decisions that we make will be guided by the particular emotions (i.e.,
frame) experienced” (p. 385). Indeed, Nabi (2003) evoked fear and anger about drunk driv-
ing in a sample of undergraduates, and then examined how those emotions would influence
participants’ information processing. The results revealed that those primed with anger vs.
fear showed differences in their information accessibility, desired information, and policy
preference, consistent with those emotional states. Nabi’s research provided empirical evi-
dence as well as a theoretical basis for the current study, which intends to examine how
relevant emotions affect individuals’ subsequent information processing and judgments.
Specifically, the present study will extend Nabi’s (2003, 2007) “emotion-as-frame”
hypothesis to the context of corporate crisis situations by testing whether different news
frames of corporate crises induce different emotions and in turn different processing depth
(i.e., heuristic vs. systematic). Based on the appraisal theories literature, this study expects
that the anger-eliciting news will promote closer (systematic) processing, whereas the sad-
ness-eliciting news will lead to shallower (heuristic) processing. Therefore, the first
hypothesis predicts the following:
Hypothesis 1: Anger elicited by corporate crisis news will promote heuristic pro-
cessing whereas sadness elicited by corporate crisis news will promote system-
atic processing.
Han et al. (2007) addressed the idea that specific emotions not only influence the depth
of thought, but also the contents of thought. Here, the “thought” refers to an individual’s
interpretation of a situation and subsequent evaluations/judgments about the situation. In
order to illustrate how appraisal dimensions of specific emotions influence the content of
thoughts, Han et al. (2007) differentiated sadness and anger in influencing judgments of
blame; while sadness tends to trigger appraisal tendencies to perceive situational control,
anger tends to trigger appraisal tendencies to perceive individual control. Consequently,
sad people attribute blame to situational factors, whereas angry people attribute blame to
other individuals within the situation. When applied to an organizational crisis situation,
anger-induced people would have stronger blame attribution to the organization than
sadness-induced people, who would attribute blame to other situational factors than the
organization. In a similar vein, Keltner, Ellsworth, and Edwards (1993) conducted an
experiment and found that sadness and anger have opposite effects on subsequent social
judgment. That is, when asked to make judgments concerning causality, sadness-induced
participants perceived situational forces as more responsible for an ambiguous event than
did anger-induced participants.
In the context of crisis communication, Choi and Lin (2007) argued that, after reading
a news report about an organizational crisis, the publics will likely generate certain emo-
tions about the crisis, and the emotions will influence the publics’ evaluation of the organi-
zation. Their argument was based on the emotion literature that emotions can function as
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

834 Communication Research 38(6)
information, guiding judgments and decision making (e.g., Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, &
Welch, 2001). Choi and Lin (2007) analyzed consumer responses to the Mattel product
recalls posted on online bulletin boards and found that the feeling of anger negatively pre-
dicted the perceived reputation (as conceptualized as favorable vs. unfavorable evaluations
in Coombs, 2007) of Mattel. Their findings were in line with Han et al. (2007) findings,
which indicated that in a negative event, anger-induced people perceive the related party
more negatively, than do sadness-induced people. These literatures lead us to expect that
different emotions (anger vs. sadness) elicited by different corporate crisis news frames
would also influence people’s favorable versus unfavorable evaluation of the company.
That is, after reading a crisis news report, anger-induced participants would evaluate the
company more unfavorably as compared to sadness-induced participants. Therefore, the
second hypothesis predicts the following:
Hypothesis 2: Participants exposed to anger-inducing crisis news will evaluate the
company more negatively than will those exposed to sadness-inducing news.
How to Respond to Emotionally
Framed Crisis: Crisis Response Strategies
A growing body of research in crisis communication has focused on how to use various
crisis response strategies to protect an organization in crisis situations. Sturges (1994) sug-
gests three categories of crisis response: (1) instructing information (i.e., telling the publics
how to react to the crisis physically and financially) (2) adjusting information (i.e., helping
the publics psychologically cope with the crisis by reducing the uncertainty and stress),
and (3) reputation management information (helping the organization repair its reputation
damaged by the crisis). Notably, most crisis communication studies have focused on repu-
tation repair strategies, whereas instructing and adjusting information have been relatively
overlooked (Holladay, 2009). That is, the vast majority of the literature (e.g., Benoit, 1997,
2005, image repair theory; Bradford & Garrett, 1995; Cameron, Pang, & Jin, 2008, con-
tingency theory; Coombs, 2007, SCCT) has discussed various response strategies from
denial to full apology in order to repair an organizational reputation in crisis. Meanwhile,
as Coombs (2010) argues, “it is surprising how researchers frequently overlook instructing
and adjusting information,” despite their strategic importance (p. 29). The current study
calls for more systematic research to help crisis managers strategically communicate
adjusting information with the publics in crisis. As reviewed above, adjusting information
is given to reduce the psychological stress produced by the crisis; it includes the details
about the crisis situation, explanations of what the organization is doing to prevent another
crisis as well as emotional expression of sympathy or concerns for people influenced by
the crisis (Holladay, 2009; Sturges, 1994). The purpose of the current study, therefore, is
to advance the literature with special attention on emotions. This study intends to help
crisis managers develop effective crisis response strategies to meet the publics’ emotional
needs generated by crisis news. Our assumption is that the emotions framed by media
coverage of a corporate crisis will influence what the individuals think about subsequent
information from the company (i.e., corporate crisis responses).
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 835
Iyengar (1991) found that TV news framing affects attributions of responsibility for
both the causes of and the preferred treatments of social problems. Nabi (2003) extended
Iyengar’s findings a step further by exploring the role of emotion in framing not only indi-
viduals’ views of certain issues but also necessary solutions. As briefly reviewed above, in
her experiment involving the topic of drunk driving, Nabi (2003) expected that, when the
anger frame was primed, participants would more likely attribute blame to individuals’
behaviors and would prefer a solution such as punishment, whereas when the fear frame
was primed, people would more likely attribute responsibility to the environment and the
desire to be protected from harm. Her hypotheses were generally supported, showing that
specific emotions can differentially affect information accessibility, desired information
seeking, and policy preference. Nabi (2003)’s study was somewhat exploratory in that she
elicited participants’ emotions by asking them to fill out a priming questionnaire rather
than exposing them to actual messages on social problems. In addition, she assessed the
participants’ subsequent processing by simply asking them to write an essay on the issue
(i.e., information accessibility). She did not expose them to the actual messages concerning
solutions in order to examine how differently they processed the subsequent messages.
Nevertheless, her research findings provide helpful insights concerning how specific emo-
tions influence individuals’ information accessibility, desired information seeking, and
solution preference. In the context of crisis communication, Jin (2009) examined the pub-
lics’ preference of different organizational crisis responses, as a function of different emo-
tions elicited by crises. In her experiment, participants read four different crisis news
reports, designed to induce four distinct emotions (i.e., anger, sadness, fright, and anxiety).
Then she measured the participants’ preferences of the seven organizational crisis response
strategies from SCCT (i.e., attack the accuser, denial, scapegoat, excuse, justification, com-
pensation, and apology). Findings show that when the primary emotion was anger, the
publics were most likely to accept attacks on the accuser; when the primary emotion was
sadness, the publics were most likely to accept compensation.
The present study intends to validate and advance Nabi (2003) and Jin’s (2009) research
by using actual corporate messages, which are developed to cope with the publics’ emo-
tions elicited by different news frames on the same crisis. Specifically, two types of corpo-
rate messages were created (punishment vs. relief) for this study. Both messages include a
full apology from a company, but there is a difference between each message’s emphases.
The punishment-focused message emphasizes how the company will accept full responsi-
bility and be “punished” by the law. On the other hand, the relief-focused message empha-
sizes that the victims received proper treatment and are well now. Our assumption is that
there will be a congruence effect between the emotion elicited from news frames (anger vs.
sadness) and the corporate response frames (punishment vs. relief). Therefore, this study
proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Relief-focused corporate responses will be more effective for those
who read a sadness-inducing news story than those who read an anger-inducing
news story.
Hypothesis 3b: Punishment-focused corporate responses will be more effective for
those who read an anger-inducing news story than for those who read a sadness-
inducing news story.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

836 Communication Research 38(6)
Emotional Appeals in Corporate Responses
A series of researchers (e.g., Forgas, 2000; Isen, Nygren, & Ashby, 1988; Johnson &
Tversky, 1983; Lener & Keltner, 2000, 2001) have investigated how emotion influences
the general publics’ crisis perceptions and decision making. Most of these studies, how-
ever, manipulated the participants’ emotional states (e.g., fear, anger, sadness) rather than
employing actual message appeals. The present study intends to advance the literature by
assessing the effect of rhetorical components, specifically emotional appeals, in corporate
responses on the publics’ attitudes to a given crisis situation.
Heath and Millar (2004) propose a rhetorical approach to crisis communication that
stresses the message development and presentation part of the crisis response. One of the
foci of the rhetorical perspective is communication style, which is “revealed in the audible
and written voice of the organization making the crisis statement” (Heath & Millar, 2004,
p. 13). As Health and Millar (2004) argue, the choices of communication style available for
use during a crisis would be limitless. Among a range of rhetorical devices, the present
study focuses on emotional appeals. In crisis situation, emotion itself can act as informa-
tion, guiding judgments and decision making (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001).
Read (2007) also argues that the proper use of emotional appeals can help enhance organi-
zational reputations and reduce criticism against the organization.
In the context of crisis communication, Choi and Lin (2007) called attention to the
effects of emotional versus rational appeals in crisis situations. They based their research
on prior literature that suggested that emotional appeals were more likely to be remem-
bered (Flora & Maibach, 1990), and more effective in terms of attitude changes (Rosselli,
Skelly, & Mackie, 1995). Choi and Lin (2007) manipulated two types of news stories
(emotional vs. rational appeals) in the context of a natural disaster (e.g., upcoming torna-
dos), which is often an emotional situation in nature. They found that emotional appeal
messages led participants to higher risk perception, higher probability of risk occurrence,
and more accurate recognition memory. Choi and Lin’s findings can be explained by a
theoretical framework of cognitive/affective matching effects (Fabrigar & Petty, 1999).
According to Fabrigar and Petty (1999), researchers (e.g., Cacioppo, Petty, & Geen,
1989; Insko & Schopler, 1967; Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960; Zajonc & Markus, 1982)
have speculated that an individual’s attitudes toward a given object can be based on affect
and/or cognition. A series of studies (e.g., Bagozzi, 1978; Breckler, 1984) have empirically
found that individuals actually differentiate between attitude-relevant affect and cognition.
Based on this, some researchers have attempted to examine the relationship between the
attitude bases and types of persuasive messages. For instance, Fabrigar and Petty (1999)
examined how “the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes influence susceptibility to
affectively and cognitively based persuasive appeals” (p. 364). Although the empirical sta-
tus of matching effects needs more development, some researchers have empirically shown
the affective/cognitive matching effects (Edwards, 1990; Edwards & von Hippel, 1995;
Fabrigar & Petty, 1999). That is, attitudes based primarily on affect are more readily
changed with affective appeals, whereas attitudes based primarily on cognition are more
easily changed with cognitive appeals (Fabrigar & Petty, 1999; Petty, Fabrigar, Wegener,
2003). This may explain Choi and Lin’s (2007) finding that emotional appeal was more
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 837
effective in changing people’s attitudes toward the emotional natural disaster as compared
to rational appeal.
The present study will advance Choi and Lin’s findings in the corporate crisis context,
under the guidance of a theoretical framework of cognitive/affective matching effects
(Fabrigar & Petty, 1999). Our expectation is that, when a crisis has been emotionally
framed by the media, intensive emotional appeals in a corporate response would be more
effective than no emotional appeals or so-called “rational” appeals without any emotional
tones. Since practitioners rarely choose either emotional or rational appeals as a clear-cut
option in practice, rather using flexibly appeals in their strategic messages, the present
study will focus on the use of emotional appeals
1
(i.e., presence vs. absence of emotional
appeals), instead of differentiating emotional appeals versus rational appeals. The previous
literature leads us to expect that when a corporate crisis is emotionally framed, people will
more likely accept a corporate response when the message contains intensive emotional
appeals (i.e., including the expressions and information that elicit, or make salient, object-
related emotions) than when the message does not contain emotional appeals. That is,
when a crisis has been emotionally framed by the media, a corporate crisis response with
intensive emotional appeals will be more effective than a response without emotional
appeals. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis and research question:
Hypothesis 4: The presence of emotional appeals in corporate messages will posi-
tively influence participants’ responses to the corporate messages.
Research Question 1: Will there be an interaction effect between news frames (anger
vs. sadness) and emotional appeals (presence vs. absence) in participants’ atti-
tudes toward the company?
Method
Design
In this study, a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subject design experiment was conducted. The first
independent variable was a type of news frame (anger-inducing vs. sadness-inducing), and
the second was a type of corporate response toward the crisis (punishment-focused vs.
relief-focused). The last independent variable was the presence of intensive emotional
appeals in corporate responses (presence vs. absence). Dependent variables included par-
ticipants’ emotional states at two different stages (after a news story presentation and after
a corporate response presentation), the depth of message processing, corporate response
credibility, degrees of blame attributions, attitudes toward the company, and future behav-
ioral intentions.
Participants
The participants were 240 undergraduate students from a large Midwestern university.
Students participated in this experimental study for extra credit, and the participant pool
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

838 Communication Research 38(6)
was 73.8% female. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the eight experimen-
tal conditions.
Stimulus
The crisis type for this experiment was a technical error accident (i.e., an occurring crisis
when equipment or technology failure results in a defective product), which has been most
frequently studied in previous crisis communication research (An & Cheng, 2010).
Specifically, this study adopts a cell phone battery explosion accident, which would be a
familiar and involving topic for college students (DeBaillon & Rockwell, 2005; Jin &
Pena, 2010; Kim, Kim, & Cameron, 2009). The cell phone company was fictitious because
the level of prior reputation needed to be controlled, according to the crisis communication
literature.
2
Thus this study employed a GeoTech cell phone battery explosion accident,
which has been successfully used to induce college students’ responses about the crisis
event in a prior study (Kim, Kim, & Cameron, 2009).
Based on Nabi’s (2002) previous research, a fictitious news story was developed to
induce either anger or sadness about a corporate crisis situation by emphasizing informa-
tion related to each emotion’s core relational theme. That is, anger-inducing news empha-
sized the transgression of a company (i.e., the company’s intentional wrongdoing), whereas
sadness-inducing news focused on suffering victims (i.e., crisis victims’ personal lives and
suffering). The contents regarding the basic crisis information were kept identical across
the conditions. The manipulation of emotion inducement was successfully pretested with
63 undergraduate students.
The corporate responses were manipulated to produce four types of messages: Response
types (punishment-focused vs. relief-focused) × Emotional appeals (presence vs. absence).
The response type was manipulated by emphasizing information related to each emotion’s
core coping theme—punishment for anger (i.e., the company being punished by the law)
and relief for sadness (i.e., surgery for the victim was successful, and the victims will
receive fair compensations). The length and contents of the messages were kept identical
except for the headlines (e.g., GeoTech Takes Full Responsibility for Its Flawed Products
vs. GeoTech Takes Full Responsibility for the Burn Victims) and the contents of the second
paragraphs. In the punishment-focused response, the paragraph emphasized that the com-
pany fully cooperated with the Consumer Product Safety Commission in its investigation
and understood its responsibility for the incidents; the company accepted full responsibility
for the accidents and agreed to implement whatever the law requires it to do. On the other
hand, the relief-focused response emphasizes that the company will take full responsibility
for the victims and will do whatever it takes to ensure that they receive adequate treat-
ments; victims with minor burns, who have been completely healed, will be compensated
for their sufferings. The presence versus absence of emotional appeals were manipulated
based on Rosselli and his colleagues’ (1995) conceptualization, by including the words that
make salient crisis-related emotions and that emphasize linkages to people. These response
messages were also pretested to ensure the successful manipulations of the independent
factor, by asking participants (n = 63) to rate the emotional tone of the message on a 7-point
Likert-type scale, as adapted from Choi and Lin’s study (2007).
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 839
Experimental Procedure
As stated earlier, this study had a multiphase design: Phase I—the inducement of two types
of emotional states via a crisis news story (anger vs. sadness), Phase II—the manipulation
of corporate response message factors (punishment-focused with emotional appeals vs.
relief-focused with emotional appeals vs. punishment-focused without emotional appeals
vs. relief-focused without emotional appeals).
Phase I. Once the experiment began, participants were asked to read a news story con-
taining crisis information that describes a current situation regarding a crisis breakout (i.e.,
cell phone battery explosions). They were then asked to answer questions designed to mea-
sure their emotional states, message elaboration, and attitudes toward the company.
Phase II. Once participants finished the questionnaire, the second phase began; a partici-
pant read one of the four types of corporate response messages: Response types (punish-
ment vs. relief) × Emotional appeals (presence vs. absence), attributed to Immediate Press
Release from the company. Participants were told that the corporate message was released
on the following day after the first breaking news about the cell phone battery explosions.
After reading the article, participants were asked to answer the second questionnaire
designed to measure their emotional states, credibility perceptions, degree of blame attri-
bution, attitudes toward the company, and future behavioral intentions.
Measures—Phase I
Emotions measure. At phase I, participants’ emotional responses were measured to assess
whether the target emotions (anger vs. sadness) were successfully induced. Based on the
previous work of Dillard and his colleagues (Dillard, Plotnick, Godbold, Freimuth, &
Edgar, 1996; Smith & Dillard, 1997), this study developed a 17-item emotions measure.
Immediately after reading the crisis news story, participants were asked to rate how much
of each emotion they felt while reading the news story. The study used a 7-point scale rang-
ing from not at all to very much for each item: afraid, scared, fearful, angry, irritated,
annoyed, aggravated, sad, dreary, dismal, surprised, startled, disgusted, sickened, revolted,
agitated, and empathy (see Table 1 for the mean scores).
Message elaboration. The depth of processing was measured by Chow and Luk’s
(2006) scale. The scale included three items: “The extent to which I thought about the
news story is,” “The time I spent on thinking about the news story,” “The amount of
attention I paid to the news story is.” Participants were asked to rate each item using a
7-point Likert-type scale. The index (M = 3.76, SD = 1.26) produced acceptable reliabil-
ity (α = .81).
Initial attitudes toward the company. Participants’ initial attitudes toward the company
after reading the crisis news report were measured by MacKenzie and Lutz (1989). The
scale was composed of three items (good-bad, favorable-unfavorable, and pleasant-
unpleasant) on 7-point semantic differential scales. The index (M = 2.20, SD = 1.07) pro-
duced acceptable reliability (α = .86).
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

840 Communication Research 38(6)
Measures—Phase II
Credibility perceptions. Corporate message credibility was defined as the degree to which
a message is perceived as believable and convincing. It was measured by six items on a
7-point semantic differential scale: unbiased-biased, accurate-inaccurate, believable-unbe-
lievable, convincing-unconvincing, trustworthy-untrustworthy, and telling the whole
story–not telling the whole story (Ohanian, 1990). The index (M = 3.88, SD = 1.30) was
quite reliable (α = .94). Corporate credibility was measured by six items on a 7-point
semantic differential scale: reliable-unreliable, sincere-insincere, trustworthy-untrust-
worthy, honest-dishonest, believable-unbelievable, experienced-inexperienced, and
expert-not expert (Newell & Goldsmith, 2001; Ohanian, 1990). The index (M = 3.63, SD =
1.35) was also reliable (α = .92).
Blame attributions. Blame was defined as the attribution made after the perceiver assesses
and does not accept the validity of the responsible party’s excuses or explanations (Shaver
& Drown, 1986). Blame attribution to the organization was measured using a scale that
Malhotra and Kuo (2009) used for their study on emotions and blame attributions. Partici-
pants were asked to answer to the question, “To what extent do you think GeoTech should
be blamed for the incident?” This item was measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, rang-
ing from 1(not at all) to 7(very much) (M = 4.45, SD = 1.58).
3
Attitudes toward the company. Participants’ attitudes toward the company after reading
the crisis responses were measured by three items on 7-point semantic differential scales:
good-bad, favorable-unfavorable, and pleasant-unpleasant (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989).
The index (M = 3.11, SD = 1.32) was quite reliable (α = .96).
4
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of the Emotions Scales
M SD
Angry 3.37 1.75
Irritated 3.21 1.74
Aggravated 3.02 1.79
Sad 3.77 2.05
Empathy 4.41 1.94
Surprised 4.78 1.62
Started 4.21 1.73
Afraid 2.63 1.69
Scared 2.78 1.64
Fearful 2.74 1.66
Disgusted 3.23 1.93
Sickened 2.74 1.74
Revolted 2.49 1.58
Dreary 2.39 1.58
Dismal 2.35 1.52
Note: N = 240.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 841
Behavioral intentions. Participants’ future behavioral intentions regarding the company
were measured based on the scale adopted by Lyon and Cameron (2004). Participants were
asked to estimate the likelihood of each of the three items on a 7-point Likert-type scale: I
would purchase the products of GeoTech if I have the opportunity in the future; I would
invest in GeoTech if I have the opportunity in the future; I would recommend GeoTech’s
products to a friend if I have the opportunity in the future. The index (M = 2.12, SD = 1.17)
was quite reliable (α = .94).
Control variables. In addition, several potential extraneous variables were assessed. Spe-
cifically, participants’ initial mood states before news story presentations (M = 1.30, SD =
1.47), issue involvement (M = 4.71, SD = 1.41), gender, and age (M = 19.55, SD = 1.45)
were measured as possible control variables.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Emotions measures. As addressed earlier, participants’ emotional responses to the news
story were measured using a series of items drawn largely from the previous work of Dil-
lard and his colleagues (Dillard, 1997; Dillard et al., 1996). Factor analysis was conducted
to reduce the data and find the minimum number of factors that account for observed emo-
tions. As a result, four factors emerged. The unidimensional emotion scales and their cor-
responding items were the following: Anger (angry, irritated, aggravated, α = .93), Sadness
(sadness, empathy, α = .79), Fear (scared, fearful, afraid, α = .97), and Surprise
5
(surprised,
startled, α = .84).
Manipulation check. The validity of the independent variables manipulation was checked
by independent t tests. A manipulation check of news frames (anger vs. sadness) was con-
ducted by using the emotion factor scores produced from the previous factor analysis. The
t test revealed that there was a significant difference between anger-inducing news group
and sadness-inducing news group in their emotion factor scores (for Anger factor, anger-
inducing group M = .145, SD = .95 vs. sadness-inducing group M =–.161, SD = 1.03,
Mdiff = .306, t(216) = 2.28, p = .012; for Sadness factor, anger-inducing news group M =
–.366, SD = .94 vs. sadness-inducing group M = .408, SD = .90, Mdiff = –.775, t(216) =
–6.18, p = .000).
6
A manipulation for emotional appeals was also assessed by participants’
response to the item, This message is primarily emotional, ranging from 1 = strongly dis-
agree to 7 = strongly agree, as adapted from Choi and Lin’s study (2007). The t test analy-
sis revealed that there was a significant difference between the two groups, absence of
emotional appeals (M = 3.36, SD = 1.61) versus presence of emotional appeals (M = 3.93,
SD = 1.75), and the manipulation for emotional appeals was successful: Mdiff = –.56,
t(237) = –2.59, p = .005.
Blame attribution. Primary analysis of the data suggested that the distribution of the
blame attribution was negatively skewed, indicating the scores bunched up on the high end
of the scale (a skewness statistic of –1.201 with standard errors of skewness of .159). Val-
ues of 2 standard errors of skewness or more are considered skewed to a significant degree.
To address the skewed distribution, a square root function transformation was conducted.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

842 Communication Research 38(6)
The square root function transformation reduces the skewness by compressing the negative
and positive tails of the distribution (Nolan & Heinzen, 2008).
Tests of the Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 predicted that specific emotions elicited by different corporate crisis news
frames would influence the depth of processing of the news, such that anger elicited by the
crisis news would promote heuristic processing, whereas sadness elicited by the crisis
news would promote systematic processing. The ANOVA test revealed that there was a
significant difference between anger-inducing news group and sadness-inducing news
group in the depth of processing of the news (p = .000, η
p
2
= .053). That is, those exposed
to sadness-inducing news were more likely to read the news closely with much attention
(M = 4.05, SD = 1.23) as compared to those exposed to anger-inducing news (M = 3.47,
SD = 1.23). Thus Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that participants exposed to anger-inducing crisis news would
have more negative attitudes toward the company than would those exposed to sadness-
inducing news. The ANOVA test revealed that there was a significant difference between
the anger-inducing news group and sadness-inducing news group in their attitudes toward
the company (p = .018, η
p
2
= .023). That is, those exposed to anger-inducing news tended
to have more negative attitudes toward the responsible company (M = 2.03, SD = 1.00)
than those exposed to sadness-inducing news (M = 2.36, SD = 1.13), even though the con-
tents regarding the crisis situation were identical between the two groups. Thus, Hypothesis
2 was supported.
Next, the subsequent analyses for Phase II (i.e., H3, H4, & RQ1) were conducted using
ANCOVAs with participants’ initial mood states as a covariate in order to control for the
effects of the extraneous variable on participants’ responses to corporate messages. First,
Hypothesis 3 (H3a & H3b) predicted that relief-focused corporate response would be more
effective for those who read a sadness-inducing news story, whereas punishment-focused
response would be more effective for the anger-inducing news readers. In order to test H3a
and H3b, a series of ANCOVAs were conducted on participants’ response toward the cor-
porate messages. Results revealed that those who read the sadness-inducing news tended
to perceive the corporate response as more credible when it focused on relief (M = 4.33,
SD = 1.42) over punishment (M = 3.91, SD = 1.34), supporting H3a F(1, 224) = 4.55, p = .03.
The mean patterns were similar for other dependent variables (for corporate credibility,
M = 4.01 vs. M = 3.77; for attitudes toward company, M = 3.25 vs. M = 3.06) although the
mean differences were not statistically significant. On the other hand, the relief-focused
response was found effective for those who read the anger-inducing news as well, as
opposed to our expectation (H3b). That is, those who read the anger-inducing news tended
to perceive the corporate response as more credible when it focused on relief (M = 3.84,
SD = 1.17) over punishment (M = 3.49, SD = 1.21). Taken together, there was the main effect
of relief-focused response over punishment-focused response on participants’ credibility
perceptions regardless of the initial news frame type η
p
2
= .02). Thus Hypothesis 3a was
supported, while Hypothesis 3b was not supported.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 843
H4 proposed that the presence of emotional appeals in corporate messages would posi-
tively influence participants’ responses to the messages, while RQ1 posed a question of
whether there would be an interaction effect between news frames (anger vs. sadness) and
emotional appeals (presence vs. absence). A series of ANCOVAs were conducted with the
participant’s initial mood states as the covariate, and credibility perceptions, attitudes
toward the company, and behavioral intentions as the dependent variables. Consistent with
H4, the ANCOVAs revealed that those who read the message with intensive emotional
appeals tended to have higher behavioral intentions (M = 2.34, SD = 1.18) as compared to
those who read the message with no emotional appeals, M = 1.92, SD = 1.14, F(1, 223) =
7.05, p = .008, η
p
2
= .031. The mean patterns were similar for other dependent variables,
for corporate credibility, M = 3.75 (SD = 1.45) vs. M = 3.53 (SD = 1.75); for attitudes
toward the company, M = 3.23 (SD = 1.40) vs. M = 3.00 (SD = 1.24) although the differ-
ence fell short of the p < .05 significance level. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was partially
supported.
As for RQ1, although the interaction effect between news frames and emotional appeals
on participants’ credibility perceptions did not reach the statistically significant level at p <
.05 of the ANCOVA analysis, the Bonferroni pair-wise comparisons test indicated that
there was a significant mean difference between the anger-inducing news group and the
sadness-inducing news group in responding to intensive emotional appeals. That is, those
in the sadness-inducing news group were more likely to perceive the corporate message
with intensive emotional appeals as credible, as compared those in the anger-inducing
news group (Mdiff = .684, SE = .243, p = .005). In the no emotional appeal condition, how-
ever, there was no significant difference between the sadness- versus anger-inducing news
groups (Mdiff = .243, SE = .240, p = .311). That is, an intensively emotional corporate mes-
sage led those in the sadness-inducing news group to evaluate the corporate message as
more credible (M = 4.27, SE = .172) than did those in the anger-inducing news group
(M = 3.58, SE = .171), whereas there was no difference between the sadness- versus anger-
inducing news groups in response to corporate message with no emotional appeals (see
Figure 2). This tendency was found for other dependent variables, too. That is, in response
to intensive emotional appeal messages, there were significant mean differences between
the sadness- versus anger-inducing news groups in the corporate credibility perceptions
(M = 4.10 vs. M = 3.44, Mdiff = .654, SE = .254, p = .011), blame attributions (M = 6.10 vs.
M = 5.63, Mdiff = 417, SE = 205, p = .023), and behavioral intentions (M = 2.57 vs. M =
2,11, Mdiff = .462, SE = .215, p = .033). On the other hand, in response to no emotional
appeal messages, there was no significant difference between the sadness- versus anger-
inducing news groups for the dependent variables.
Discussion
The current investigation revealed that different news frames affect people’s emotional
responses to a given corporate crisis and that such emotions influence individuals’ depth
of processing of the news and attitudes toward the responsible company. In addition, this
study also posited that such emotions affect how individuals perceive the different types
of response messages issued by the responsible company.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

844 Communication Research 38(6)
Specifically, this study found that the corporate message focusing on the relief and well-
being of crisis victims tends to increase the publics’ corporate credibility perceptions as
compared to the message focusing on the law, justice, and punishment. This was the case
regardless of the initial news frames (i.e., anger vs. sadness). This result may seem not in
accordance with our previous expectations of the congruence effect between discrete emo-
tions and each emotion’s core coping themes (e.g., anger-punishment, sadness-relief).
Rather, our findings suggest that when a corporate crisis involves human victims, publics
might seek the information about the victims’ relief over the information about the com-
pany’s punishment even though the media have framed the crisis by emphasizing the com-
pany’s wrongdoing. Such rationale is in line with the recent work by Cho and Gower
(2006), who found that the human interest frame in a corporate crisis message positively
influenced participants’ emotional responses and the evaluation of the company. These
findings shed light on the recent example of BP’s unsuccessful ad campaign in response to
its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Although BP’s CEO apologized for the spill and claimed
that “we will get this done; we will make this right” in the video ad, the ad campaign has
been criticized for missing a concrete plan to help fishermen and small business owners
who lost their jobs because of the spill (“BP Ads Backfire,” 2010). In fact, this example is
also consistent with the SCCT literature (e.g., Coombs & Holladay, 2005), which argues
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
Sadness-inducing news group
Anger-inducing news group
High-toned emotional appealNo emotional appeal
Figure 2. News frame and emotional appeal on corporate response credibility
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 845
that “expressing concern for victims (adjusting information) and reinforcing this compas-
sion through compensation serve to blunt feelings of anger” (Coombs, 2007, p. 172). The
present study provides empirical findings that confirm the literature as well as offering a
practical implication that when a corporate crisis involves human victims, the responsible
company might need to develop its response messages by maximizing the human interest
frames and emphasizing how the victims’ situations have been relieved.
The current study also revealed how the rhetoric component (i.e., emotional appeals) in
corporate response messages influenced the publics’ behavioral intentions. As expected
based on the prior literature on cognitive/affective matching effects, the current study
found that people tend to have more positive behavioral intentions when the corporate mes-
sage contains intensive emotional appeals as compared to when the message contains no
emotional appeals. It is assumed that this was due to the fact that the crisis had been emo-
tionally framed by the news media, and the publics’ perceptions based on affects were
more readily changed with emotional appeals. One limitation to the present study, how-
ever, was that it only compared anger- versus sadness-inducing news—without the news
controlled for emotions. In the current investigation of the advantage of emotional appeals,
therefore, this study was limited to conclude that the advantage was actually due to the
cognitive/affective matching effects since it did not adopt a “cognitive” crisis scenario as a
control condition. Future research should compare emotional crisis coverage and “cogni-
tive” (or nonemotional) crisis coverage, and test to see if the emotional corporate response
would be more effective only after the emotional news coverage was exposed.
Meanwhile, the advantage of emotional appeals was found contingent on how the crisis
was previously framed by the media. People in the sadness-inducing news condition were
more likely to have relatively higher credibility perceptions, lower blame attributions, and
more favorable behavioral intentions in response to intensive emotional appeals as com-
pared to those in the anger-inducing news condition. That is, an intensively emotional
corporate message was more effective for those in the sadness-inducing news condition
than for those in the anger-inducing news condition.
One possible explanation for this result was that the type of news frame had influenced
participants’ attitudes toward the company (H2), and such prior attitudes might have affected
their perceptions of the corporate messages. That is, individuals’ negative attitudes toward
the company, previously formed by anger-inducing news, might lead them to be more skep-
tical about “emotional expressions” that the company delivered. This is in line with the
principle of “meanings as integrating factors” that attribution theorists embrace (e.g., Heider,
1958). The principle states that individuals tend to attribute the motives of other’s actions in
accordance with their previous perceptions about the party. The current study provided prac-
tical insights that when the publics were exposed to the anger-inducing news coverage of a
corporate crisis, the company might want to use emotional appeals cautiously because they
run the risk of a possible backlash concerning the publics’ attitude toward the company.
Implications
From a theoretical point of view, the current study validated and advanced the Appraisal
Tendency Framework literature in the context of an organizational crisis. Specifically, this
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

846 Communication Research 38(6)
study proposed a theoretical framework of crisis information processing that examined
two phases: (1) how the crisis news coverage could elicit differential emotions about the
crisis from the publics and (2) how the organization could develop the optimal response
strategies to meet the different emotional needs of the publics (see Figure 1). The results
were found to fit in the proposed framework quite well. First, the findings at Phase I dem-
onstrated that the distinct emotions (i.e., anger vs. sadness) induced by different news
frames actually influenced individuals’ information processing (i.e., heuristic vs. system-
atic processing) and the evaluation of the company differently. This is in line with Jin’s
(2009) finding that discrete emotions are inductable and distinguishable in crises, and
“strategic publics can be segmented and identified not only by issues but also by their
emotional engagement” (p. 312). The present study extended Jin’s (2009) findings by
demonstrating the role of news media in inducing publics’ emotions in crises. In addition,
at Phase II, this study also found that the different types of corporate messages (i.e., cor-
porate response type, and the use of emotional appeals) would influence individuals’ cred-
ibility perceptions, blame attributions, and their attitudes toward and behavioral intentions
about the company in crisis. The current findings at Phase II are consistent with many
findings in the audience-oriented crisis communication literature (e.g., SCCT) that differ-
ent crisis response strategies could influence audience’s perceptions, attributions, evalua-
tions, and behavioral intentions. Notably, the current study expanded the boundary of
SCCT a step further by empirically examining the effects of news media frames on pub-
lics’ initial crisis perceptions as well as the role of emotions in shaping the public’s subse-
quent responses. In sum, the current study empirically demonstrated a conceptual model
of crisis information processing with a specific focus on the publics’ emotional responses.
The results of this study suggest that the distinct emotions elicited by different news
frames could influence the publics’ information processing and attitudes toward the orga-
nization, and that the organization could develop different response strategies by consider-
ing the publics’ emotional needs.
Also, with regard to our investigation about the use of emotional appeals, this study
responded to Fediuk and his colleagues’ (2010) previous call for crisis response research to
move forward by considering message characteristics as a component of the crisis response
strategy. Researchers in crisis communication (e.g., Coombs, 2007; Fediuk et al., 2010, Jin,
2009) have called for more empirical research to examine how messages could be struc-
tured and framed to obtain more favorable responses from publics. Future research should
investigate more various message factors, which could possibly affect the publics’ emo-
tional response, blame attributions, evaluations, and even future behaviors regarding a
given organizational crisis.
The current study also provided a few practical implications for practitioners who attempt
to develop organizational messages in a crisis situation. For instance, if the media have
framed an organizational crisis in a way that induced public sadness, practitioners might
need to develop a corporate message that focuses on the relief and well-being of victims
with intensive emotional appeals (H3a & RQ1). On the other hand, if the media frames the
crisis in a way that induces public anger, practitioners might need to design a message that
focuses on the well-being of victims and use emotional appeals sparingly (H3b & RQ1). It
is noteworthy that practitioners’ use of emotional appeals may be limited by the media
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 847
gatekeepers since organizations often rely on the interpretations of journalists, who may
omit intensive emotional appeals. For instance, Holladay (2009) examined the media reports
of chemical accident crises and found that company’s reputation repair strategies were actu-
ally included in only 24% of the media reports, whereas adjusting information was used in
60% of the reports. Practitioners who attempt to utilize intensive emotional appeals in
response to an organizational crisis, therefore, may need to ensure that the news media rec-
ognize the organization’s emotional response itself as a newsworthy point. For instance,
practitioners may need to couch the direct quotes of the CEO in intensive emotional appeals
or use emotional language in the headlines and first paragraphs of the release. More impor-
tantly, the advances and the innovations in new technology have provided PR practitioners
with direct access to key publics “that does not require the challenges of working with media
gatekeepers” (p. 336, Wilcox & Cameron, 2009). A body of researchers in crisis communi-
cation also suggest the role of new communication technology in disseminating crisis
responses to publics (Caldiero, Taylor, & Ungureanu, 2010; Coombs, 2007; Holladay,
2009). Toyota’s active involvement in social media after its massive recalls is a recent exam-
ple demonstrating the increasing importance of new media as platforms for communicating
directly with publics during a crisis (Bush, 2010). Notably, new media could also provide
more effective communication platforms as compared to paid advertising in promoting the
public’s credibility perceptions toward the organization. For instance, BP utilized 1-minute
television commercials to directly address its oil spill crisis, but the ad campaign backfired,
spurring criticism that the money for the ad campaign should have been spent on cleanup
efforts and on compensating the victims of the spill. That is, corporate responses using paid
advertising might cause the publics to doubt the company’s genuine motivation to care for
the crisis and victims. Therefore, in an attempt to deliver corporate responses to a given
crisis situation, practitioners may be able to utilize unpaid communication platforms such as
corporate web sites, e-mail distributions, major blogs and chat forums, social-networking
sites, or web casting to directly communicate with the key publics using effective rhetorical
components such as emotional appeals.
Limitations and Future Study
There are a few limitations that need to be addressed regarding the present study. First, the
manipulation check measure for emotional appeals could be improved in future work.
Although this study did find a significant difference between the emotional appeal versus
no emotional appeal groups, more comprehensive multiple-item measures will serve better
to reflect this multidimensional construct. Second, it should also be acknowledged that this
study employed only one corporate crisis type, limiting the generalizability of its findings.
More products and organizational contexts involving many crisis types (e.g., human error
accident, technical error recalls, workplace violence, etc.) should be further examined to
extend our findings about crisis framing and appraisal to the diverse crisis contexts. Third,
although participants’ emotions were measured at both Phase I and Phase II in the present
study, this study used the emotion measures only to confirm the inducement of sadness
versus anger. The possible emotions change between Phase I and Phased II caused by
corporate responses was not examined due to the current scope of research. Future study
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

848 Communication Research 38(6)
may need to further investigate how publics’ emotions regarding a crisis could change
depending on the corporate strategy and emotional appeals, using a two-phase experiment
as in this study. Such an endeavor could develop a new indicator of successful crisis com-
munication in terms of reducing negative discrete emotions. Fourth, due to experimental
practicalities, the relations among dependent variables were not taken into account. It is
also beyond the scope of this article to further discuss the causal/meditational relations
among credibility perceptions, blame attributions, attitudes toward the company, and
behavioral intentions. Nevertheless, such an endeavor should be undertaken to obtain a
fuller understanding into the crisis response effects. In fact, the prior literature on SCCT
has found that responsibility attributions affect other outcome variables such as affects,
reputation, and behavioral intentions. It is noteworthy that the current study expanded the
SCCT literature by including credibility perceptions as another key dependent variable.
This is in line with Fediuk and his colleagues’ (2010) argument that credibility perceptions
should be considered in crisis response research. Fediuk et al. (2010) claimed that, as with
responsibility perceptions, “perceptions of honoring the account” should be treated as a
factor to influence the relationship between an independent factor (i.e., crisis responses)
and other outcome variables such as attitudes and behavioral intentions. Future research,
therefore, should develop a clearer conceptual model to describe causal relations among
the key outcome variables including credibility perceptions, by using meditational analysis
or structural equation modeling.
Finally, this study used college students as participants in the experiment as a conve-
nience sample based on the essential proposition that for basic human information pro-
cesses the effects of independent variables are universal. According to Patzer (1996),
college students are an acceptable convenience sample when findings serve as a foundation
or pioneering effort to be tested with other types of participants, or when the research
addresses fundamental questions such as cognitive information processing related to cer-
tain stimuli. The current study addresses a fundamental communication question, and our
dependent variables (e.g., elaboration depth, emotional response, attitudes toward a com-
pany responsible for a cell phone battery explosion crisis) are likely to be universal factors
that permit generalizations to the consumer population in general. In this sense, this study
constitutes an important preliminary step in furthering fundamental knowledge of the role
of emotions in public responses to an organizational crisis and providing a foundation to be
tested with other types of publics in the future.
Taken together, this study contributes to the public relations body of knowledge by
offering empirical support for the application of Appraisal Tendency Frameworks to the
design and conduct of effective organizational communication. This study clearly demon-
strates potential for developing effective corporate response strategies in a given crisis situ-
ation, for considering the type of crisis, how the crisis has been framed by the media, the
publics’ emotional response, and the use of emotional appeals.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 849
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
Notes
1. As Choi and Lin (2007) admit, there has been no simple, standard method to conceptualize
emotional appeals. Rather, some researchers (Nylen, 1986; Shimp, 1990) suggest that the
rational appeal is a message containing facts, statistics, and figures, whereas an emotional
appeal is concerned with “attempts to elicit, or make salient, object-related emotions” (Ros-
selli, Skelly, & Mackie, 1995, p. 165). The current study adopted the conceptualization of
Rosselli et al. (1995).
2. Prior reputation has been found as a critical factor that could either protect the organization
in crisis (Coombs & Holladays, 2006) or harm the organization by increasing the responsi-
bility perceptions for the crisis (Bae & Cameron, 2006; Fediuk, Pace, & Botero, 2010).
3. Another line of researchers (e.g., Lee, 2004; Park & Len-Rios, 2010) have used a two-
item scale to measure responsibility attributions, adopted from Griffin, Babin, and Attaway
(1996): (1) “How responsible was the organization for the crisis?” and (2)“To what degree
do you think the organization should be blamed?” In fact, as reviewed above, responsibility
attribution is one of the key concepts in SCCT. However, the current study views “responsi-
bility” and “blame” as distinct concepts from each other, based on Shaver and his colleges’
argument (e.g., Shaver, 1985; Shaver & Drown, 1986) that someone could be perceived
as responsible, but not blameworthy. That is, even if the crisis is disputably caused by the
organization which is found responsible for the crisis, it would still not be blamed if people
accept the explanations offered by the organization. This study therefore used the item (2)
only, in order to measure the degree of blames that participants attribute to the company after
reading the corporate crisis response.
4. Participants’ attitudes toward the company were measured twice: before the exposure to the
corporate message and after the exposure to the corporate message. The results of paired sam-
ple t tests revealed that participants’ attitudes toward the company were statistically increased
after the exposure to the corporate message (Mdiff = –.904, t(236) = –11.20, p = .00).
5. As seen in Table 1, the scores of Surprise items were higher than any other emotional items,
demonstrating that surprise was dominant emotion in both anger-induced group and sadness-
induced group. This finding is not surprising, considering Barton’s (2001) definition of crisis:
“an incident that is unexpected and overwhelming” (p. 2). Also, it is noteworthy that many
appraisal theorists claim that surprise would not necessarily have the direction of valence. That
is, surprise could have any valence—either positive or negative or even neutral (Roseman,
1984). Although the current study focuses on the difference between two manipulated emo-
tions (i.e., anger and sadness) in influencing participants’ subsequent information processing,
further examination of the role of surprise in crisis communication might be warranted.
6. Although the individual items for discrete emotions were measured by 7-point scales, we
conducted factor analysis to reduce the data and find the minimum number of factors that
account for observed emotions. The mean numbers reported here are factor scores (not indi-
vidual item scores), produced as the results of factor analysis.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

850 Communication Research 38(6)
References
An, S., & Cheng, I. (2010). Crisis communication research in public relations journals: Tracking research
trends over thirty years. In W.T. Coombs & S.J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication
(pp. 65-90). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bae, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). The conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of corporate
giving. Public Relations Review, 32, 144-150.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1978). The construct validity of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of atti-
tude by analysis of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 13, 9-31.
Barton, W. L. (2001). Crisis in organizations II (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: College Divisions South-Western.
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23, 177-
180.
Benoit, W. L. (2005). Image restoration theory. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations:
Volume 1 (pp. 407-410). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Benoit, W. L., & Brinson, S. L. (1999). Queen Elizabeth’s image repair discourse: Insensitive royal or com-
passionate Queen? Public Relations Review, 25, 145-156.
Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The
differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, Special Issue: Affect
in Social Judgments and Cognition, 24(1), 45-62.
BP Ads Backfire, Spur Criticism, Not Sympathy. (2010, June 6). Huffington Post. Retrieved September
24, 2010, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/06/bp-ads-backfires-gets-cri_n_602124.html
Bradford, J. L., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). The effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to accusa-
tions of unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 875-892.
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of
attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1191-1205.
Brewer, P. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values?
Political Psychology, 22, 45-64.
Bush, M. (2010, March). The cult of Toyota. Advertising Age, 81(9), 1-20.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1989). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: The role of affect and affect-laden
information processing in persuasion. In P. Cafferata & A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and affective
responses to advertising (pp. 69-89). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Geen, T. R. (1989). Attitude structure and function: From the tripartite to the
homeostasis model of attitudes. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude
structure and function (pp. 275-310). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caldiero, C., Taylor, M., & Ungureanu, L. (2010). Organizational and media use of technology during fraud
crises. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp. 396-409).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cameron, G. T., Pang, A., & Jin, Y. (2008). Contingency. In T. Hansen-Horn & B. Neff (Eds.), Public rela-
tions: From theory to practice (pp. 134-157). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Cavanaugh, L. A., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (2007). Appraising the appraisal-tendency
framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 169-173.
Cho, S., & Gower, K. (2006). Framing effect of the public’s response to crisis: Human interest frame and
crisis type influencing responsibility and blame. Public Relations Review, 32, 420-422.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 851
Choi, Y., & Lin, Y. (2007, May 23). Communicating risk: The effects of message appeal and individual
difference on risk message processing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Com-
munication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Choi, Y., & Lin, Y. (2009). Consumer responses to Mattel product recalls posted on online bulletin boards:
Exploring two types of emotion. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 198-207.
Chow, C., & Luk, C. (2006). Effects of comparative advertising in high and low cognitive elaboration condi-
tions. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 55-67.
Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communication. Journal of Business Com-
munication, 41, 265-289.
Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputational assets
during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Management, 12, 241-260.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application
of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 163-176.
Coombs, W. T. (2010). Parameters for crisis communication. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The
handbook of crisis communication (pp. 65-90). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Coombs, W. T., Fediuk, T. A., & Holladay, S. J. (2007, March 8-11). Further explorations of post-crisis com-
munication and stakeholder anger: The negative communication dynamic model. A paper presented at
the 9th International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests
of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 165-186.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Reasoned action in crisis communication: An attribution theory-
based approach to crisis management. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A
rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 95-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). Exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect and crisis. In N.
M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations: Volume 1:
The effect of affect in organizational settings (271-288). New York: Elsevier.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2006). Unpacking the halo effect: Reputation and crisis management.
Journal of Communication Management, 10(2), 123-137.
DeBaillon, L., & Rockwell, P. (2005). Gender and student-status differences in cellular telephone use. Inter-
national Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(1).
Dillard, J. P. (1997). The role of affect in communication, biology, and social relationships. In P. R. Andersen
& L.Guerrero (Eds.), Communication and emotion (pp. xvii-xxxii). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dillard, J. P., Plotnick, C. A., Godbold, L. C., Freimuth, V. V., & Edgar, T. (1996). The multiple affective
outcome of AIDS PSA: Fear appeals do more than scare people. Communication Research, 23, 44-32.
Durrant, R., Wakefield, M., McLeoud, K., Clegg-Smith, K., & Chapman, S. (2003). Tobacco in the news:
An analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues in Australia, 2001. Tobacco Control, 12(Suppl.
II), 75-81.
Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 202-216.
Edwards, K., & vonHippel, W. (1995). Hearts and minds: The priority of affective versus cognitive factors
in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 996-1011.
Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and
Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

852 Communication Research 38(6)
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication,
43(4), 51-58.
Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in suscepti-
bility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
363-381.
Fediuk, T. A., Pace, K. M., & Botero, I. C. (2010). Crisis response effectiveness: Methodological consider-
ations for advancement in empirical investigation into response impact. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Hol-
laday (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp. 221-242). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Flora, J. A., & Maibach, E. (1990). Cognitive responses to AIDS information: The effects of issue, involve-
ment and message appeal. Communication Research, 17, 759-774.
Forgas, J. P. (2000). Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition. Cambridge, UK: Maison
des Sciences de l’Homme & Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gordon, C., & Arian, A. (2001). Threat and decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45, 196-215.
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Attaway, J. S. (1996). Anticipation of injurious consumption outcomes and its
impact on consumer attributions of blame. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 314-327.
Gross, K. A., & D’Ambrosio L. A. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25, 1-9.
Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and consumer decision making: The appraisal-ten-
dency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 158-168.
Hazleton, V. (2006). Toward a theory of public relations competence. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.),
Public relations theory II (pp. 199-222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heath, R., & Millar, D. (2004). A rhetorical approach to crisis communication: Management, communica-
tion processes, and strategic responses. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A
rhetorical approach to crisis communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Holladay, S. J. (2009). Crisis communication strategies in the media coverage of chemical accidents. Jour-
nal of Public Relations Research, 21, 208-217.
Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1967). Triadic consistency: A statement of affective-cognitive-conative consis-
tency. Psychological Review, 74, 361-376.
Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility
of gains and losses: It is just not worth the risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
710-717.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Jin, B., & Peña, J. F. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone use, relational
uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication Reports, 23(1), 39-51.
Jin, Y. (2009). The effects of public’s cognitive appraisal of emotions in crises on crisis coping and strategy
assessment. Public Relations Review, 35, 310-313.
Jin, Y., & Pang, A. (2010). Future directions of crisis communication research: Emotions in crisis—The
next frontier. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp.
677-682). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 853
Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). Integrated crisis mapping: Towards a publics-based, emotion-
driven conceptualization in crisis communication. Sphera Publica, 7, 81-96.
Jin, Y., Pang, G., & Cameron, G. T. (2010). Toward a publics-driven, emotion-based approach in crisis
communication: Testing the integrated crisis mapping (ICM) model. Public Relations Journal, 4(1).
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.prsa.org/searchresults/download/6d040106/0/
toward_a_publics_driven_emotion_based_approach_in
Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 45, 20-31.
Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of
sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 64, 740-752.
Kim, J., Kim, H., & Cameron, G. (2009). Making nice may not matter: The interplay of crisis type, response
type and crisis issue on perceived organizational responsibility. Public Relations Review, 35(1), 86-88.
Lanctôt, N., & Hess, U. (2007). The timing of appraisals. Emotion, 7, 207-212.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, K. (2004). Audience-oriented approach to crisis communication: A study of Hong Kong consumers’
evaluation of organizational crisis. Communication Research, 31, 600-618.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on
judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 473-493.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
146-159.
Lerner, J. S., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape
anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115-137.
Lindsey, L. L. M. (2005). Anticipated guilt as behavioral motivation: An examination of appeals to help
unknown others through bone marrow donation. Human Communication Research, 31, 453-481.
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, E. S. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bul-
letin, 127, 267-286.
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, 213-241.
Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2009). Emotions as moderators of information cue use: Citizen attitudes
towards Hurricane Katrina. American Politics Research, 37, 301-326.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989, April). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of
attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48-65.
Masters, R. D., & Sullivan, D. G. (1993). Nonverbal behavior and leadership: Emotion and cognition in
political information processing. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psy-
chology (pp. 150-182). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Nabi, R. L. (1998). The effect of disgust-eliciting visuals on attitudes toward animal experimentation. Com-
munication Quarterly, 46, 472-484.
Nabi, R. L. (2002). Anger, fear, uncertainty, and attitudes: A test of the cognitive-functional model. Com-
munication Monographs, 69, 204-216.
Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence
information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30,
224-247.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

854 Communication Research 38(6)
Nabi, R. L. (2007). Emotion and persuasion: A social cognitive perspective. In D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J.
Monahan (Eds.), Social cognition and communication: Theories and methods (pp. 377-398). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, D. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate
responsibility. Journal of Business Research, 52, 235-247.
Nolan, S. A., & Heinzen, T. E. (2008). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: Worth.
Nylen, D. (1986). Advertising: Planning, implementation and control. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived exper-
tise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19, 39-52.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communica-
tion, 10, 55-75.
Park, S., & Len-Rios, M. (2010). Who suffers? The effect of injured party on attributions of crisis responsi-
bility. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp. 591-606).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Patzer, G. L. (1996). Experiment-research methodology in marketing types and applications. Westport, CT:
Quorum books.
Pearson, C., & Clair, J. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management Review, 23(1),
59-76.
Petty, R. E., Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2003). Emotional factors and attitudes and persuasion. In
R. J. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 752-772).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Read, K. (2007). “Corporate pathos”: New approaches to quell hostile publics. Journal of Communication
Management, 11, 332-347.
Roseman, I. J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotion - A structural theory. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Emotions,
relationships, and health (Vol. 5, pp. 11-36). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes.
In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change (pp. 1-14). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Rosselli, F., Skelly, J. J., & Mackie, D. M. (1995). Processing rational and emotional messages: The cogni-
tive and affective mediation of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 163-190.
Rudolph, U., Roesch, S., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A meta-analytic review of help giving and
aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition
and Emotion, 18, 815-848.
Scherer, K. R. (1999). Appraisal theory. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and
emotion (pp. 637-663). New York: Wiley.
Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods,
research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. Springer,
NY: Verlag.
Shaver, K. G., & Drown, D. (1986). On causality, responsibility, and self-blame: A theoretical note. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 697-702.
Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2007). The influence of BIS/BAS and message framing on the processing of
persuasive health messages. Communication Research, 34, 433-467.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kim and Cameron 855
Shimp, T. A. (1990). Promotion management and marketing communication. Chicago: Dryden Press.
Small, D. A., & Lerner, J. S. (2008). Emotional policy: Personal sadness and anger shape judgments about
a welfare case. Political Psychology, 29, 149-168.
Smith, B. A., Dillard, J. P. (1997, November). Affect and persuasion: Evidence for cognitive coloration of
message production. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Associa-
tion, Chicago.
Sturges, D. L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy for organizational survival. Management
Communication Quarterly, 7, 297-316.
Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of
specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81, 973-988.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York:
Guilford Press.
Wilcox, D. L., & Cameron, G. T. (2009). Public relations: Strategies and tactics (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, M. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of Consumer
Research, 9, 123-131.
Bios
Hyo J. Kim, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
Information at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Glen T. Cameron, PhD, is Maxine Wilson Gregory Chair in Journalism and Professor of
Family and Community Medicine at the University of Missouri.
at University of Missouri-Columbia on December 2, 2013crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from