A Crisis-holder Approach to Crisis Communication: Implications for the

Central and Peripheral Routes for Processing Crisis Response Strategies

Crisis-holderRoutesDynamics

Routes

• Peripheral: Potential victims and voyeurs (non-victims) – Accept non-apologies as apologies– Surface features, low involvement

• Central: Victims– High involvement– More likely to seek apology characteristics

Crisis-holders form

Apologies

• Full: accept responsibility• Partial: do not accept responsibility• Non-apology: minimize responsibility for the

wrongdoings (Kampf, 2009)

Why apologies work

Ritual Function

Comparison

• Partial and full apologies similar performance– Protect reputations– Protect purchase intentions– Reduce anger– Reduce likelihood of negative WOM

Why?

• When using the peripheral route, stakeholders will accept any cue that approximates an apology as an apology

• Full or partial apologies provide narrative finality for non-victims (including media)

• Provides focus on stakeholders’ perspective