- Email: [email protected]
Typology and dimensionality of litigation public relations strategies: The Hewlett-Packard board pretexting scandal case
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 66–69
Typology and dimensionality of litigation public relations strategies: The Hewlett-Packard board pretexting scandal case Yan Jin ∗ , Christopher J. Kelsay School of Mass Communications, Virginia Commonwealth University, United States Received 15 June 2007; received in revised form 15 October 2007; accepted 28 November 2007
Abstract This study examined the content of litigation public relations (LPR) strategies Hewlett-Packard used in its recent board pretexting scandal by analyzing the press releases and newspaper coverage. Seven types of LPR strategies were identified and mapped using multidimensional scaling (MDS) along two continuums representing Defense–Accommodation and Ambiguity–Specification message attributes. Threat type was found to influence the choice of LPR strategies, which in return, impacted on how the publics attributed the organizational responsibility in the crisis. The use of emotional message played an important role in the two new LPR strategies, Information Supply and Strategic Avoidance. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Litigation public relations; Strategy; Threat; Emotion
1. Introduction Though many scholars regard LPR as a crisis communication management subspecialty (e.g., Cameron, Wilcox, Reber, & Shin, 2006; Gibson & Padilla, 1999), others, especially LPR practitioners, posit LPR as one major PR practice different from crisis communication in various ways and should be best defined as “managing the communications process during the course of any legal disputes or adjudicatory proceeding so as to affect the outcome or its impact on the client’s overall reputation” (Haggerty, 2003, p. 2), the decision-making and management of which demand a better understanding of LPR strategies. PR strategies (Hazleton, 1993; Hazlenton & Long, 1988; Werder, 2006), crisis communicative strategies (Allen & Caillouet, 1994; Benoit, 1995; Brinson & Benoit, 1999; Coombs, 1999; Hearit, 1994,1995; Huang, Lin, & Su, 2005), comparisons between litigation strategies and traditional PR strategies (Fitzpatrick & Rubin, 1995) have been examined. However, there is a lack of LPR specific inventory of strategies and a map of their dimensions. The purpose of this study is to explore the types and dimensions of LPR strategies as well as test the relationship between LPR strategies and key crisis communication constructs such as threat type (Coombs, 1998; Jin & Cameron, 2007) and crisis responsibility attribution (Coombs, 1998), in the context of the HP board pretexting scandal litigation case.
∗
Corresponding author at: 901 West Main Street, Room 2216, Richmond, VA 23284, United States. Tel.: +1 804 827 3764; fax: +1 804 828 9175. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Jin).
0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.11.009
Y. Jin, C.J. Kelsay / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 66–69
67
2. Research method Content analysis was used in this study. The unit of analysis was a news story or a press release. Stories/releases analyzed in this study appeared on HP’s official website and in news items about the HP pretexting scandal published in major newspapers (collected from Lexis-Nexis), from September 6, 2006 when HP’s internal leak crisis became public (the company filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission), to November 17, 2006, when Patricia Dunn, HP’s former chairman, and Kevin Hunsaker, the company’s former senior counsel, appeared at the first arraignment. Press releases were analyzed as one of the main PR techniques (Guth, 1996). Newspaper articles, often referred to as public records of history in the making (Warrington, 1997), are argued to provide a more detailed, comprehensive, and chronological account of the management of the crisis than messages disseminated through television coverage, which are arguably more episodic and fleeting. Eight HP scandal-related press releases and 159 newspaper stories were collected and combined into the analysis of HP’s LPR strategies. The codebook was designed to examine the following variables: (1) LPR strategies, a 46-item inventory was developed via a three-step process from item generation based on literature review to item screening through item distribution check and initial factor analysis. For each story/release, the coders were instructed to rate how evident each strategy is, using a four-point scale to measure to what extent each strategy can be identified in the situation of the specific message, with 1 as “not at all”, 2 as “a little”, 3 as “moderately”, 4 as “strongly” (Richins, 1997). (2) Message Attributes Continuums: Based on the conceptualization of Huang et al. (2005) on crisis communicative strategy dimensions and Coombs’ (2006) theory on situational crisis responses, as well as Jin, Pang and Cameron’s (2007) emotion-based ICM (Integrated Crisis Mapping) model, the overall attributes of crisis communication response messages were measured on three continuums, using a 5-point Likert-type scale: Defense–Accommodation continuum, with 1 = “Defensive” and 5 as “Accommodative”; Ambiguity–Specification continuum, with 1 = “Ambiguous” and 5 as “Specific”; and Emotion–Cognition continuum, with 1 = “Emotional” and 5 as “Factual”. (3) Threat Type as Reflected in Organizational Priority: Adapted from Coombs’ (1998) theory on operational and reputational threats, if the threat as reflected in the story/release was about corporate image, public perception or attitude, the top priority of the organization was coded as “reputation”. If the threat as reflected in the story/release was about legal concerns, finance, management and other internal resource, the top priority of the organization was coded as “operation”. And (4) Crisis Responsibility Attribution: It was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale: The primary public’s attribution of organizational crisis responsibility, with 1 as “very weak” and 5 as “very strong”. Two coders, the first and second authors, were trained and conducted the coding. Detailed instruction on the coding instrument and definitions for all coding categories were discussed and coders practiced the coding until satisfactory inter-coder reliability was achieved (Scott’s Pi: .94). Exploratory factor analysis, Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), ANOVAs and Multiple Regressions were employed for data analysis. 3. Findings After examining the frequency distribution of each strategy item and their loadings in initial factor analysis, 23 items were retained in the LPR strategy inventory and were entered for exploratory factor analysis. Seven types of LPR strategies were yielded after examining to what extent each of the 23 strategies was present and evident in both the press releases and newspaper stories (eigenvalues above 1.0 and accounting for 66.77% of the total variance). Five of them (Justification, Concession, Denial, Excuse and Diversion) were previously identified as crisis response strategies (Benoit, 1995; Coombs, 1999; Hearit, 1994, 1995; Huang et al., 2005). The two new LPR strategy types are Information Supply, which includes investigating allegations and being informative and facilitative, and Strategic Avoidance, which includes denying while expressing remorse/compassion for the crisis, defeasibility as claiming that the organization did not have the knowledge/ability/control to avoid committing the offensive act, and saying nothing or as little as possible. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) was employed to fully understand the nature of the LPR strategy types. Euclidean distance was calculated for each pair of the seven LPR strategy types and the resulting matrix was subjected to MDS analysis: As a result, stress coefficients for the one-, two-, and three-dimensional solutions were .36, .13, and .06, respectively; variance accounted for by the three solutions was 72%, 93%, and 98%, respectively; however, the threedimensional solution was not interpretable. Therefore, stress coefficient and interpretability criteria indicated that the two-dimension solution was most appropriate. The MDS-generated scatter plot provided an interpretable picture
68
Y. Jin, C.J. Kelsay / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 66–69
mapping the above seven types of LPR strategies along two continuums (Huang et al., 2005): Defense–Accommodation and Specification–Ambiguity. Diversion is the most ambiguous strategy, while concession is the most specific one in terms of policy statement and corrective action steps; Information Supply is the most accommodative strategy, while Denial is the most defensive one. Though a three-dimension MDS solution was not interpretable during the data analysis, the multi-regression function of Emotion–Cognition continuum suggests that whether a message is emotion- or cognition-driven has influence on at least Justification (Beta = −.230, p < .01; F = 3.706, p < .05), Information Supply (Beta = .210, p < .01; F = 12.594, p < .001) and Strategic Avoidance (Beta = −.138, p < .10; F = 7.704, p < .001). Information Supply appeared to be more factual, whereas Justification and Strategic Avoidance appeared to be more emotional. Types of threat and hereafter top priority of the organization in the litigation situation were found to have influence on which types of LPR strategies are likely to be implemented. Denial (F = 2.850, p < .10) and Strategic Avoidance (F = 2.805, p < .10), though defensive by nature, can be more feasible when an organization’s operation (legal and financial concerns, management, etc.) is threatened by litigation. More accommodative strategies, such as Concession (F = 8.858. p < .01) and Information Supply (F = 3.298, p < .10), can be a more effective choice when the reputation of the organization is tarnished by litigation. The choices among LPR strategy types also affected how the public perceive the organizational responsibility of the issue under litigation (F = 4.072, p < .001). Justification (Beta = −.148, p < .10), Concession (Beta = .276, p < .01), and Denial (Beta = −.254, p < .01) were found to be significantly contributing to the level of HP’s responsibility as perceived by the primary public and reflected on media coverage. It seemed that the more presence of Justification and Denial strategies in LPR case, the lower responsibility the organization is likely to be perceived to have in the crisis; on the other hand, more presence of Concession strategies might lead to higher organizational responsibility in the crisis as perceived by the publics. 4. Discussion and conclusion The results of this study contribute to the theoretical development of litigation public relations, in the context of crisis communication and strategic conflict management. The nature of litigation threat leads to the unique functions of LPR, and the required joint efforts from both communication and legal professionals in the strategic decision-making process, LPR strategies seem to, and should, reflect journalism, public relations and legal priorities and demonstrate both features in an integrated way. Information Supply and Strategic Avoidance are two new strategies unique to LPR practice, which suggest the integration of journalistic, PR and legal features in LPR practice. While investigating allegations is essential information-providing indicator in litigation situation, being informative and facilitative, as traditional journalistic function of public relations, seem popular strategies to effective LPR practice. LPR practitioners can use Information Supply strategy to present unbiased facts, suggest alternative solutions to problems, as well as make resources available to the publics. Strategic Avoidance reflects the legal priority by holding information, however, in a compassionate and caring manner, which tends to be more acceptable in the eyes of the publics. It might be a good solution toward the sometimes conflicting priorities between communication and legal professionals: on one hand, LPR should avoid giving out too much information that can lead to negative publicity or stir public suspicion; on the other hand, LPR can take an ambiguous yet humane face in communicating feelings and concerns to the publics involved, and try to help the publics understand the position of the organization in its own shoes. The mapping of the seven types of LPR strategies along Defense–Accommodation and Ambiguity–Specification continuums provides future research directions for understanding crisis communication strategy dimensionality and how to integrate different message attributes effectively. For example, though litigation tends to restrain the use of accommodative strategies (Reber, Cropp, & Cameron, 2003), this study suggests the possibilities of effective use of accommodative LPR strategies such as Concession and Information Supply. Given the impact of Emotion–Cognition message attributes, LPR practitioners should consider addressing the emotional needs of the publics with compassion in the court of the public opinion. In order to reduce the perceived organizational responsibility, LPR professionals might consider using more Justification and even Denial to balance the perception of the media and the publics. One counterintuitive caution is: Concession should be used with reservation in LPR, if an organization wants to lower the perceived responsibility
Y. Jin, C.J. Kelsay / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 66–69
69
of the crisis. Sometimes over-explanation, repeated admission or even mortification can lead to public suspicion and higher perceived organizational responsibility. References Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimation endeavors; Impress management strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communication Monographs, 61, 44–62. Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Brinson, S. L., & Benoit, W. L. (1999). The tarnished star: Restoring Texaco’s damaged public image. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 483–510. Cameron, G. T., Wilcox, D. L., Reber, H. R., & Shin, J. (2006). Public relations: Managing competition and conflict (1st ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(3), 179–193. Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 125–142. Coombs, W. T. (2006). Crisis management: A communicative approach. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazlenton (Eds.), Public relations theory 2 (pp. 171–197). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fitzpatrick, L. R., & Rubin, M. S. (1995). Public relations vs. legal strategies in organizational crisis decisions. Public Relations Review, 21, 21–33. Gibson, D. C., & Padilla, M. E. (1999). Litigation public relations problems and limits. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 215–233. Guth, D. W. (1996). The acceptance and use of public relations practices among Kansas Litigators. Public Relations Review, 22(4), 341–354. Haggerty, J. F. (2003). In the court of public opinion: Winning your case with public relations. Wiley. Hazleton, V. (1993). Symbolic resources: Processes in the development and use of symbolic resources. In W. Armbrecht, H. Avenarius, & U. Zabel (Eds.), Image and PR: Kann image Gegenstand einer Public Relations-Wissenschaft sein? [Image and PR: Can image be a subject of public relations science] Wiesbaden (pp. 87–100). Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hazlenton, V., Jr., & Long, L. W. (1988). Concepts for public relations education, research, and practice: A communication point of view. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 77–87. Hearit, K. M. (1994). Apologies and public relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Public Relations Review, 20(2), 113–125. Hearit, K. M. (1995). “Mistakes were made”: Organizations, apologia, and crises of social legitimacy. Communication Studies, 46, 1–17. Huang, Y., Lin, Y., & Su, S. (2005). Crisis communicative strategies in Taiwan: Category, continuum, and cultural implication. Public Relations Review, 31, 229–238. Jin, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). The effects of threat type and duration on public relations professional’s cognitive, affective and conative responses in crisis situations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(3), 255–281. Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). Integrated crisis mapping: Toward a publics-based, emotion-driven conceptualization in crisis communication. Sphera Publica, 7, 81–95. Reber, B., Cropp, F., & Cameron, G. T. (2003). Impossible odds: Contributions of legal counsel and public relations practitioners in a hostile takeover of Conrail Inc. by Norfolk Southern Railroad. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(1), 1–25. Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(September), 127–146. Warrington, W. (1997). Intimate journalism. California: Sage. Werder, K. P. (2006). Responding to activism: An experimental analysis of public relations strategy influence on attributes of publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 335–356.
Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 66–69
Typology and dimensionality of litigation public relations strategies: The Hewlett-Packard board pretexting scandal case Yan Jin ∗ , Christopher J. Kelsay School of Mass Communications, Virginia Commonwealth University, United States Received 15 June 2007; received in revised form 15 October 2007; accepted 28 November 2007
Abstract This study examined the content of litigation public relations (LPR) strategies Hewlett-Packard used in its recent board pretexting scandal by analyzing the press releases and newspaper coverage. Seven types of LPR strategies were identified and mapped using multidimensional scaling (MDS) along two continuums representing Defense–Accommodation and Ambiguity–Specification message attributes. Threat type was found to influence the choice of LPR strategies, which in return, impacted on how the publics attributed the organizational responsibility in the crisis. The use of emotional message played an important role in the two new LPR strategies, Information Supply and Strategic Avoidance. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Litigation public relations; Strategy; Threat; Emotion
1. Introduction Though many scholars regard LPR as a crisis communication management subspecialty (e.g., Cameron, Wilcox, Reber, & Shin, 2006; Gibson & Padilla, 1999), others, especially LPR practitioners, posit LPR as one major PR practice different from crisis communication in various ways and should be best defined as “managing the communications process during the course of any legal disputes or adjudicatory proceeding so as to affect the outcome or its impact on the client’s overall reputation” (Haggerty, 2003, p. 2), the decision-making and management of which demand a better understanding of LPR strategies. PR strategies (Hazleton, 1993; Hazlenton & Long, 1988; Werder, 2006), crisis communicative strategies (Allen & Caillouet, 1994; Benoit, 1995; Brinson & Benoit, 1999; Coombs, 1999; Hearit, 1994,1995; Huang, Lin, & Su, 2005), comparisons between litigation strategies and traditional PR strategies (Fitzpatrick & Rubin, 1995) have been examined. However, there is a lack of LPR specific inventory of strategies and a map of their dimensions. The purpose of this study is to explore the types and dimensions of LPR strategies as well as test the relationship between LPR strategies and key crisis communication constructs such as threat type (Coombs, 1998; Jin & Cameron, 2007) and crisis responsibility attribution (Coombs, 1998), in the context of the HP board pretexting scandal litigation case.
∗
Corresponding author at: 901 West Main Street, Room 2216, Richmond, VA 23284, United States. Tel.: +1 804 827 3764; fax: +1 804 828 9175. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Jin).
0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.11.009
Y. Jin, C.J. Kelsay / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 66–69
67
2. Research method Content analysis was used in this study. The unit of analysis was a news story or a press release. Stories/releases analyzed in this study appeared on HP’s official website and in news items about the HP pretexting scandal published in major newspapers (collected from Lexis-Nexis), from September 6, 2006 when HP’s internal leak crisis became public (the company filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission), to November 17, 2006, when Patricia Dunn, HP’s former chairman, and Kevin Hunsaker, the company’s former senior counsel, appeared at the first arraignment. Press releases were analyzed as one of the main PR techniques (Guth, 1996). Newspaper articles, often referred to as public records of history in the making (Warrington, 1997), are argued to provide a more detailed, comprehensive, and chronological account of the management of the crisis than messages disseminated through television coverage, which are arguably more episodic and fleeting. Eight HP scandal-related press releases and 159 newspaper stories were collected and combined into the analysis of HP’s LPR strategies. The codebook was designed to examine the following variables: (1) LPR strategies, a 46-item inventory was developed via a three-step process from item generation based on literature review to item screening through item distribution check and initial factor analysis. For each story/release, the coders were instructed to rate how evident each strategy is, using a four-point scale to measure to what extent each strategy can be identified in the situation of the specific message, with 1 as “not at all”, 2 as “a little”, 3 as “moderately”, 4 as “strongly” (Richins, 1997). (2) Message Attributes Continuums: Based on the conceptualization of Huang et al. (2005) on crisis communicative strategy dimensions and Coombs’ (2006) theory on situational crisis responses, as well as Jin, Pang and Cameron’s (2007) emotion-based ICM (Integrated Crisis Mapping) model, the overall attributes of crisis communication response messages were measured on three continuums, using a 5-point Likert-type scale: Defense–Accommodation continuum, with 1 = “Defensive” and 5 as “Accommodative”; Ambiguity–Specification continuum, with 1 = “Ambiguous” and 5 as “Specific”; and Emotion–Cognition continuum, with 1 = “Emotional” and 5 as “Factual”. (3) Threat Type as Reflected in Organizational Priority: Adapted from Coombs’ (1998) theory on operational and reputational threats, if the threat as reflected in the story/release was about corporate image, public perception or attitude, the top priority of the organization was coded as “reputation”. If the threat as reflected in the story/release was about legal concerns, finance, management and other internal resource, the top priority of the organization was coded as “operation”. And (4) Crisis Responsibility Attribution: It was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale: The primary public’s attribution of organizational crisis responsibility, with 1 as “very weak” and 5 as “very strong”. Two coders, the first and second authors, were trained and conducted the coding. Detailed instruction on the coding instrument and definitions for all coding categories were discussed and coders practiced the coding until satisfactory inter-coder reliability was achieved (Scott’s Pi: .94). Exploratory factor analysis, Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), ANOVAs and Multiple Regressions were employed for data analysis. 3. Findings After examining the frequency distribution of each strategy item and their loadings in initial factor analysis, 23 items were retained in the LPR strategy inventory and were entered for exploratory factor analysis. Seven types of LPR strategies were yielded after examining to what extent each of the 23 strategies was present and evident in both the press releases and newspaper stories (eigenvalues above 1.0 and accounting for 66.77% of the total variance). Five of them (Justification, Concession, Denial, Excuse and Diversion) were previously identified as crisis response strategies (Benoit, 1995; Coombs, 1999; Hearit, 1994, 1995; Huang et al., 2005). The two new LPR strategy types are Information Supply, which includes investigating allegations and being informative and facilitative, and Strategic Avoidance, which includes denying while expressing remorse/compassion for the crisis, defeasibility as claiming that the organization did not have the knowledge/ability/control to avoid committing the offensive act, and saying nothing or as little as possible. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) was employed to fully understand the nature of the LPR strategy types. Euclidean distance was calculated for each pair of the seven LPR strategy types and the resulting matrix was subjected to MDS analysis: As a result, stress coefficients for the one-, two-, and three-dimensional solutions were .36, .13, and .06, respectively; variance accounted for by the three solutions was 72%, 93%, and 98%, respectively; however, the threedimensional solution was not interpretable. Therefore, stress coefficient and interpretability criteria indicated that the two-dimension solution was most appropriate. The MDS-generated scatter plot provided an interpretable picture
68
Y. Jin, C.J. Kelsay / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 66–69
mapping the above seven types of LPR strategies along two continuums (Huang et al., 2005): Defense–Accommodation and Specification–Ambiguity. Diversion is the most ambiguous strategy, while concession is the most specific one in terms of policy statement and corrective action steps; Information Supply is the most accommodative strategy, while Denial is the most defensive one. Though a three-dimension MDS solution was not interpretable during the data analysis, the multi-regression function of Emotion–Cognition continuum suggests that whether a message is emotion- or cognition-driven has influence on at least Justification (Beta = −.230, p < .01; F = 3.706, p < .05), Information Supply (Beta = .210, p < .01; F = 12.594, p < .001) and Strategic Avoidance (Beta = −.138, p < .10; F = 7.704, p < .001). Information Supply appeared to be more factual, whereas Justification and Strategic Avoidance appeared to be more emotional. Types of threat and hereafter top priority of the organization in the litigation situation were found to have influence on which types of LPR strategies are likely to be implemented. Denial (F = 2.850, p < .10) and Strategic Avoidance (F = 2.805, p < .10), though defensive by nature, can be more feasible when an organization’s operation (legal and financial concerns, management, etc.) is threatened by litigation. More accommodative strategies, such as Concession (F = 8.858. p < .01) and Information Supply (F = 3.298, p < .10), can be a more effective choice when the reputation of the organization is tarnished by litigation. The choices among LPR strategy types also affected how the public perceive the organizational responsibility of the issue under litigation (F = 4.072, p < .001). Justification (Beta = −.148, p < .10), Concession (Beta = .276, p < .01), and Denial (Beta = −.254, p < .01) were found to be significantly contributing to the level of HP’s responsibility as perceived by the primary public and reflected on media coverage. It seemed that the more presence of Justification and Denial strategies in LPR case, the lower responsibility the organization is likely to be perceived to have in the crisis; on the other hand, more presence of Concession strategies might lead to higher organizational responsibility in the crisis as perceived by the publics. 4. Discussion and conclusion The results of this study contribute to the theoretical development of litigation public relations, in the context of crisis communication and strategic conflict management. The nature of litigation threat leads to the unique functions of LPR, and the required joint efforts from both communication and legal professionals in the strategic decision-making process, LPR strategies seem to, and should, reflect journalism, public relations and legal priorities and demonstrate both features in an integrated way. Information Supply and Strategic Avoidance are two new strategies unique to LPR practice, which suggest the integration of journalistic, PR and legal features in LPR practice. While investigating allegations is essential information-providing indicator in litigation situation, being informative and facilitative, as traditional journalistic function of public relations, seem popular strategies to effective LPR practice. LPR practitioners can use Information Supply strategy to present unbiased facts, suggest alternative solutions to problems, as well as make resources available to the publics. Strategic Avoidance reflects the legal priority by holding information, however, in a compassionate and caring manner, which tends to be more acceptable in the eyes of the publics. It might be a good solution toward the sometimes conflicting priorities between communication and legal professionals: on one hand, LPR should avoid giving out too much information that can lead to negative publicity or stir public suspicion; on the other hand, LPR can take an ambiguous yet humane face in communicating feelings and concerns to the publics involved, and try to help the publics understand the position of the organization in its own shoes. The mapping of the seven types of LPR strategies along Defense–Accommodation and Ambiguity–Specification continuums provides future research directions for understanding crisis communication strategy dimensionality and how to integrate different message attributes effectively. For example, though litigation tends to restrain the use of accommodative strategies (Reber, Cropp, & Cameron, 2003), this study suggests the possibilities of effective use of accommodative LPR strategies such as Concession and Information Supply. Given the impact of Emotion–Cognition message attributes, LPR practitioners should consider addressing the emotional needs of the publics with compassion in the court of the public opinion. In order to reduce the perceived organizational responsibility, LPR professionals might consider using more Justification and even Denial to balance the perception of the media and the publics. One counterintuitive caution is: Concession should be used with reservation in LPR, if an organization wants to lower the perceived responsibility
Y. Jin, C.J. Kelsay / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 66–69
69
of the crisis. Sometimes over-explanation, repeated admission or even mortification can lead to public suspicion and higher perceived organizational responsibility. References Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimation endeavors; Impress management strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communication Monographs, 61, 44–62. Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Brinson, S. L., & Benoit, W. L. (1999). The tarnished star: Restoring Texaco’s damaged public image. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 483–510. Cameron, G. T., Wilcox, D. L., Reber, H. R., & Shin, J. (2006). Public relations: Managing competition and conflict (1st ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(3), 179–193. Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 125–142. Coombs, W. T. (2006). Crisis management: A communicative approach. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazlenton (Eds.), Public relations theory 2 (pp. 171–197). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fitzpatrick, L. R., & Rubin, M. S. (1995). Public relations vs. legal strategies in organizational crisis decisions. Public Relations Review, 21, 21–33. Gibson, D. C., & Padilla, M. E. (1999). Litigation public relations problems and limits. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 215–233. Guth, D. W. (1996). The acceptance and use of public relations practices among Kansas Litigators. Public Relations Review, 22(4), 341–354. Haggerty, J. F. (2003). In the court of public opinion: Winning your case with public relations. Wiley. Hazleton, V. (1993). Symbolic resources: Processes in the development and use of symbolic resources. In W. Armbrecht, H. Avenarius, & U. Zabel (Eds.), Image and PR: Kann image Gegenstand einer Public Relations-Wissenschaft sein? [Image and PR: Can image be a subject of public relations science] Wiesbaden (pp. 87–100). Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hazlenton, V., Jr., & Long, L. W. (1988). Concepts for public relations education, research, and practice: A communication point of view. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 77–87. Hearit, K. M. (1994). Apologies and public relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Public Relations Review, 20(2), 113–125. Hearit, K. M. (1995). “Mistakes were made”: Organizations, apologia, and crises of social legitimacy. Communication Studies, 46, 1–17. Huang, Y., Lin, Y., & Su, S. (2005). Crisis communicative strategies in Taiwan: Category, continuum, and cultural implication. Public Relations Review, 31, 229–238. Jin, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). The effects of threat type and duration on public relations professional’s cognitive, affective and conative responses in crisis situations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(3), 255–281. Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). Integrated crisis mapping: Toward a publics-based, emotion-driven conceptualization in crisis communication. Sphera Publica, 7, 81–95. Reber, B., Cropp, F., & Cameron, G. T. (2003). Impossible odds: Contributions of legal counsel and public relations practitioners in a hostile takeover of Conrail Inc. by Norfolk Southern Railroad. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(1), 1–25. Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(September), 127–146. Warrington, W. (1997). Intimate journalism. California: Sage. Werder, K. P. (2006). Responding to activism: An experimental analysis of public relations strategy influence on attributes of publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 335–356.