Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 40–46

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions

affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
Sonja Utz ∗ , Friederike Schultz, Sandra Glocka
VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Social media play in today’s societies a fundamental role for the negotiation and dynamics
Received 23 January 2012 of crises. However, classical crisis communication theories neglect the role of the medium
Received in revised form 10 August 2012
and focus mainly on the interplay between crisis type and crisis communication strategy.
Accepted 26 September 2012
Building on the recently developed “networked crisis communication model” we contrast
effects of medium (Facebook vs. Twitter vs. online newspaper) and crisis type (intentional
Keywords:
vs. victim) in an online experiment. Using the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as crisis
Social media
Facebook scenario, we show that medium effects are stronger than the effects of crisis type. Crisis
Twitter communication via social media resulted in a higher reputation and less secondary crisis
Crisis communication reactions such as boycotting the company than crisis communication in the newspaper.
Secondary crisis reactions However, secondary crisis communication, e.g. talking about the crisis communication,
Reputation was higher in the newspaper condition than in the social media conditions because people
Emotions consider traditional media as more credible. We also found higher levels of anger in the
Credibility intentional crisis condition than in the victim crisis condition. Anger in turn was related
to reputation, secondary crisis communication and secondary crisis reaction. The results
stress the need for more complex models of crisis communication.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Social media have become part of everyday life for many people (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007); more than 900
million people use Facebook, and there are more than 100 million tweets daily. Also organizations have embraced social
media as an important communication channel for marketing and PR, but also for crisis communication. Social media might
be especially useful during organizational crises, because concerned publics can be informed quickly and directly, and
because organizations can engage in a dialog with them.
Social media use and its effects have been widely studied for the domain of interpersonal communication, examining
for example people’s self-presentation on social networks, or effects of social media use on relationships (see for example
Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn, & Hughes, 2009; Utz, 2010; Utz & Beukeboom, 2011; Utz & Krämer,
2009). However, studies on the corporate use of social media remain largely descriptive (e.g. Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton,
2012; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009). In the field of crisis communication, classical theories (e.g., Situational Crisis
Communication Theory by Coombs, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002); however, focused on the effects of different response
strategies in specific crisis situations on reputation or secondary crisis reactions such as buying intention or negative

∗ Corresponding author at: VU University Amsterdam, Department of Communication Science, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tel.: +31 20 5989184; fax: +31 205983733.
E-mail address: s.utz@vu.nl (S. Utz).

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.010
 S. Utz et al. / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 40–46 41

word-of-mouth. But they have not paid attention to the medium or the public’s secondary crisis communication, that is,
sharing or forwarding the organization’s crisis communication.
Research has only very recently started to analyzes the role of social media in crises (Schultz, Utz, & Göritz, 2011) and
theorized on it in models, such as the social mediated crisis communication model (SCCM; Liu, Austin, & Jin, 2011) or
the more comprehensive networked crisis communication model (Schultz, Utz, & Glocka, 2012). They challenge classical
crisis communication theories by showing that the medium used affects the impact of crisis communication. Especially
communication via Twitter leads to more positive outcomes for the organization (Schultz et al., 2011).
In the present paper, we use the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as crisis scenario to shed more light on the cognitive,
affective and behavioral effects of social media use in crisis communication, based on an experimental approach. Our research
contributes to more comprehensive crisis communication models by examining the effects of medium and crisis type on
secondary crisis communication, secondary crisis reaction, and reputation. We extend prior research in several ways. First,
we aim to replicate the strong effect of medium reported by Schultz et al. (2011), thereby demonstrating the generalizability
of these results. Second, we extend the work by Schultz et al. (2011) that focused on Twitter and blogs as social media
by examining the effects of crisis communication via Facebook. Third, we also analyze the underlying processes. More
specifically, we test whether perceived credibility of the medium influences secondary crisis communication and whether
effects of crisis type are driven by anger.

2. Literature review

Crises, especially avoidable ones, are always a threat to the reputation of an organization. The foremost goal of crisis
communication is therefore to restore the reputation of the organization and the trust of customers or other stakeholders.
Classical crisis communication theories such as the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT; Coombs, 2007; Coombs
& Holladay, 2002) have focused on the question of which strategy an organization should choose depending on the crisis type.
SCCT distinguishes among three clusters of crises, defined by the attribution of responsibility and ability to control the crisis:
preventable/intentional, accidental, and victim (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). The attribution of responsibility determines
the level of guilt of the organization; consequently, intentional crises result in the highest reputation damage and the
highest level of secondary crisis reactions such as boycotting the organization or negative word-of-mouth communication.
SCCT argues that corporations should use different strategies (deny, diminish, rebuild, reinforce) to prevent negative crisis
effects, depending on the attributed level of crisis responsibility. Whereas in case of high crisis responsibility, for example,
more accommodative strategies such as apology or compensation should be chosen, in case of lower crisis responsibility, a
diminishing strategy might be sufficient to avoid reputation damage.
These theories implicitly build on the classical asymmetric one-to-many model of communication, although the advent of
social media has accelerated the adoption of the corresponding many-to-many model (González-Herrero & Smith, 2008): no
longer journalistic gatekeepers solely decide whether the information they received is relevant, newsworthy and credible.
The organization now talks directly to its stakeholders, but the stakeholders can also respond, forward and discuss the
messages with each other. Moreover, social media creators might even create and spread their own versions of the crisis
rather than simply forwarding messages from traditional media (see the SCCM by Liu et al., 2011, or the networked crisis
communication model, Schultz, Utz, & Glocka, 2012). By quickly and directly informing stakeholders, organizations signal
concern with their stakeholders. On the other hand, they might lose control over the communication process. Accordingly, it
is important to study also the willingness of publics to share or forward messages, so-called secondary crisis communication
(Schultz et al., 2011). Interestingly, Schultz et al. (2011) found that people were more likely to share news from an online
newspaper than news from social media such as blogs or Twitter. This pattern held even for active Twitter users, although
they were more likely to share information in general. A post hoc explanation for this unexpected finding was that news
from traditional sources such as newspapers is perceived as more credible. In the present paper, we aim to replicate the
effects of medium and test the post hoc explanation. We first discuss the direct effects of medium and crisis type, before we
turn to mediating effects and possible interaction effects between medium and crisis type.

2.1. Effects of medium

Crises are social constructions and as such not only influenced by organization-driven sense-giving processes, but also by
individuals’ sense-making processes (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). We argue that the choice of a medium influences
these sense-making processes. An organization that uses social media to inform its stakeholders about an organizational
crisis signals that it is eager to inform its stakeholders quickly and directly and that it is willing to engage in a dialog with
them. Reputation, which is the interactively and communicatively negotiated evaluation and perception of an organization
by its different stakeholders (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001), is recognized as one of the most important assets of an organization
and often analyzed in crisis communication research (Coombs, 2007; Schultz et al., 2011). Consequently, and in line with
findings by Schultz et al. (2011), we expect that crisis communication via social media (in this study Facebook and Twitter)
has a more positive effect on the reputation than crisis communication via traditional media.

H1a. Crisis communication via Twitter and Facebook leads to a higher reputation than crisis communication via
newspaper.
42 S. Utz et al. / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 40–46

Using a similar line of argument and based on the findings by Schultz et al. (2011) we expect that the communication
through media such as Twitter and Facebook will also lead to fewer secondary crisis reactions such as boycotting the
organization or talking negatively about the organization. Due to the inherent conversational and transparent character of
the social media tools, organizations using social media can deliver real time information to concerned stakeholders and
can thereby alleviate the stress of the unknown. In this way, organizations are meeting stakeholders’ demands for timely
and accurate information. Considering that stakeholders’ demands are met, it is less likely that stakeholders will engage in
negative word-of-mouth or in behaviors that would harm the organization. Accordingly, it is expected that:
H1b. Crisis communication via Twitter and Facebook leads to fewer secondary crisis reactions than crisis communication
via newspaper.
Sharing information, that is, secondary crisis communication, is an important dependent variable when studying crisis
communication on the internet and especially on social media because messages can be shared with one mouse-click and
reach large audiences. As reported above, Schultz et al. (2011) found that people talked mainly about the information they
received via traditional media. Subašić and Berendt (2011) report that Twitter users do not create news, but mainly comment
on news. Thus, even online communication on social media relies heavily on news from traditional sources. Based on these
findings, we hypothesize that:
H1c. Crisis communication via newspaper leads to more secondary crisis communication than crisis communication via
Twitter and Facebook.
A post hoc explanation for the finding that people still talk mostly about news from traditional sources (Schultz et al.,
2011) was that traditional media might still be perceived as more trustworthy and credible, because journalists fulfill an
important gatekeeping function. Although various studies examined blog credibility (Johnson & Kaye, 2009; Yang & Lim,
2009), none measured and compared particular social media tools such as Twitter or Facebook with traditional media such
as the newspaper. We therefore still expect that (online) newspapers are considered more credible than social media and
propose that people are more likely to share messages that they regard as credible.
H2. Online newspapers are regarded as more credible than Facebook and Twitter.
H3. The higher the perceived media credibility, the higher the amount of secondary crisis communication.

2.2. Effects of crisis type

SCCT specifies ten crisis types or frames and groups them based on the involved level of crisis responsibility into three
clusters: intentional crises, accidental crises, or victim crises (Coombs, 2004, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002). The attribu-
tions of organizational crisis responsibility are strongest in case of intentional crises and weakest in case of victim crises.
The present paper compares therefore the effects of the two extremes, intentional and victim crises.
Coombs (1995) and Coombs and Holladay (2008) argues that the stronger the perceived responsibility, the more likely it
becomes that the crisis will have a negative impact on the organization, in particular on its reputation, but also on secondary
crisis reactions. With intentional crises evoking more crisis responsibility than victim crises, it is therefore expected that:
H4a. Intentional crises lead to lower reputation than victim crises.
H4b. Intentional crises lead to more secondary crisis reactions than victim crises.
Intentional crises also generate stronger feelings of anger (Coombs, 2004), which is also associated with the belief that
the individual can still do something about the situation and with the willingness to engage in action (Lerner & Tiedens,
2006). We therefore expect that people are more likely to take action by forwarding or reacting on a message in intentional
crises. Moreover, we expect that reactions are more negative in intentional crises compared to victim crises.
H4c. Intentional crises lead to more secondary crisis communication than victim crises.
H4d. Intentional crises lead to more negative secondary crisis communication than victim crises.

2.3. The mediating role of emotions

Research has shown that the attributions stakeholders make about a crisis not only influence an organization’s reputation,
but also generate certain emotions about an organization. SCCT (e.g., Coombs, 2007) implies that individuals that attribute
responsibility to an event will experience an emotional reaction that will influence behavior. Increased attributions of crisis
responsibility cause negative feelings such as anger towards the organization (Coombs, 2004). As stated above, angry people
are motivated to do something about the incident because they believe that they can influence the situation (Lerner &
Tiedens, 2006). In the context of purchasing behavior, anger has been found to predict negative purchase intentions and
negative word-of-mouth (Wetzer, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2007). We therefore expect that:
H5a–c. The effect of crisis type on (a) reputation, (b) secondary crisis reaction and (c) secondary crisis communication is
mediated by anger.
 S. Utz et al. / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 40–46 43

2.4. Interactions between medium and crisis type

Past research found that the medium has a larger influence on stakeholders than the content of the message (Schultz
et al., 2011) and that the crisis information channel chosen influences the audiences’ acceptance of the crisis message (Liu
et al., 2011). Because social media usage by companies is still a relatively new phenomenon, persuasion knowledge of
stakeholders is probably relatively low. The concept persuasion knowledge stems from advertisement research (Campbell
& Kirmani, 2000) and describes the knowledge that people have about certain marketing techniques (e.g., recognizing more
subtle forms such as product placement as advertisement). The effects of (new) advertisement techniques are stronger
for people with little persuasion knowledge. Organizations started only in the last years to use social media for strategic
communication; stakeholders should therefore perceive the use of social media as genuine concern with the stakeholders
rather than as slick strategic communication. Therefore, we expect that the effects of the medium are stronger than the
effects of crisis type.

H6a–c. The effects of medium on (a) reputation, (b) secondary crisis reactions and (c) secondary crisis communication are
stronger than the effects of crisis type.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and design

The experiment had a 2 (crisis type: intentional vs. victim crises) × 3 (media type: Twitter vs. Facebook vs. newspaper)
between-participants design. A hundred eighty-two people (50% males, 50% females) participated. Their mean age was
29 years (SD = 8.38).

3.2. Procedure

The crisis scenario chosen for this research was the recent nuclear incident in Japan. On March 11, 2011, an earthquake
hit the east coast of Japan, killed hundreds of people, and damaged also the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants causing
core meltdowns in several reactors. Since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants are maintained by the Tokyo Electric
Power Company (TEPCO), TEPCO was used as target company in this research. After the welcome screen and an introduction
text, respondents saw the screenshot of the crisis communication. After assessing anger as crisis emotion, the dependent
variables secondary crisis communication, secondary crisis reaction and reputation were measured. The questionnaire ended
with manipulation checks and the participants’ demographic information.

3.3. Measures

3.3.1. Independent variables

In order to manipulate the medium, participants were exposed either to the screenshot of a tweet (Twitter message), a
Facebook message or to a screenshot of the English newspaper “The Times.” In the intentional crisis condition, TEPCO was
framed to be responsible for the crisis, whereas in the victim crisis condition, TEPCO was framed as being the victim and thus
not carrying any responsibility for the incident. Since Twitter is restricted to 140 characters, the tweet only contained the
basic message. For the intentional condition the tweet therefore displayed the following: “Nuclear plant damaged through
inadequate maintenance management. 50 TEPCO employees sent to prevent more damage.” The tweet for the victim crisis
condition on the other hand said: “Nuclear plant damaged by earthquake. 50 TEPCO employees sent to prevent more damage.”
In both conditions, information was chosen as communication strategy. The Facebook condition contained the same basic
message as the Twitter condition, however since Facebook does not have any character restrictions, more information about
the crisis was provided. In the newspaper conditions, a longer text was displayed. These texts contained only background
information, but no additional crisis communication strategies.

3.3.2. Dependent variables

Organizational reputation was measured with ten items such as “TEPCO delivers high quality products and services.”
Answers were given on seven-point Likert scales ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (˛ = 0.94). Secondary
crisis communication was measured by asking respondents how likely they were to share the message with other people
(Schultz et al., 2011). Answers were given on a seven-point scale ranging from (1) very unlikely to (7) very likely. Participants
also indicated on a scale from (1) very negative to (7) very positive what the tone of their reaction would be. The scale
secondary crisis reaction was based on Schultz et al. (2011) and adapted to the context of energy. An example item is “I
would tell negative things about TEPCO and the services they deliver.” Items were coded such that a higher score represented
more engagement in secondary crisis reactions. At first, Cronbach’s alpha counted a reliability of ˛ = 0.67. By dropping the
(recoded) item “I would recommend TEPCO services to some who asked my advice.”, the reliability was increased to ˛ = 0.74.
44 S. Utz et al. / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 40–46

3.3.3. Additional variables

Credibility of the medium was measured by one item per medium. Participants indicated how credible they regarded
Twitter, Facebook and newspapers on seven-point scales from (1) not credible at all to (7) very credible. Anger was measured
with a seven-point scale ranging from (1) not angry at all to (7) very angry.
For the manipulation check of the crisis condition, respondents could indicate their agreement with the statements:
“Circumstances, not the organization, is responsible for the crisis.” and “The organization, not the circumstances is responsible
for the crisis.” The manipulation check for the medium was assessed by letting participants answer one question on what
they have read. The answer options were: “a tweet”, “a Facebook message”, “a newspaper article” or “I do not know”.
Because we used a real crisis as stimulus material, we also assessed as a control variable how much attention participants
have paid to the news about the incident in Japan.

4. Results

4.1. Manipulation checks and preliminary analyzes

In the victim crisis condition, 72% (N = 54) of the participants considered circumstances to be responsible for the crisis,
whereas 66.4% (N = 71) of the participants in the intentional crisis condition held the organization responsible for the crisis.
The Chi-square test (2 = 25.95; p < .05) confirmed the success of the manipulation of the two crisis conditions. The majority
of respondents also correctly identified the medium they saw, 2 = 121.17; p < .001.
We also examined whether attention to the news about the incident in Japan differed between conditions. This was
not the case, all F’s < 2.11, ns. Moreover, an exploratory analysis of variance showed that including attention to the news as
covariate did not change any of the findings. Therefore, this variable was dropped from the analysis.

4.2. Hypothesis testing

Results of the a 2 (crisis type) × 3 (medium type) ANOVA with reputation as dependent variable identified a significant
effect of medium, F(2176) = 4.59, p < 0.05. Respondents in the Facebook condition (M = 3.19, SD = 1.06) and in the Twitter
condition (M = 3.07, SD = 1.04) evaluated organizational reputation as more positive than respondents in the newspaper
condition (M = 2.55, SD = 1.01). Therefore, H1a was supported. The effect of crisis type was not significant, F (1176) = 1.02,
p > 0.05, H4a was rejected. However, this pattern confirms H6a that stated that the effects of medium would be stronger
than the effects of crisis type.
A 2 (crisis type) × 3 (medium type) ANOVA with secondary crisis reactions as a dependent variable showed a marginally
significant effect of medium, F (2176) = 2.51, p < 0.10. Participants in the newspaper condition engaged more in secondary
crisis reaction (M = 4.20, SD = 1.48) than participants in the Twitter condition (M = 4.07, SD = 1.41) and the Facebook condition
(M = 3.79, SD = 1.46). Pairwise comparisons found significant differences between the newspaper condition and the Facebook
condition (p < 0.05). Therefore H1b is partly supported. Crisis type did not influence secondary crisis reaction F(1176) = 0.32,
p > 0.05. H4b was rejected, but H6b again supported.
The results of a 2 (crisis type) × 3 (medium type) ANOVA with the willingness to share the message (e.g.,
show/forward/retweet) as a dependent variable revealed a marginally significant effect of medium, F(2176) = 2.84, p < 0.10.
Participants in the newspaper condition were more willing to share the message (M = 2.88, SD = 1.70) than participants in
the Facebook condition (M = 2.68, SD = 1.70) and in the Twitter condition (M = 2.17, SD = 1.61). In line with H1c, pairwise
comparison detected significant effects between the Twitter and newspaper condition (p < 0. 50). No significant effects were
detected for crisis type F(1176) = 1.64, p > 0.05, therefore rejecting H4c, but supporting H6c.
A repeated analysis of variance showed that the online newspaper was also rated as a more credible news source (M = 5.43,
SD = 1.33) than the social media Facebook (M = 3.46, SD = 1.57) and Twitter (M = 3.37, SD = 1.64), F (2362) = 173.73, p < 0.05.
These results confirm H2. In line with H3, medium credibility was related to secondary crisis communication, r(182) = 0.27,
p < 0.05.
We were also looking at the content of reactions to the crisis communication. A 2 (crisis type) × 3 (medium type) ANOVA
with valence of the reaction revealed only a significant effect of crisis type, F (1176) = 3.91, p < 0.05. In line with H4d, People
talked less positively about the intentional crisis (M = 2.91) than the victim crisis (M = 3.25).

4.3. Role of anger

No direct effects of crisis type have been found, so the possibility that anger mediates the effects is ruled out; H5a–c
have to be rejected. Exploratory analyzes examined whether there were indirect effects of anger. When anger was chosen
as a dependent variable, results demonstrated a significant effect of crisis type F (1180) = 6.08, p < 0.05. The intentional crisis
condition evoked more anger in participants (M = 4.28, SD = 1.45) than the victim crisis condition (M = 3.75, SD = 1.42).
To test whether anger affects also the dependent variables, we included anger as covariate in a series of 2 (crisis type) × 3
(medium) ANCOVAs. These analyzes showed significant effects of anger on secondary crisis communication, F (6175) = 2.73,
p < 0.05, secondary crisis reaction F (18,163) = 3.93, p < 0.001, and on reputation F (6175) = 5.91, p < 0.001. Anger was positively
related to secondary crisis communication, r(182) = 0.32, p < 0.001, and secondary crisis reactions, r(182) = 0.47, p < 0.001, but
 S. Utz et al. / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 40–46 45

negatively to reputation, r(182) = −0.37, p < 0.001. Taken together, these results indicate indirect effects of crisis type on all
dependent variables via anger.

5. Discussion

In this online experiment, we contributed to the field of crisis communication by examining experimentally the effects
of medium and crisis type on reputation, secondary crisis reactions and secondary crisis communication. By analyzing
also the effects on likelihood and valence of secondary crisis communication, we explored also the dynamics around crisis
communication and contribute to the emerging field of more comprehensive crisis communication theories (Jin et al., in
press; Schultz et al., 2011; Schultz, Utz, & Glocka, 2012). We only found main effects of medium, but none of crisis type on the
main dependent measures, indicating that the medium matters more than the crisis type. By using the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear disaster as crisis scenario, we show the generalizability of the finding by Schultz et al. (2011) to a different type of
crisis. In this nuclear crisis, crisis communication via social media, especially via Facebook, resulted in a higher reputation
and less secondary crisis reactions than crisis communication via an online newspaper. We also replicated the finding that
people are more willing to share messages from traditional media than from social media (Schultz et al., 2011), and showed
that this effect is based on the higher credibility of newspapers. Crisis type affected only the valence of secondary crisis
communication: Respondents talked more negatively about the company in case of an intentional crisis. Moreover, crisis
type affected anger, and anger was related to all dependent variables, indicating that there are indirect effects of crisis type
via anger.
These results have several theoretical implications. First, they show the need to extend classical crisis communication
theories like SCCT by paying more attention to the medium used for crisis communication. The rapid rise of social media
facilitated a shift to the many-to-many communication mode. The use of specific media technologies influences the effects
of crisis communication, not because of the technology itself, but due to many other factors, such as interpretations and
use experiences (Schultz et al., 2011). For example, the choice of a social medium influences the effectiveness of the crisis
communication, as it is now seen as a cue for the willingness of an organization to quickly inform its stakeholders and to
engage in dialog with them. Moreover, new dependent variables such as secondary crisis communication have to be taken
into account and analyzed critically. Our research shows that people mainly talk about news from traditional media because
they interpret traditional media as more credible. Accordingly, traditional media still play an important role and should be
considered in the corporate crisis communication strategy.
We extended prior work on secondary crisis communication by looking not only at the likelihood, but also at the valence
of secondary communication. Whereas the likelihood of secondary crisis communication was only affected by the medium
(people talking more about newspapers); the valence of secondary crisis communication was only affected by crisis type;
reactions were more negative in case of an intentional crisis than in case of a victim crisis. Although we did not find direct
effects of crisis type on the other dependent variables, there were indirect effects via anger. This pattern confirms earlier
findings on the important role of emotions (Coombs & Holladay, 2005). The emotional effects in the current study were only
indirect, suggesting that there are additional – probably more rational – processes at work that counteract the effects of
anger. Future research is needed to explore these processes in more detail.
Our findings have also practical implications. Although crisis communication via Facebook resulted in a more positive
reputation and less secondary crisis reactions, organizations should not neglect traditional ways of crisis communication.
Journalists still fulfill an important gatekeeping function; news from (online) newspapers is perceived as more credible and
consequently shared more often on social media. Organizations need an integrated communication strategy that spreads
a consistent message across different channels. Another important implication is that organizations and PR departments
should not only focus on rationalizations, but also address emotions. Our experiment shows that it is important to reduce
anger because anger drives (negative) secondary crisis communication and secondary crisis reactions. Framing a crisis as
victim crisis reduced the perceived responsibility and in turn anger. Future research should address the role of different
emotions such as for example empathy for the victims.
Before closing, we would like to note some strengths and limitations of our research. A strength of the paper lays in
the use of the same crisis for both crisis type framings; crisis type is thereby not confounded with crisis severity or other
crisis characteristics. That we used a real crisis might also be seen as a limitation. Respondents just saw a single crisis
communication message although they have probably been exposed to more crisis communication via diverse media before.
The effects of crisis type might have been stronger if we would have worked with hypothetical crises. However, controlling
for prior exposure to news on the crisis did not alter the main findings. That we could find effects of medium even when
exposing respondents just to a single message therefore even strengthens our results.
In order to be able to compare effects, experiments in general have to focus and keep the analyzed conditions similar in
an artificial and specific situation. Although we can therefore draw causal inferences about the effects of the medium and
crisis type, the interpretations in other crises such as political crises might be very different and accordingly not comparable
to corporate crises. Additional macro-level analyzes of real crisis situations in the corporate or political field are therefore
necessary to better understand the use and effects of social media in crises. Research furthermore needs to analyze the
interplay between actors (see Schultz & Raupp, 2010; Schultz, Kleinnijenhuis, Oegema, Utz, & van Atteveldt, 2012) by building
on and combining new methods, such as social and semantic network with time-series analyzes.
46 S. Utz et al. / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 40–46

To sum up, our results contribute to the emerging field of research on the role of (social) media in crisis communication
(Jin et al., in press; Liu et al., 2011) and more comprehensive crisis communication models (Schultz, Utz, & Glocka, 2012).
Although crisis communication via social media is better for an organization’s reputation and reduces unfavorable secondary
crisis reactions, crisis communication via traditional media still plays an important role because journalists are credible
gatekeepers. We also show that it is important to look at underlying processes. Crisis type had almost no direct effects, but
influenced amount and content of secondary crisis communication as well as reputation and secondary crisis communication
via anger.

References

Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1303–1314.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an
influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83.
Coombs, W. (1995). Choosing the right word. The development of guidelines for the selection of the ‘appropiate’ crisis response strategies. Management
Communication Quaterly, 8, 447–476.
Coombs, W. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communication. Insights from Situational Communication Crisis Theory. Journal of Business
Communication, 41(3), 265–289.
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., & 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. (2005). An exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect and crises. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel
(Eds.), The effect of affect in organizational settings (Research on Emotion in Organizations) Vol. 1, (pp. 263–280). New York: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: Clarifying apology’s role and value in crisis communi-
cation. Public Relations Review, 34, 252–257.
Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J., Horn, A., & Hughes, B. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83–108.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.
González-Herrero, A., & Smith, S. (2008). Crisis communications management on the web: How Internet-based technologies are changing the way public
relations professionals handle business crises. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16, 143–153.
Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6, 24–30.
Jin, Y., Liu, B. F., & Austin, L. Examining the role of social media in effective crisis management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, and source on
public’s crisis responses. Communication Research, in press.
Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2009). In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of components of the internet among politically interested internet users.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 175–182.
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.
Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: The interplay of information form and source. Public Relations
Review, 37(4), 345–353.
Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters
or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.
Schultz, F., Kleinnijenhuis, J., Oegema, D., Utz, S., & van Atteveldt, W. (2012). Strategic framing in the BP crisis: A semantic network analysis of associative
frames. Public Relations Review, 38, 97–107.
Schultz, F., & Raupp, J. (2010). On the social construction of crises between governmental and corporate organizations. An inter-organizational and inter-
systemic perspective. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 112–119.
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Glocka, S. (2012). Crisis communication and social media. On the effects of medium, media credibility, crisis type and emotions. In
Paper presented at the Etmaal conference Leuven, Belgium.
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional
media. Public Relations Review, 37, 20–27.
Subašić, I., & Berendt, B. (2011). Peddling or creating? Investigating the role of twitter in news reporting. Advances in Information Retrieval, 661, 207–213.
Utz, S. (2010). Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one’s profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence
impression formation on social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 15(2), 314–335.
Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic relationships: Effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 511–527.
Utz, S., & Krämer, N. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology:
Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(2.). Retrieved from cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009111001&article=2
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook.
Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
Wetzer, I. M., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). Never eat in that restaurant, I did!”: Exploring why people engage in negative word-of-mouth commu-
nication. Psychology and Marketing, 24(8), 661–680.
Yang, S.-U., & Lim, J. S. (2009). The effects of blog-mediated public relations (BMPR) on relational trust. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 341–359.