2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Methodological Considerations in Crisis Management Research: Fictitious Scenarios vs.
Real Crises
Anastasios E. Theofilou, PhD
Lecturer in Public Relations
Bournemouth University
Media School
Corporate & Marketing Communications Academic Group
atheofilou@bournemouth.ac.uk
Tel. +44 (0)1202961392
Aikaterini Vassilikopoulou, PhD
Research Associate
Technological Educational Institute of Athens
Department of Marketing
Apostolos Lepetsos
PhD Candidate
Athens University of Economics and Business
Department of Business Administration
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
1
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Methodological Considerations in Crisis Management Research: Fictitious Scenarios vs.
Real Crises
ABSTRACT
The current paper aims to investigate consumer reactions under two different methodological
conditions: a) imaginary scenarios and b) real crisis situations. For the purpose of this
research two sets of questionnaires were developed and distributed. In the first set, a
hypothetical toy crisis was described. The second set presented a real crisis concerning a
baby soother, which was recently recalled. Analysis of the results revealed no significant
differences between purchase intention, attribution of blame, trust and perceived risk, when
measured under the real and the imaginary scenario and only the emotion of anger indicated
statistically significant higher levels under a real crisis situation. In the light of these
empirical findings, the use of imaginary scenarios as a valid method in crisis management
research is discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Crises are unexpected events, which generate high levels of uncertainty and may
threaten the entire company (Seeger et al., 1998). Product-harm crises are events or situations
where a product is faulty or dangerous (Dawar and Pilluta, 2000) and can destroy the
company’s image and reputation (Siomkos, 1999; Davies et al., 2003). Crises have negative
consequences for the company in general (Ruff and Aziz, 2003) and mainly for the
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
2
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
company’s publicity, products, services and/or reputation (Fearn-Banks, 1996). According to
Lerbinger (1997), crises usually have an impact on long-term goals of profitability, growth
and survival. If the company does not give proper attention in a crisis, then this can be turned
into a disaster (Davies and Walters, 1998). Although a crisis may be considered a rare
incident with unknown causes and effects (Dutton, 1986), it occurs that the element of
surprise (Hermann, 1963) and the time pressure for a quick response (Quarantelli, 1988) have
major implications on stakeholders (Roux-Dufort and Metais, 1999; Pauchant, and Mitroff,
1992) and the company’s solvency (Weick, 1988).
The aforementioned explain to a certain extent the continuous development of the
field of Crisis Management over the past 25 years. Crisis management involves the use of
public relation strategies for the reduction of harmful effects on business in emergency
situations, which could cause the company irreparable harm (Kreps, 1986). According to
Ashcroft (1997) efficient Crisis Management depends on the effectiveness of information
management. Kash and Darling (1998) agree that effective communication with the media
should be reinforced whether the company wants to survive after a crisis. Immediate reaction
is therefore invaluable.
As Varcoe (1998) discusses, valuable time can be won if the company is prepared
before the event. Once the crisis happens, every minute is precious and should not be lost.
Burnett (1998) argues that crises are difficult to be resolved mainly due to the pressure of
time, limited control and high uncertainty. Proactive crisis management is crucial as it
contributes to the monitoring, efficient allocation of resources and the better responding to
the crisis (Heath, 1998). As some crises do not occur suddenly, there are usually warnings
and signs that a company could recognize (Darling et al., 1996). If the company becomes
aware of these signals, then many crises can be prevented (Mitroff, 2002). During the
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
3
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
detection of signals, firms should invest resources to provide, understand and listen to these
warning signals of potential or emerging crisis (Pearson and Rondinelli, 1998).
Regardless the severe consequences a crisis may have it seems that a number of
companies decide not to tie resources by taking precautions. As Augustine’s (1995) survey
reveals only half of the companies are prepared to deal with a crisis. Weiner (2006) agrees
that a considerable number of companies fail to recognize crises at an early stage in order to
incorporate the counterstrike strategy in the development of the crisis management plan. As
reported by Brown (1993), 80% of businesses that do not have a well-designed and tested
crisis management plan do not survive more than 2 years after a major crisis.
Researchers such as Pauchant et al. (1991), Pauchant and Mitroff (1992), Pearson and
Clair (1998) and Mitroff and Pearson (1992), stress that effective proactive crisis
management should include actions such as (among others) risk analysis, enforcement
procedures for emergencies, education crisis units and crisis simulation exercises.
Aiming to offer a valuable asset for a crisis management plan and to evaluate the
effects a crisis may have for a company, many research studies use hypothetical scenarios in
order to test empirically their conceptual frameworks (e.g. Smith et al., 1998; Ahluwalia et al.
2000; Dawar and Pillutla 2000). Laufer and Gillespie (2005) focused on the influence of
gender on consumer reaction after a crisis. For the purpose of their study, the authors
conducted two experiments with different scenarios. In the first experiment, the respondents
were informed that some people became ill because they drank a certain brand of orange
juice. The second experiment described a couple of motor vehicle accidents, which involved
a certain brand of tires. In both experiments scenarios were given to respondents in the form
of lifelike articles. Smith and Bolton (1998) investigated the impact of services crisis on
customer satisfaction and assessment of the company. Two experiments with hypothetical
scenarios were conducted in two different industries (restaurant and hotel industry
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
4
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
respectively). Lee (2004) used twenty four different scenarios about a hypothetical plane
crash in Hong Kong, which intersect the following variables: performance categories,
response operation and severity of the crisis. McDonald et al. (2010) also used fictitious
scenarios of a plane accident so as to explore the impact of numerous variables on purchase
intentions, consumers' emotions and involvement. Siomkos and Kurzbard (1994) studied the
likelihood to purchase the product after a product harm crisis. The authors applied two
fictitious scenarios, one concerning a hair dryer and one concerning an apple juice. Hwang
and Cameron (2009) distributed a total of six scenarios to study consumer responses to crises
in a restaurant. Dardis and Haigh (2009) also preferred the method of experimental scenarios
for their research. A total of 189 undergraduate students answered a questionnaire based on
one of the five scenarios associated with the recovery of a product's image after a crisis. Each
scenario was given in the form of a newspaper article.
The use of imaginary scenarios has been widely criticized. Cleeren et al. (2008) argue
that such a method reduces the validity of findings as the imaginary environment of the
experiment may lead respondents in trying to guess the purpose of the experiment (Shimp et
al., 1991). In addition, according to Dawar and Pillutla (2000) this method ignores the
intermediary role of various marketing variables (e.g. the Media) as well as the information
distributed among consumers and competition among businesses in the industry. Wirtz and
Mattila (2004) add that the main drawback of the method of hypothetical scenarios is the
potential inability of the respondent to see himself in fantastic situations and react
accordingly as likely to react to real crises. Yen et al. (2004) believe that the scenarios do not
include all aspects of an actual experience that the consumer had with the defective product
or service. The scenarios do not raise the same level of emotion that can result from a real
experience (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003). Dardis and Haigh (2009) agree that the
scenarios can be a constraint on research because scenarios may reduce the external validity
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
5
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
of research carried out in a perfectly controlled environment. During a real crisis, consumers
receive information from various sources, and sometimes the information received is
contradictory.
Taking into consideration on one hand the value of using hypothetical scenarios in
crisis management research and on the other hand the points of criticism that many
researchers raise concerning the constraints that the use imaginary scenarios may pose to the
crisis management research, the specific paper highlights the lack of empirical research
focusing on the specific debate: “Would the artificial environment of the experiments provide
different results when compared to a real crisis environment or not?” Therefore, the aim of
the current paper is to examine if there is a difference or not in various variables measuring
consumer reactions between the two methodological settings: that of a real crisis “versus”
that of an imaginary crisis.
METHODOLOGY
Two scenarios (a hypothetical one and a real one) describing two issues were
distributed to the participants. The design of the hypothetical scenario followed the
Schwarz’s (1988) criteria of consistency, reliability, and relevance. For the hypothetical
scenario setting, a fictitious brand name was chosen (i.e. Kidli). The story was presented as
being a newspaper article and respondents were informed that Kidli is a fictitious company
and none of the crisis details is real. The scenario described a crisis of a baby fluffy toy that
was found to be defective due to potential allergies that it may cause and that the product was
recalled. In the real crisis setting respondents were given a newspaper article which narrated
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
6
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
the Chicco baby soother crisis. A crisis caused by the use of wrong chemical proportions
during the production and which eventually resulted to the recall of the specific product.
In both situation participants were called to read carefully the scenarios and answer to
the questions that followed. The participants in the survey, who were all volunteers and
parents of at least one child, were randomly selected to take part in the survey. The survey
was conducted outside two well-known baby stores in Athens. A total of 600 questionnaires
were distributed (half of the questionnaires described the imaginary crisis, while the other
half described the real crisis). From these 600 questionnaires distributed 284 (response rate:
94.7%) from the fictitious scenario and 279 (response rate: 93%) from the real crisis scenario
were appropriately completed and could be used for further analysis. All questions were in
seven Likert-type scale formats. From the final sum of 563 respondents it is observed that
66% were females and 44% males, 53% aged from 26-40 years old, 31% are older than 40
years old, while 16% ranged from 18 to 25 years old.
RESULTS
As shown in Table 1, the difference between the mean scores for several items
between the real and the imaginary scenario is not significant. More specifically: intention of
buying does not differ significantly between the two settings (t=0.61, df=561, p>0.05),
consumers seem to perceive approximately equal levels of risk in the real and the imaginary
scenarios (t=-1.886, df=561, p>0.05), while the differences in the attribution of blame
(t=0.287, df=561, p>0.05) and trust (t=0.314, df=561, p>0.05) between the two samples are
also non-significant. It seems that the only significant (t=-7.633, df=561, p<0.05) difference
in mean scores between the two different methodologies concerns “anger”.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
7
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Table 1: Independent Sample t-test
CONCLUSIONS
Although imaginary scenarios are often used in crisis management research as they
offer the possibility to exclude pre-existing attitudes towards the brand (Dardis and Haigh,
2009), they have been much criticized as being unrealistic and less valid (Cleeren et al.,
2008). As stated by Wirtz & Mattila (2004) some authors believe that the fictitious
environment would produce different consumer responses because respondents may have
difficulties in putting themselves into a real situation.
The findings of this study demonstrated that the vast majority of the consumers’
responses do not differ significantly among hypothetical and real scenarios. Thus, it may be
suggested that imaginary scenarios could not pose a serious problem in crisis management
studies since they may provide similar results to a real crisis situation. Participants’ answers
for purchase intentions, trust, perceived risk and attribution of blame do not change
considerably between the two survey conditions. As argued by Lyon & Cameron (2004) and
Dardis & Haigh (2009), the imaginary scenarios are sometimes similar to the reality,
especially in cases where the consumer reads about a crisis that is unknown to him and has
not received great publicity. In contrast, respondents seem to feel angrier when the crisis
given in the questionnaire is real compared to the imaginary crisis. This finding is consistent
to McColl-Kennedy and Sparks’s (2003), who concluded that the fictitious scenarios do not
raise the same level of emotion that can result from a real experience (McColl-Kennedy and
Sparks, 2003).
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
8
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
As a result, imaginary scenarios could be used in crisis management research since
they will not pose a serious methodological constraint. Imaginary scenarios are easy to be
designed and could save valuable resources for the research.
LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
One of the main limitations of the current study is the potential recall bias that may be
created by the real crisis story (Singh and Wilkes, 1996). Moreover, as stated by Johnston
(1995) in crisis research the time lag between the real incident and the questionnaire
distribution may be a critical limitation of the study. Further research could use more
additional emotions (e.g. fear, sadness, surprise) or other variables (e.g. attitudes towards the
product, buying intentions of other products of the company, perceived severity, etc).
Furthermore, future research could take into consideration the role of various consumer
sociodemographic characteristics.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
9
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
REFERENCES
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R.E. & Unnava, R. (2000). Consumer Response to Negative
Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 203–
214.
Ashcroft, L.S (1997). Crisis Management-Public Relations. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 12(5), 325-332.
Augustine, N.R. (1995). Business Crisis: Guaranteed Preventatives - and what to do after
they Fail. Executive Speeches, 9(6), 28-42.
Brown, M. (1993). The Disaster Business. Management Today, October, 44-49.
Burnett, J.J. (1998). A Strategic Approach to Managing Crises. Public Relations Review,
24(4), 475-488.
Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M.G. & Helsen, K. (2008). Weathering Product-Harm Crises. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 262-270.
Dardis, F. & Haigh, M.M. (2009). Prescribing Versus Describing: Testing Image Restoration
Strategies in a Crisis Situation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(1),
101-118
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
10
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Darling, J., Hannu, O. & Raimo, N. (1996). Crisis Management in International Business: a
Case Situation in Decision Making Concerning Trade with Russia. The Finnish Journal of
Business Economic, 4, 12-25.
Davies, H. & Walters, M. (1998). Do All Crises Have to Become Disasters? Risk and Risk
Mitigation. Disaster Prevention and Management, 17(5), 396-400.
Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R.V. and S. Roper (2003), Corporate Reputation and
Competitiveness, Routledge, New York, NY.
Dawar, N. & Pillutla, M.M. (2000). Impact of Product-Harm Crises on Brand Equity: the
Moderating Role of Consumer Expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 215-226.
Dawar, N., Parker, P.M. & Price, L.J. (1996). A Cross-Cultural Study of Interpersonal
Information Exchange. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, pp. 497-516.
Dutton, J.E. (1986). The Processing of Crisis and Non-Crisis Strategic Issues. Journal of
Management Studies, 23, 501-517.
Fearn-Banks, K. (1996), Crisis: A Casebook Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
11
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Heath, R.L. (1998). Crisis Management for Managers and Executives. London, Financial
Times Management.
Hermann, C.F (1963). Some Consequences of Crisis which Limit the Viability of
Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 61-82.
Hwang, S.S. & Cameron, G.T (2009). The Estimation of a Corporate Crisis Communication.
Public Relations Review, 35, 136–138.
Johnston, R. (1995). Service Failure and Recovery: Impact, Attributes and Process.
Advances in Services Management and Marketing, 4, 211-28.
Kash, T.J. & Darling, J.R. (1998). Crisis Management: Prevention, Diagnosis and
Intervention. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(4), 179-186.
Kreps, G.L (1986), Organizational Communication, New York, Longman.
Laufer, D., Gillespie, K., McBride, B. & Gonzalez, S. (2005), The Role of Severity in
Consumer Attributions of Blame: Defensive Attributions in Product-Harm Crises in Mexico.
International Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(2/3), 33-50.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
12
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Lee, B. (2004). Audience-Oriented Approach to Crisis Communication: A Study of Hong
Kong Consumers’ Evaluation of an Organizational Crisis. Communication Research, 31(5),
600-618.
Lerbinger, O. (1997), The Crisis Manager: Facing Risk and Responsibility, Lawrence
Erlbaum:Mahwah, NJ.
McColl-Kennedy JR & Sparks, B.A. (2003). Application of Fairness Theory to Service
Failures and Service Recovery. Journal of Services Research, 5(3), 251–67.
McDonald, L.M., Sparks, B. & Glendon, A.I. (2010). Stakeholder Reactions to Company
Crisis Communication and Causes. Public Relations Review, 36, 263–271
Mitroff, I.I. (2002). Crisis Learning: The Lessons of Failure. The Futurist, 36(5), 19-21.
Mitroff, I.I., T. Pauchant, M. Finney & Pearson, C. (1992). Do (Some) Organizations Cause
Their Own Crises? The Cultural Profiles of Crisis Prone Versus Crisis Prepared
Organizations. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 3(4), 143-161.
Pauchant, T.C. & Mitroff, I.I. (1992), Transforming the Crisis-Prone Organization:
Preventing Individual, Organizational, and Environmental Tragedies. San Francisco, CA,
Jossey-Bass.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
13
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Pauchant, T.C. & Douville, R. (1991). Recent Research in Crisis Management: A Study of 24
Authors’ Publications from 1986 to 1991. Industrial and Environmental Crisis Quarterly,
7(1), 43-66.
Pearson, C.M. & Rondinelli, D.A. (1998). Crisis Management in Central European Firms.
Business Horizons, May-June, 50-59.
Pearson, C.M. & Clair, J.A. (1998). Reframing Crisis Management. The Academy of
Management Review, 23(1), 59–76.
Quarantelli, E. (1988). Disaster Crisis Management: a Summary of Research Findings.
Journal of Management Studies, 25 (4), 373-384.
Roux-Dufort, C. & Metais, E. (1999). Building core competencies in crisis management
through organizational learning: The case of the French nuclear power Producer.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(2), 113–127.
Ruff P. and K. Aziz (2003), Managing Communications in a Crisis, Gower, Aldershot.
Schwartz, B. (1988). Forecasting and Scenarios. In H.J. Miser and E.S. Quade, Editors,
Handbook of Systems Analysis, Wiley, Chichester.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
14
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Seeger, M.W., Sellnow, T.L. & Ulmer, R.R. (1998). Communication, Organization and
Crisis. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook , 21, 231-275, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Shimp, T.A., Hyatt, E.M. & Snyder, D.J. (1991). A Critical Appraisal of Demand Artifacts in
Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 273–283.
Singh, J. and R.E. Wilkes (1996). When Consumers Complain: a Path Analysis of the Key
Antecedents of Consumer Complaint Response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 24(1), 350-66.
Siomkos, G.J. (1999). On Achieving Exoneration after a Product Safety Industrial Crisis.
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 14(1), 17–29.
Siomkos, G.J. & Kurzbard, G. (1994). The Hidden Crisis in Product-Harm Crisis
Management. European Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 30-41.
Smith, A.K. & Bolton, R.N. (1998). An Experimental Investigation of Customer Reactions to
Service Failure and Recovery Encounters. Journal of Service Research, 1(1) 65-81.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
15
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Varcoe, C. (1998). From ‘Better Than Nothing’ to ‘Best Practices’: A Background Paper on
Best Practices. in Health Care in Relation to Violence Against Women, Victoria. Ministry
Advisory Council on Women’s Health, British Columbia Ministry of Health.
Weick, K. (1988). Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations. Journal of Management Studies,
25, pp. 305-317.
Weiner, D. (2006). Crisis Communications: Managing Corporate Reputation in the Court of
Public Opinion. Ivey Business Journal, March/April.
Wirtz, J. & Mattila, A.S. (2004). Consumer Responses to Compensation, Speed of Recovery
and Apology after a Service Failure. International Journal of Service Industry Management,
15(2), 150-166
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
16
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
TABLES & FIGURES
Table 1: Independent Sample t-test
Imaginary
Real
Crisis
Crisis
t-test
Mean
The next time I desire a soother/fluffy toy
I intend to use Chicco/Kidli (strongly
3.045
3.039
t= 0.61
4.898
5.003
t=-1.886
4.574
4.774
t= 0.287
3.845
3.814
t= 0.314
4.296
5.089
t=-7.633*
disagree / strongly agree)
(source: Maxham, 2001)
How would you characterize the decision
of whether to buy a soother fluffy toy
from Chicco/Kidli? (significant
opportunity / significant risk)
(source: Jarvenpaa, 1999)
I hold Company X responsible for the
product harm (strongly disagree /
strongly agree)
(source: Siomkos, 1999)
This company is trustworthy (strongly
disagree / strongly agree)
(source: Jarvenpaa 1999)
I feel angry about the event (strongly
disagree / strongly agree)
(source: Knight et al., 1984)
*P<0.05
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
17