To help offer the best experience possible, Guilford uses cookies on its site. By browsing here, you acknowledge our terms of use. For more information, see our Cookie Policy.
You can also read Guilford's Privacy Policy.

×
Skip to main content

ALL ACCESS PASS: All Guilford journals for 30 days, just $49.95 | Click on any article to purchase 

Effectively Apologizing to Consumers After a Crisis: Psychological Distance and Abstractness/Concreteness of an Organization's Apology

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2020.38.4.367

Companies hit by a crisis of corporate misconduct typically need to issue a public apology to minimize reputational damage, negative word-of-mouth, and declining purchases. What such an apology should ideally convey, abstract or concrete information, remains up for debate. Working from construal-level theory, we test a contingency perspective on organizational apology effectiveness. According to construal-level theory, concretely formulated apologies are more effective when the apologizing company is psychologically near to (versus far away from) an apology-recipient. Second, abstractly formulated apologies are more effective when the apologizing company is psychologically far away from (versus near to) an apology-recipient. We found support for these hypotheses in three experiments (and provide a meta-analytic mean of both effects). In order to optimize effectiveness, apologies should be tailored to account for the psychological distance to the apology-recipient.

References

  • Benoit W. L., , & Drew S. (1997). Appropriateness and effectiveness of image repair strategies. Communication Reports, 10, 153–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Berson Y., , & Halevy N. (2014). Hierarchy, leadership, and construal fit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 232–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Claeys A.-S., , & Cauberghe V. (2012). Crisis response and crisis timing strategies, two sides of the same coin. Public Relations Review, 38, 83–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Claeys A.-S., , & Cauberghe V. (2014). What makes crisis response strategies work? The impact of crisis involvement and message framing. Journal of Business Research, 67, 182–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Coombs W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 125–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Coombs W. T., , & Holladay S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, 279–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Coombs W. T., , & Holladay S. J. (2014). How publics react to crisis communication efforts: Comparing crisis response reactions across sub-arenas. Journal of Communication Management, 18, 40–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Eisenberg E.M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Eyal T., , Sagristano M. D., , Trope Y., , Liberman N., , & Chaiken S. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 35–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fehr R., , & Gelfand M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates foregiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 37–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fuchs-Burnett T. (2002). Mass public corporate apology. Dispute Resolution Journal, 57, 26–32. Google Scholar
  • Fujita K., , Eyal T., , Chaiken S., , Trope Y., , & Liberman N. (2008). Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 562–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Goh J. X., , Hall J. A., , & Rosenthal R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hansen J., , & Wänke M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1576–1588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hill K. M., , & Boyd D. P. (2015). Who should apologize when an employee transgresses? Source effects on apology effectiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 163–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jia L., , Hirt E. R., , & Karpen S. C. (2009). Lessons from a faraway land: The effect of spatial distance on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1127–1131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Liberman N., , & Trope Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 364–369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Maitlis S., , & Sonenshein S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47, 551–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Marcus A. A., , & Goodman R. S. (1991). Victims and shareholders: The dilemmas of presenting corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 281–305. Google Scholar
  • Moon B. B., , & Rhee Y. (2012). Message strategies and forgiveness during crises: Effects of causal attributions and apology appeal types on forgiveness. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 677–694. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pearson C. M., , & Clair J. A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management Review, 23, 59–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Reber R., , & Schwarz N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schreurs B., , Hamstra M. R. W., , & Davidson T. (2020). What's in a word? Using construal-level theory to predict voice endorsement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29, 93–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schreurs B., , Hamstra M. R. W., , Segers M., , & Schmitte K. (2018). Where to seat the applicant? How spatial distance influences the effect of self-promotion on interviewer evaluations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 448–456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Seeger M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 232–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sim A. B., , & Fernando M. (2010). Strategic ambiguity and ethical actions. 2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference (pp. 1–23). Oxford, UK: Oxford University. Google Scholar
  • Stephan E., , Liberman N., , & Trope Y. (2010). Politeness and social distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 268–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sturges D.L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy for organizational survival. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 297–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Trope Y., , & Liberman N. (2010). Construallevel theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tversky A., , & Kahneman D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ulmer R. R., , & Sellnow T. L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the Box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 143–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Vanderstukken A., , Schreurs B., , Germeys F., , Van den Broeck A., , & Proost K. (2019). Should supervisors communicate goals or visions? The moderating role of subordinates’ psychological distance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 671–683. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • van Houwelingen G., , van Dijke M., , & De Cremer D. (2018). Trust maintenance as a function of construal level and attributions: The case of apologies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 33–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wakslak C., , & Trope Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20, 52–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wakslak C. J., , Smith P. K., , & Han A. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 41–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Weick K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 305–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Yang X., , Ringberg T., , Mao H., , & Peracchio L.A. (2011). The construal (in)compatibility effect: The moderating role of a creative mind-set. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 681–696. CrossrefGoogle Scholar