Elsevier

Public Relations Review

Volume 35, Issue 3, September 2009, Pages 307-309
Public Relations Review

Short communication
Public's Responses to an oil spill accident: A test of the attribution theory and situational crisis communication theory

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.03.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Situational communication crisis communication theory (SCCT) and Weiner's attribution theory are used in this research to explain the public's responses to a corporation that caused an oil spill accident. Consistent with SCCT, people made higher internal attributions and lower external attributions about the oil spill accident when low distinctiveness information was provided, compared to when high distinctiveness information or no information was provided. Higher internal attributions and lower external attributions, in turn, resulted in greater punitive opinions and punitive behavior.

Introduction

Situational crisis communication theory (SCCT; Coombs, 2007) and Weiner's (1995) attribution theory can be useful frameworks for crisis communication research. SCCT suggests that information about low distinctiveness or negative relationship history can result in greater internal attributions for a current crisis, compared to information about high distinctiveness or positive relationship history. This is because if the corporation performed poorly in other contexts (low distinctiveness), people are more likely to make unfavorable (internal) attributions, whereas if the corporation performed well in other contexts (high distinctiveness), people are more likely to make favorable (external) attributions.

Weiner's attribution-action model suggests the possible consequences of attributions on punitive responses. The theory predicts that people are more likely to punish an actor who caused a problem when people make higher internal attributions (e.g., blaming the actor) and lower external attributions (e.g., blaming the situation). This is because the actor is viewed as more responsible for the problem when internal attributions are made, whereas the actor is perceived to be less responsible for the problem when external attributions are made.

Based on SCCT and Weiner's attribution model, this present research examines (a) how distinctiveness information affects the public's attributions for an oil spill accident (based on SCCT) and (b) how those attributions lead to punitive opinions and behavior toward the corporation involved in the accident (based on Weiner's attribution model). Specifically, there were three experimental conditions: (1) high distinctiveness information (i.e., about history of social responsibility), (2) low distinctiveness information (i.e., about history of unethical management), and (3) no information control condition.

Section snippets

Methods

This study was conducted about one month after an oil spill incident in South Korea in December 2007. The incident occurred after a barge slammed into an oil tanker, and the barge that caused the accident was owned by Samsung Industry, which is part of a Korean conglomerate Samsung Group.

A convenience sample of 180 South Korean adults participated in this study. All respondents participated in this experiment online. The average age of the respondents in this sample was 32.18 (SD = 9.99). Fifty

Findings

One-way analysis of variance showed that distinctiveness information influenced internal attribution (F (2, 177) = 6.35, p < .01) and external attribution (F (2, 177) = 3.56, p < .05). Internal attribution increased when low distinctiveness information (M = 6.23, SD = .90) was provided than when high distinctiveness information (M = 5.57, SD = 1.13) or no information (M = 5.73, SD = 1.24) was provided. External attribution decreased when low distinctiveness information (M = 2.60, SD = 1.50) was provided than when high

Conclusion

Based on attribution theory and SCCT, this study found that distinctiveness information can influence attributions about an accident caused by a corporation, and subsequently punitive opinions and behavior toward the corporation. Low distinctiveness (negative relationship history) information led to greater internal attribution and less external attribution. This suggests that negative relationship history can lead to additional damage to reputation. Distinctiveness information had indirect

References (2)

Cited by (74)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text