Situational crisis communication theory

Last updated January 16, 2024

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT,), is a theory in the field of crisis communication. It suggests that crisis managers should match strategic crisis responses to the level of crisis responsibility and reputational threat posed by a crisis.^[1] SCCT was proposed by W. Timothy Coombs in 2007.

According to SCCT, evaluating the crisis type, crisis history and prior relationship reputation will help crisis managers predict the level of reputational threat of an organization and how that organization's publics will perceive the crisis and attribute crisis responsibility. Thus SCCT can be applied in an organization's crisis management.

Three types of crises have been identified by Coombs: the victim cluster, the accidental cluster, and the intentional cluster.^[2]

Coombs created his experimentally based SCCT to give communicators scientific evidence to guide their decisions, essentially stating that the actions an organization takes post-crisis depend on the crisis situation. "SCCT identifies how key facets of the crisis situation influence attributions about the crisis and the reputations held by stakeholders. In turn, understanding how stakeholders will respond to the crisis informs the post-crisis communication".^[3]

Coombs would later expand his work with SCCT through reflections of meta-analysis.^[4]

SCCT crisis response strategy guidelines

With empirical evidence to support his theory, Coombs^[3] provided a summary of crisis response strategy guidelines for crisis managers, given here in Table 1. SCCT provides crisis managers with an evidence-based guide to assessing and responding to crises, allowing them to make informed, strategic, and beneficial decisions.

Table 1: SCCT crisis response strategy guidelines
1. Informing and adjusting information alone can be enough when crises have minimal attributions of crisis responsibility (victim crises), no history of similar crises and a neutral or positive prior relationship reputation.
2. Victimage can be used as part of the response for workplace violence, product tampering, natural disasters and rumors.
3. Diminish crisis response strategies should be used for crises with minimal attributions of crisis responsibility (victim crises) coupled with a history of similar crises and/or negative prior relationship reputation.
4. Diminish crisis response strategies should be used for crises with low attributions of crisis responsibility (accident crises), which have no history of similar crises, and a neutral or positive prior relationship reputation.
5. Rebuild crisis response strategies should be used for crises with low attributions of crisis responsibility (accident crises), coupled with a history of similar crises and/or negative prior relationship reputation.
6. Rebuild crisis response strategies should be used for crises with strong attributions of crisis responsibility (preventable crises) regardless of crisis history or prior relationship reputation.
7. The deny posture crisis response strategies should be used for rumor and challenge crises, when possible.
8. Maintain consistency in crisis response strategies. Mixing deny crisis response strategies with either the diminish or rebuild strategies will erode the effectiveness of the overall response.
Source: Coombs, W.T. (2007b). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163-176.

Theoretical framework

The roots for SCCT can be found in Attribution Theory. It provided one of the first links between crisis situations and crisis responses. Attributions of responsibility that shape strategic crisis responses formed the foundation for SCCT. Coombs built upon Attribution Theory, using it as a base to predict the severity of potential reputational harm—or reputational threat—a crisis may bring to an organization and, using that prediction, guide communication response decisions to minimize damage.

Coombs draws on William Benoit's Image Restoration Theory in his conceptualization of responsibility and reputational threat, stating that perception is fundamental to assessments of both components. If the audience perceives that the organization is at fault, a reputational threat is put into existence and the organization is held responsible.

Crisis responsibility and reputational threat

SCCT suggests that the key to determining the most effective strategic crisis response is understanding the crisis situation and the amount of reputational threat being posed by the crisis. Reputational threat is how much damage a crisis could inflict on an organization if no action is taken to respond to it. Reputational threat is influenced by three elements: (1) initial crisis responsibility, (2) crisis history and (3) prior relational reputation.^[3]

Initial crisis responsibility is how much the organization's stakeholders attribute the crisis to the organization; how responsible the key publics hold the organization itself for the crisis. In assessing the level of reputational threat facing an organization, crisis managers must first determine the type of crisis facing the organization.

Types of crises

Coombs has identified three "crisis clusters," or types of crises, in his SCCT research: the victim cluster, the accidental cluster, and the intentional cluster.^[3] Table 2 outlines these crisis clusters.

In the victim cluster, the organization is not attributed as the cause of the crisis; rather, the organization is viewed as a victim. In the accidental cluster, the organization has been nominally attributed as the cause of the crisis, but the situation is generally viewed by stakeholders as being unintentional or simply accidental. In the intentional cluster, the organization is given all or most of the attributions for the crisis and shoulders the responsibility. In this case the crisis is considered deliberate.

One example where SCCT was used was the lockout that began within the National Hockey League in September 2012.^[5]

**Table 2: SCCT crisis types by crisis clusters**
Victim cluster: In these crisis types, the organization is also a victim of the crisis.
(Weak attributions of crisis responsibility = Mild reputational threat)
Natural disaster: Acts of nature damage an organization such as an earthquake.
Rumor: False and damaging information about an organization is being circulated.
Workplace violence : Current or former employee attacks current employees onsite.
Product tampering/Malevolence: External agent causes damage to an organization.


Accidental cluster: In these crisis types, the organizational actions leading to the crisis were unintentional.
(Minimal attributions of crisis responsibility = Moderate reputational threat)
Challenges: Stakeholders claim an organization is operating in an inappropriate manner.
Technical-error accidents: A technology or equipment failure causes an industrial accident.
Technical-error product harm: A technology or equipment failure causes a product to be recalled.

Intentional cluster: In these crisis types, the organization knowingly placed people at risk, took inappropriate actions or violated a law/regulation.
(Strong attributions of crisis responsibility = Severe reputational threat)
Human error accidents: Human error causes an industrial accident.
Human-error product harm: Human error causes a product to be recalled.
Organizational misdeed with no injuries: Stakeholders are deceived without injury.
Organizational misdeed management misconduct : Laws or regulations are violated by management.
Organizational misdeed with injuries: Stakeholders are placed at risk by management and injuries occur.
'Source: Coombs, W.T. (2007b).

Once it is determined which type of crisis, or which cluster, the organization's situation falls under, managers can predict how much attribution will be placed on the organization and how much reputational threat it is facing. In fact, Coombs’ own prior research showed that crisis responsibility and organizational reputation are negatively related.^[6]^[7]

Crisis history and relational reputation

Another element that threatens an organization's reputation is its history of crisis, whether it has faced similar crises in the past. Within this context, how well an organization has treated its stakeholders in the past—its prior relational reputation—also plays a part in assessing reputational threat. These two elements are involved in the second step crisis managers must take in evaluating the reputational threat facing the organization: if either of these elements exist within the organization, it will intensify attributions of the organization and increase the level of reputational threat. If an organization has a history of facing crises or a poor history of dealing with its stakeholders, attributions of crisis responsibility and the level of reputational threat are greater.^{[ citation needed ]}

Because of crisis responsibility and reputational threat, crises can effect changes in emotions, and as a result, behaviors. If a person perceives an organization to have a high level of crisis responsibility, he or she is more likely to have feelings of anger toward the organization. Conversely, lower levels of crisis responsibility can evoke feelings of sympathy. Both of these feelings can affect the behaviors of the person toward the organization, whether that person will act positively or negatively toward the organization.^{[ citation needed ]}

Crisis response strategies

Once the levels of crisis responsibility and reputational threat have been determined, SCCT provides crisis managers with a theoretical base to their strategic crisis response. SCCT's list for responding to crises assumes that the organization has accepted some level of responsibility for the crisis. Coombs found that the primary responses to crises in SCCT form three groups: deny, diminish, and rebuild. The SCCT list of crisis response strategies is shown in Table 3.^{[ citation needed ]}

Each of these strategies helps the organization get its side of the story into the media. After all how the crisis is framed in the media will determine how the organization's publics view the situation.^[3] The media's frames become the stakeholders’ frames.

The deny strategies help establish a crisis frame and sever any perceived connection between the organization and the crisis. If the organization is not involved, or if the crisis is a rumor the organization can dispel, and stakeholders and the media accept that there is no crisis, no reputational harm will be done.^{[ citation needed ]}
Diminish crisis responses attempt to assure the organization's publics that the crisis is not as bad as it seems or that the organization had nothing to do with the situation. These strategies help lessen the connection between the organization and the crisis and help the organization's publics see the crisis in a less negative light. However, these strategies must be reinforced with credible evidence. If conflicting crisis frames are presented in the media, the organization's publics will adopt whichever frame comes from the most credible source.^{[ citation needed ]}
Rebuild strategies help change perceptions of an organization during a crisis by offering real or symbolic forms of aid to victims and asking their forgiveness. These strategies attempt to take the focus off the crisis by taking positive action.^{[ citation needed ]}

A secondary type of responses, bolstering, attempts to increase positive reputational perceptions by presenting "new, positive information about the organization and/or remind[ing] stakeholders of past good works by the organization".^[3] This strategy can bolster goodwill and arouse feelings of sympathy toward the organization, but Coombs warns, should be used to supplement the primary responses, not as replacements.^[3]

Table 3: SCCT crisis response strategies
Primary crisis response strategies
Deny crisis response strategies
Attack the accuser: Crisis manager confronts the person or group claiming something is wrong with the organization.
Denial: Crisis manager asserts that there is no crisis.
Scapegoat: Crisis manager blames some person or group outside of the organization for the crisis.
Diminish crisis response strategies
Excuse: Crisis manager minimizes organizational responsibility by denying intent to do harm and/or claiming inability to control the events that triggered the crisis.
Justification: Crisis manager minimizes the perceived damage caused by the crisis.
Rebuild crisis response strategies
Compensation: Crisis manager offers money or other gifts to victims.
Apology: Crisis manager indicates the organization takes full responsibility for the crisis and asks stakeholders for forgiveness.

Secondary crisis response strategies
Bolstering crisis response strategies
Reminder: Tell stakeholders about the past good works of the organization.
Ingratiation: Crisis manager praises stakeholders and/or reminds them of past good works by the organization.
Victimage: Crisis managers remind stakeholders that the organization is a victim of the crisis too.
Source: Coombs, W.T. (2007b).

SCCT suggests that how an organization communicates with its publics—what it says—will affect its publics’ perceptions of the organization. Those perceptions can shape how an organization's publics emotionally react to or behave toward to the organization. Therefore, the communication decisions crisis managers make in the wake of a crisis could have great consequences, either positive or negative. It is imperative that crisis managers act strategically to save the organization's reputation. According to Coombs:^[3] "Crisis response strategies have three objectives relative to protecting reputations: (1) shape attributions of the crisis, (2) change perceptions of the organization in crisis and (3) reduce the negative effect generated by the crisis."

Coombs' research of situational crisis communication theory has focused on crisis response and the effect of the corporate reputation but never on the nonprofit organization standpoint. While these two industries operate differently, both still need their crisis situations properly addressed and in a timely manner. Not only building, but maintaining trust and reputation is essential in both types of organizations. Nonprofits depend on their publics and are often held on a higher pedestal than the average for-profit organization and are always being shaped by the wants and needs of their external environments. These matters make nonprofits vulnerable to crisis' so having a strategy and being ready to implement is mandatory. Research done by Hilary Fussell Sisco in 2012 found that participants favor nonprofits more positively that utilize a response strategy from Coombs.^[8]

References and further reading

↑ Coombs, W. T. (2007a). Crisis management and communications. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/crisis-management-and-communications/
↑ Coombs, W. T. (1 July 2004). "Impact of Past Crises on Current Crisis Communication: Insights From Situational Crisis Communication Theory". Journal of Business Communication. 41 (3): 265–289. doi:10.1177/0021943604265607. hdl: 10818/19239 . S2CID 154326081.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Coombs, W Timothy (September 2007). "Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory". Corporate Reputation Review. 10 (3): 163–176. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049 . S2CID 167311536.
↑ Coombs, W. Timothy (3 March 2016). "Reflections on a meta-analysis: Crystallizing thinking about SCCT". Journal of Public Relations Research. 28 (2): 120–122. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2016.1167479. S2CID 147912618.
↑ Formentin, Melanie (May 2012). Game off!: Understanding newspaper portrayals of the NHL lockout using situational crisis communication theory. International Communication Association. Phoenix, AZ.
↑ Coombs, W. Timothy; Holladay, Sherry J. (October 1996). "Communication and Attributions in a Crisis: An Experimental Study in Crisis Communication". Journal of Public Relations Research. 8 (4): 279–295. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_04.
↑ Coombs, W. Timothy; Holladay, Sherry (1 October 2001). "An Extended Examination of the Crisis Situations: A Fusion of the Relational Management and Symbolic Approaches". Journal of Public Relations Research. 13 (4): 321–340. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1304_03. S2CID 143601768.
↑ Sisco, Hilary Fussell (January 2012). "Nonprofit in Crisis: An Examination of the Applicability of Situational Crisis Communication Theory". Journal of Public Relations Research. 24 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2011.582207. S2CID 154360810.

Sources

Broom, G. M. (2009). Cutlip & Center's Effective Public Relations. (10 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Claeys, An-Sofie; Cauberghe, Verolien (March 2012). "Crisis response and crisis timing strategies, two sides of the same coin". Public Relations Review. 38 (1): 83–88. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.001.
Coombs, W. T. (1 July 2004). "Impact of Past Crises on Current Crisis Communication: Insights From Situational Crisis Communication Theory". Journal of Business Communication. 41 (3): 265–289. doi:10.1177/0021943604265607. hdl: 10818/19239 . S2CID 154326081.
Coombs, W. T. (2007a). Crisis management and communications. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/crisis-management-and-communications/.
Coombs, W Timothy (September 2007). "Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory". Corporate Reputation Review. 10 (3): 163–176. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049 . S2CID 167311536.
Coombs, W. Timothy; Holladay, Sherry J. (October 1996). "Communication and Attributions in a Crisis: An Experimental Study in Crisis Communication". Journal of Public Relations Research. 8 (4): 279–295. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_04.
Coombs, W. Timothy; Holladay, Sherry (1 October 2001). "An Extended Examination of the Crisis Situations: A Fusion of the Relational Management and Symbolic Approaches". Journal of Public Relations Research. 13 (4): 321–340. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1304_03. S2CID 143601768.
Fearn-Banks, K. (2007). Crisis communication: A casebook approach. (3 ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ide, B; Martin, SH; Totten, M (July 2011). "Crisis management and maintaining the public trust". Trustee. 64 (7): 15–8. PMID 21870695.
Kelley, Harold H.; Michela, John L. (January 1980). "Attribution Theory and Research". Annual Review of Psychology. 31 (1): 457–501. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325. PMID 20809783. S2CID 15258190.
Wilcox, D. L., Cameron, G. T., Reber, B. H., & Shin, J. (2011). Think: Public relations. (1 ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Related Research Articles

Public relations (PR) is the practice of managing and disseminating information from an individual or an organization to the public in order to influence their perception. Public relations and publicity differ in that PR is controlled internally, whereas publicity is not controlled and contributed by external parties. Public relations may include an organization or individual gaining exposure to their audiences using topics of public interest and news items that do not require direct payment. The exposure is mostly media-based, and this differentiates it from advertising as a form of marketing communications. Public relations aims to create or obtain coverage for clients for free, also known as earned media, rather than paying for marketing or advertising also known as paid media. But in the early 21st century, advertising is also a part of broader PR activities.

The reputation or prestige of a social entity is an opinion about that entity – typically developed as a result of social evaluation on a set of criteria, such as behavior or performance.

In marketing, publicity is the public visibility or awareness for any product, service, person or organization. It may also refer to the movement of information from its source to the general public, often via the media. The subjects of publicity include people of public recognition, goods and services, organizations, and works of art or entertainment.

Blame is the act of censuring, holding responsible, or making negative statements about an individual or group that their actions or inaction are socially or morally irresponsible, the opposite of praise. When someone is morally responsible for doing something wrong, their action is blameworthy. By contrast, when someone is morally responsible for doing something right, it may be said that their action is praiseworthy. There are other senses of praise and blame that are not ethically relevant. One may praise someone's good dress sense, and blame their own sense of style for their own dress sense.

Crisis management is the process by which an organization deals with a disruptive and unexpected event that threatens to harm the organization or its stakeholders. The study of crisis management originated with large-scale industrial and environmental disasters in the 1980s. It is considered to be the most important process in public relations.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate social impact is a form of international private business self-regulation which aims to contribute to societal goals of a philanthropic, activist, or charitable nature by engaging in, with, or supporting professional service volunteering through pro bono programs, community development, administering monetary grants to non-profit organizations for the public benefit, or to conduct ethically oriented business and investment practices. While once it was possible to describe CSR as an internal organizational policy or a corporate ethic strategy similar to what is now known today as Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG); that time has passed as various companies have pledged to go beyond that or have been mandated or incentivized by governments to have a better impact on the surrounding community. In addition national and international standards, laws, and business models have been developed to facilitate and incentivize this phenomenon. Various organizations have used their authority to push it beyond individual or even industry-wide initiatives. In contrast, it has been considered a form of corporate self-regulation for some time, over the last decade or so it has moved considerably from voluntary decisions at the level of individual organizations to mandatory schemes at regional, national, and international levels. Moreover, scholars and firms are using the term "creating shared value", an extension of corporate social responsibility, to explain ways of doing business in a socially responsible way while making profits.

A crisis is any event or period that will lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, or all of society. Crises are negative changes in the human or environmental affairs, especially when they occur abruptly, with little or no warning. More loosely, a crisis is a testing time for an emergency.

A humanitarian crisis is defined as a singular event or a series of events that are threatening in terms of health, safety or well-being of a community or large group of people. It may be an internal or external conflict and usually occurs throughout a large land area. Local, national and international responses are necessary in such events.

Internal communications (IC) is the function responsible for effective communications among participants within an organization. The scope of the function varies by organization and practitioner, from producing and delivering messages and campaigns on behalf of management, to facilitating two-way dialogue and developing the communication skills of the organization's participants.

An apology is an expression of regret or remorse for actions, while apologizing is the act of expressing regret or remorse. In informal situations, it may be called saying sorry. The goal of apologizing is generally forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration of the relationship between the people involved in a dispute.

Corporate communication(s) is a set of activities involved in managing and orchestrating all internal and external communications aimed at creating a favourable point of view among stakeholders on which the company depends. It is the messages issued by a corporate organization, body or institute to its audiences, such as employees, media, channel partners and the general public. Organizations aim to communicate the same message to all its stakeholders, to transmit coherence, credibility and ethics.

The public relations officer (PRO) or chief communications officer (CCO) or corporate communications officer is a C-suite level officer responsible for communications, public relations, and/or public affairs in an organization. Typically, the CCO of a corporation reports to the chief executive officer (CEO). The CCO may hold an academic degree in communications. A Public Relations Officer has a positive public opinion of an organization and increased brand knowledge as their first concern. They access and monitor their client's online presence to prepare the right message to convey. They can also coach clients on the importance of self-image and how to communicate with the media. A Public Relations Officer aims to positively handle and communicate information internally and externally.

Ian Irving Mitroff is an American organizational theorist, consultant and professor emeritus at the USC Marshall School of Business and the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California He is noted for a wide range of contributions in the field of organizational theory from contributions on strategic planning assumptions and management information systems, to the subjective side of the workplace and spirituality, religion, and values.

Crisis communication is a sub-specialty of the public relations profession that is designed to protect and defend an individual, company, or organization facing a public challenge to its reputation. Crisis communication is aimed at raising awareness of a specific type of threat, the magnitude, outcomes, and specific behaviors to adopt to reduce the threat. The communication scholar Timothy Coombs defines crisis as "the perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization's performance and generate negative outcomes" and crisis communication as "the collection, processing, and dissemination of information required to address a crisis situation."

Risk communication is a complex cross-disciplinary academic field that is part of risk management and related to fields like crisis communication. The goal is to make sure that targeted audiences understand how risks effect to them or their communities by appealing to their values.

Stakeholder management is a critical component in the successful delivery of any project, programme or activity. A stakeholder is any individual, group or organization that can affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a programme.

The Excellence theory is a general theory of public relations that “specifies how public relations makes organizations more effective, how it is organized and managed when it contributes most to organizational effectiveness, the conditions in organizations and their environments that make organizations more effective, and how the monetary value of public relations can be determined”. The excellence theory resulted from a study about the best practice in public relations, which was headed by James E. Grunig and funded by the Foundation of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) in 1985. Constructed upon a number of middle-range theories, and tested with surveys and interviews of professionals and CEOs in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and South Korea, the Excellence theory provides a “theoretical and empirical benchmark” for public relations units.

Introduced by William Benoit, image restoration theory outlines strategies that can be used to restore one's image in an event where reputation has been damaged. Image restoration theory can be applied as an approach for understanding both personal and organizational crisis situations. It is a component of crisis communication, which is a sub-specialty of public relations. Its purpose is to protect an individual, company, or organization facing a public challenge to its reputation.

Compellence is a form of coercion that attempts to get an actor to change its behavior through threats to use force or the actual use of limited force. Compellence can be more clearly described as "a political-diplomatic strategy that aims to influence an adversary's will or incentive structure. It is a strategy that combines threats of force, and, if necessary, the limited and selective use of force in discrete and controlled increments, in a bargaining strategy that includes positive inducements. The aim is to induce an adversary to comply with one's demands, or to negotiate the most favorable compromise possible, while simultaneously managing the crisis to prevent unwanted military escalation."

Discourse of renewal is a theory in crisis communication that seeks to establish and emphasize "learning from the crisis, ethical communication, communication that is prospective in nature, and effective organizational rhetoric.”

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[coombs_a-1] Coombs, W. T. (2007a). Crisis management and communications. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/crisis-management-and-communications/

[2] Coombs, W. T. (1 July 2004). "Impact of Past Crises on Current Crisis Communication: Insights From Situational Crisis Communication Theory". Journal of Business Communication. 41 (3): 265–289. doi:10.1177/0021943604265607. hdl: 10818/19239 . S2CID 154326081.

[coombs_b-3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Coombs, W Timothy (September 2007). "Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory". Corporate Reputation Review. 10 (3): 163–176. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049 . S2CID 167311536.

[4] Coombs, W. Timothy (3 March 2016). "Reflections on a meta-analysis: Crystallizing thinking about SCCT". Journal of Public Relations Research. 28 (2): 120–122. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2016.1167479. S2CID 147912618.

[5] Formentin, Melanie (May 2012). Game off!: Understanding newspaper portrayals of the NHL lockout using situational crisis communication theory. International Communication Association. Phoenix, AZ.

[c&h96-6] Coombs, W. Timothy; Holladay, Sherry J. (October 1996). "Communication and Attributions in a Crisis: An Experimental Study in Crisis Communication". Journal of Public Relations Research. 8 (4): 279–295. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_04.

[c&h01-7] Coombs, W. Timothy; Holladay, Sherry (1 October 2001). "An Extended Examination of the Crisis Situations: A Fusion of the Relational Management and Symbolic Approaches". Journal of Public Relations Research. 13 (4): 321–340. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1304_03. S2CID 143601768.

[8] Sisco, Hilary Fussell (January 2012). "Nonprofit in Crisis: An Examination of the Applicability of Situational Crisis Communication Theory". Journal of Public Relations Research. 24 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2011.582207. S2CID 154360810.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]