The Effects of Threat Type and Duration on Public Relations Practitioner's Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Responses in Crisis Situations

The contingency theory of public relations relies heavily on the concept of threat without fully developing the concept as well as its operationalization. This study addresses this weakness through the exposition of 2 key dimensions of threats in crises as threat type and duration, and empirically testing their effects on public relations practitioners' cognitive appraisal of threats, affective responses to threats, and the stances taken in threat-embedded crisis situations. A Web-based experiment on 116 public relations practitioners was conducted using a 2 (external vs. internal threat type) × 2 (long-term vs. short-term threat duration) within-subjects design. The findings revealed the main effects of threat type and threat duration on threat appraisal, emotional arousal, and degree of accommodation. Interaction effects indicated that external and long-term threat combination led to higher situational demands appraisal and more intensive emotional arousal.

[1]  Yan Jin,et al.  Scale development for measuring stance as degree of accommodation , 2006 .

[2]  Yan Jin,et al.  Do We Stand on Common Ground? A Threat Appraisal Model for Terror Alerts Issued by the Department of Homeland Security , 2006 .

[3]  Glen T. Cameron,et al.  Strategic Communication in Crisis Governance: Analysis of the Singapore Management of the SARS Crisis , 2006 .

[4]  C. T. Salmon,et al.  Crisis management planning and the threat of bioterrorism , 2003 .

[5]  G. Cameron,et al.  Measuring Contingencies: Using Scales to Measure Public Relations Practitioner Limits to Accommodation , 2003 .

[6]  A. Arian,et al.  Threat and Decision Making , 2001 .

[7]  Amanda E. Cancel,et al.  Testing the contingency theory of accommodation in public relations , 1999 .

[8]  W. T. Coombs,et al.  An Analytic Framework for Crisis Situations: Better Responses From a Better Understanding of the Situation , 1998 .

[9]  Lynne M. Sallot,et al.  PR Educators and Practitioners Identify Professional Standards , 1998 .

[10]  Lynne M. Sallot,et al.  Professional standards in public relations: A survey of educators , 1997 .

[11]  Alexander Kouzmin,et al.  Crises and Crisis Management: Toward Comprehensive Government Decision Making , 1997 .

[12]  B. Detenber,et al.  A Bio‐Informational Theory of Emotion: Motion and Image Size Effects on Viewers , 1996 .

[13]  A. G. Herrero,et al.  An Integrated Symmetrical Model for Crisis-Communications Management , 1996 .

[14]  William L. Benoit,et al.  Accounts, excuses, and apologies : a theory of image restoration strategies , 1994 .

[15]  S. Oppe,et al.  The concept of risk: a decision theoretic approach , 1988 .

[16]  Charles S. Carver,et al.  Self‐awareness, perception of threat, and the expression of reactance through attitude change , 1977 .

[17]  J. M. Kittross.  The measurement of meaning , 1959 .

[18]  J. Lanzetta,et al.  Some effects of situational threat on group behavior. , 1954, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[19]  J. Stainer,et al.  The Emotions , 1922, Nature.

[20]  Jim Blascovich,et al.  Challenge and threat appraisals: The role of affective cues. , 2000 .

[21]  Lynne M. Sallot,et al.  Pluralistic ignorance and professional standards: underestimating professionalism of our peers in public relations , 1998 .

[22]  Lynne M. Sallot,et al.  It Depends: A Contingency Theory of Accommodation in Public Relations , 1997 .

[23]  Kathleen Fearn-Banks.  Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach , 1996 .

[24]  William L. Benoit,et al.  AT&T: “Apologies are not enough” , 1994 .

[25]  P. Lang,et al.  Affective judgment and psychophysiological response: Dimensional covariation in the evaluation of pictorial stimuli. , 1989 .

[26]  J. Russell,et al.  An approach to environmental psychology , 1974 .