<%BANNER%>

A Cross-Cultural Study of Crisis Response Strategy Effectiveness

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A Cross-Cultural Study of Crisis Response Strategy Effectiveness
Physical Description:
1 online resource (163 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Jiang, Xi
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.A.M.C.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Mass Communication, Journalism and Communications
Committee Chair:
Kim, Sora
Committee Members:
Ferguson, Mary A
Molleda, Juan Carlos

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
communication -- crisis -- intercultural
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
This study employed a 2 (Chinese and the US) × 4 (apology, justification, denial and control)experiment to explore the crisis response strategies’ effectiveness indifferent cultures in terms of mitigating publics’ negative emotion and attribution of blame. The results showed that the Chinese respondents in this experiment displayed a higher level of negative emotion than the US respondents. Also, different corporate crisis response strategies elicited participants’ different level of blame attribution. The blame attribution also varies with culture.  This study contributes to the practice of optimize crisis response strategy in different cultures.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Xi Jiang.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Kim, Sora.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0045665:00001

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A Cross-Cultural Study of Crisis Response Strategy Effectiveness
Physical Description:
1 online resource (163 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Jiang, Xi
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.A.M.C.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Mass Communication, Journalism and Communications
Committee Chair:
Kim, Sora
Committee Members:
Ferguson, Mary A
Molleda, Juan Carlos

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
communication -- crisis -- intercultural
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
This study employed a 2 (Chinese and the US) × 4 (apology, justification, denial and control)experiment to explore the crisis response strategies’ effectiveness indifferent cultures in terms of mitigating publics’ negative emotion and attribution of blame. The results showed that the Chinese respondents in this experiment displayed a higher level of negative emotion than the US respondents. Also, different corporate crisis response strategies elicited participants’ different level of blame attribution. The blame attribution also varies with culture.  This study contributes to the practice of optimize crisis response strategy in different cultures.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Xi Jiang.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Kim, Sora.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0045665:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 A CROSS CULTURAL STUDY OF CRISIS RESPONSE STRATEGY EFFECTIVENESS By XI JIANG A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ART S IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Xi Jiang

PAGE 3

3 For my M om and D ad, whose love truly enlightened my life

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge the advice and guidance of Dr. Sora Kim, committee chair without whos e help this study would not have been completed I also thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr. Juan Carlos Molleda and Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, for all their advice, encouragement and knowledge.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10 Crisis Communication across Culture ................................ ................................ ..... 10 Culture Identity, Negative Emotion & Attributions of Blame ................................ .... 12 Effectiveness of Crisis Response Strategy in T erms of Emotion and Attribution of Blame: A Public based Approach ................................ ................................ .... 13 Research Gap ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 15 Purpose of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Importance of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ........................... 18 Emotion: A P ublic based P erspective of C risis C ommunication ............................. 18 the Influencing Process ................................ ................................ ................. 19 Stressful Situations Elicit Negative Emotion ................................ ..................... 20 Emotion and Crisis Responsibility ................................ ................................ .... 22 Integrated Crisis Mapping (ICM) Model ................................ ............................ 23 Attribution of Blame ................................ ................................ ................................ 24 Situational Crisis Communication Theory ................................ ............................... 26 Cultural Issues in Crisis Communication ................................ ................................ 29 Cultural Issues, Blame of Attribution, and Negative Emotions ................................ 32 Hypotheses and Research Questions ................................ ................................ .... 33 3 METHODOLOG Y ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 40 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 40 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 40 Stimulus Material ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 41 Crisis T ype ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 41 Crisis Response S trategy ................................ ................................ ................. 42 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 4 4 Power Distance S cale ................................ ................................ ...................... 44 Negative E motions ................................ ................................ ........................... 44 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 46

PAGE 6

6 Manipulation C heck ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 Test of Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 53 6 IMPLICATION AND LIMITATION ................................ ................................ ............ 58 APPENDIX A STIMULI ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 61 B CHINESE V ERSION S TIMULI ................................ ................................ ................ 62 C APPENDIX C ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 64 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 153 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .. 163

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Crisis r esponse strategies by p ostures ................................ ............................... 38 4 1 Mean and s tandard d eviation of b lame attribution in China and th e US .............. 51 4 2 Means and s tandard d eviation of n egative e motions for c risis r esponse s trategies in the United States and China ................................ .......................... 52

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Revised I ntegrated Crisis Mapping m odel ................................ ........................... 37 2 2 f ive c ultural d imensions. ................................ ... 39 4 1 Interaction between n ationality and c orporate r esponse in r educing p ublics attribution of blame ................................ ................................ ............................ 51

PAGE 9

9 A bstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication A CROSS CULTURAL STUDY OF CRISIS RESPO NSE STRATEGY EFFECTIVENESS By Xi Jiang A ugust 201 3 Chair: Sora Kim Major: Mass Communication This study employed a 2 (Chinese and the US) 4 (apology, justification, denial and control) experiment to explore the crisis response strategies effective ness in different cultures in terms of mitigating publics negative emotion and attribution of blame. The results showed that t he Chinese respondents in this experiment displayed a higher level of negative emotion than the US respondents. Also, different c orporate crisis response strategies different level of blame attribution. The blame attribution also varies with culture. This study contributes to the practice of optimize crisis response strategy in different cultures.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION practitioners. Certainly, strategic crisis communication is one of the biggest challenges in the global marketplace (Taylor, 2000). As multinational corporations expan d across the globe and each nation has specific cultural dynamic, public relations practitioners must consider cultural variances when delivering messages (Wertz & Kim, 2010). Crisis Communication across Culture Public relations scholars have found that p ublic relations is practiced in substantially different ways in different countries, and often reflecting cultural differences (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2006). Cultural differences also affect the work of crisis management. However, crisis communication r esearchers paid little attention to how cultural issues affected crisis communication until several multinational corporations failed to use culturally appropriate crisis response strategies in several prominent instances, for instance, the contaminated Co ca Cola crisis in Europe (see Taylor, 2000). After some pioneering works addressing the importance of cultural issues in crisis management, for about cultural issues in ai rline crisis, more scholars agreed that managers of efficient cross cultural communication conflicts are more likely to show respect to cultural differences. For example, although many American scholars implied that a company adopting a no comment crisis c ommunication strategy might be perceived negatively in the U.S. (Davis & Holtgraves, 1980), remaining silent is often seen as an act of wisdom in Chinese culture and therefore Lee (2004) pointed out in her experimental study that Chinese respondents showed more tolerance towards no comment.

PAGE 11

11 Existing literature indicates that culture is, indeed, a vital variable that influences not only the response of key publics, but also organizational strategy and communication effectiveness in crisis communicatio n (Taylor, 2000; Haruta & Kirk, 2003; Giebels & Taylor, 2009; Wertz & Kim, 2010). Intercultural communication theories are widely used as the critical frameworks to substantiate and explain cultural differences in crisis communication. For instance, Taylor (2000) and Wertz and Kim (2010) adopted organization deals with crisis communication, and how the public responds to that communication. According to Taylor (2000), a high uncertainty avoidance index, which low risk taking, eagerness to know the result, and relatively strong reaction. Another cultural dimension, power distance, is po and such distrust is more likely to ignite eventual conflict between a well known organization and the public (Taylor, 2000). Confucian dynamism, known as long term orientation (Hoffstede, 1991), on the other hand, is positively related to the organization whose crisis response includes more full apology messages (Wertz & Kim, 2010). argument in crisis negotiations over time. They revealed that, compared to high context perpetrators, low context perpetrators were found to use more persuasive arguments and to respond to persuasive arguments in a compromising way. Based on those finding s, Huang and Bedford (2009) wrote that cultural differences in conflict management style and crisis communicative strategy is essential to the practice of public diplomacy and public

PAGE 12

12 relations, especially given the globalized business economy and the proliferation of Culture Identity, Negative Emotion & Attributions of Blame Generally speaking, Easterners and Westerners share a similar cognitive process, which implies that a universal ps ychological state would lead them to arriving at the same judgment of communication during a crisis (Gardner, 1985). However, cross cultural psychology works suggest that differences between Western and Eastern cognitive pattern exist with regard to emotio n and attributions of blame (An et al., 2010; Anagondahalli & Turner, 2012). During a crisis, key publics will automatically look for causes of the threat, and attribute blame to the responsible organization (Coombs, 2005). It is argued that a high er level of collectivism is positively related to a higher level of public attribution of blame of an organization (An et al., 2010; Menon, et al., 1999). For example, Menon et al. (1999) found out that East Asians are more likely to attribute outcomes of accidents to a group rather than to an individual. One possible explanation of different levels of attribution is that Asians view an organization as an extended family, and it's not appropriate to blame a member of a family therefore it is not right to bl ame the members of an organization (An et al., 2010). In contrast to Asians, Americans have a different pattern of blame. They tend to blame an organization right away, then transition to blaming certain individuals (Zemba, Young, & Morris, 2006). Another point that is worth noting is that stakeholders with higher level of collectivism tend to show more negative emotion towards an organization than those from individualistic culture (An et al., 2010). For example, Anagondahalli & Turner

PAGE 13

13 (2012) reported that Asians respondents experienced more anxiety than American respondents in an organizational crisis, and An et al. (2010) revealed that Koreans showed more anger than their American counterparts in the same crisis situation. Effectiveness of Crisis Respons e Strategy in Terms of Emotion and Attribution of Blame: a Public based Approach Previous crisis literature tends to view crisis communication strategies from an organization Situational (Benoit, 1997; Coombs & Holladay, 1996; Coombs & Holladay, 2004), and these two (Coombs, 2006). However, Coombs (2006) pointed out that the organization based perspective. Currently, two app roaches are offered to examine crisis strategy from the audience's standpoint: the public emotion based perspective and public attribution of blame (Jin, 2010; Jin, 2009; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2007; Anagondahalli & Turner, 2012). These two perspectives are intertwined, and one can affect the other (Jin, 2009). The first perspective, public emotion based perspective, has evolved into a hot topic in the academic field in recent years. Until now, several studies testified to nication. For instance, scholars have looked into in computer mediated communication (Derks, Fischer, & Bos, 2008). In order to better

PAGE 14

14 understand the public's mind and to shape appropriate strategy, crisis communication experts integrated the emotion related approach. Both professional public relations strategists and scholars believe th at managing emotions is a missing step in crisis communication (Loomis, 2008; Yeomans, 2007). A school of crisis communication scholars asserts that although organization based crisis eory) is of great significance in crisis communication and emotion focused crisis communication is likely to be experienced by the stakeholders in a crisis is helpful for p ublic practitioners to create the best response (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2012). Emotion driven strategy is meaningful for public relations practitioners and researchers to understand what emotional upheavals might occur to the public, so that certain strateg ies can be adopted aiming at their specific needs (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2007, p. 83). evaluation in a crisis (Choi & Lin, 2009), negative emotions elicited at that time are very 2006). Compared to emotion, the second perspective, attribution of blame, h as received more attention in past years (Bradford & Garrett, 1995; Coombs & Holladay, 1996). Because the two key characteristics of crises that they are unexpected and negative (Coombs, 2006) causes of an event in Attribution Theory (Weiner, 1985), it is reasonable to connect crisis with

PAGE 15

15 Attribution Theory. In Attribution Theory, the threat of a crisis largely comes from the public's blaming of the organization that is responsible for the crisi s (Coombs, 2006). For instance, crisis experts found that respondents attribute more blame to an organization perceived as responsible for the crisis, and would be less likely to have a good impression about this organization (Jin, 2009). Based upon the pu blic's attribution of blame, managers can better assess the threat (Coombs, 1995). Research Gap While most studies were to guide practitioners in choosing a crisis response strategy from an organizational point of view (i.e., trying to find a way to reduce financial loss or legal liability), a research gap exists regarding selecting organizational crisis strategy from a public based standpoint. This gap needs to be closed so that an organization can match crisis response strategy with the psychological need s and impressions of the public and create a successful crisis communication campaign (Coombs, 2006; Jin, 2010). Additionally, intercultural communication studies have served as beacons in terms of identifying emotional universality and nuanced difference s between cultures (Andersen, 2009). Clearly, cultural preferences, local traditions, demographic patterns, and cultural dynamics all affect the effectiveness of crisis response strategy (Taylor, 2000; Haruta & Kirk, 2003; Giebels & Taylor, 2009; Wertz & Kim, 2010). Purpose of Study In order to create a useful rubric for evaluation of crisis communication strategy effectiveness, this paper tests and compares the effectiveness of crisis response strategies in different cultural settings. First, this study explores which crisis response

PAGE 16

16 strategy is more effective in mitigating negative public emotion, and if there is any such effectiveness. Second, this study investigates which strategy would be more effectiveness. Finally, this study examines if there is any relations hip between emotion and blame attribution. Importance of Study Given that alleviating the public's negative emotion and blame attribution is essential for restoring an o rganizational image (Coombs & Holladay, 2004), the effectiveness of a certain strategy deserves more academic attention in public relations. This study focuses on testing the negative emotions and levels of blame of key publics. Unlike a negative attitude, which may occurs when a crisis is not handled appropriately, some negative emotions, such as anxiety and alertness, are identified as default emotions in crisis and appear automatically in stressful situations (Choi & Lin, 2009; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2012 ). This means that no matter what post crisis strategy is emotion. This study provides practitioners with a public oriented perspective to estimate the effectiveness of a crisis response strategy, and aims to offer practitioners an optimal choice when choosing a strategy. Also, by providing scholars comparative results from an experiment, this research gives crisis managers an empirical and insightful system to cope w ith intercultural crisis.

PAGE 17

17 cultural crisis communication.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Emotion: A public based perspective of crisis communication Crisis communication is communication field has grown fast and produced many volumes of research findings. Researchers mainly conducted case stud ies in the late 1990s, when they conducted many content analysis studies based upon real world cases (Kim & Cameron, 2011). Since then, theorists have been building a theoretical framework to generalize the findings from crisis communication case studies. When it comes to the question of how to shape appropriate crisis response strategy for organizations, two dominant theories Situational Crisis Communication Theory (Coombs, 1995; C oombs & Holladay, 1996; Coombs & Holladay, 2004; Coombs, 2006). These two theories were designed as roadmaps to understand what strategies are relevant in which situation. However, some argue that a more universal and systemic approach can shape the strate gies from an emotion driven perspective (Jin, Pang & Cameron 2007; Jin, Pang & Cameron 2009). Some researchers argue that, as a key component of crisis perception, emotion involves an interpretation of the stimulus (Carver & Balney, 1977). Lazarus (1991) motivational relational configurations whose status changes with changes in the person environment relationships as this is impor tance of emotion in crisis communication was threefold:

PAGE 19

19 campaign, with respect to the overall persuasiveness of the press release or issue ad, the appeal of spokesperson of the organization, evaluation of particular organizational claims, and appraisals of other aspects of the public relations practice; 2) As the organizational decision making: In dealing with publics in crisis situations, organizational decisions are typically distinguished by several managerial persons being involved in 84). How Does O Influencing Process pe rception of crisis was decided by how the media describe it (Kim & Cameron, 2011) The discrete emotions in context, information, and news act as frames in our life, and such frames shape the way people interpret and respond to events in the real world (N abi, 2003) The Model of Crisis Information Processing (Kim & Cameron, 2011) revealed that people process crisis message in two stages: 1) the initial emotion elicited audie nces of a corporate crisis would process information heuristically, while sad audiences would develop process news stories systematically, and 2) the initial emotion

PAGE 20

20 i nstance, audiences exposed to anger inducing news tend to evaluate the corporation lower than those exposed to sadness inducing news. Specifically, the line of scholarship on emotion based crisis research, which focused on examining how an organizational found that the publics paid more attention to a human interest frame, for instance, victim relief, than to organization punishment information (Cho & Gower, 2006) Therefore, it was argued that adjusting informatio n that contains a more affective message was Kim & Cameron, 2011). Stressful Situations Elicit Negative Emotion Studies have proved that a crisis message would inevitably elicit different negative emotions (Choi & Lin, 2009; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2007; Jin, 2009; Jin, 2010; Kim & Cameron, 2011; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2007; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2009; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2012), and scholars have found a range of negative em otions that could be and confusion were the most frequently expressed attribution independent emotions; psychologist Lazarus (1991) identified six negative emotions in a stressful situation (anger, fright, anxiety, guilt, shame, and sadness); Jin and her colleagues concluded that there are four primary negative public emotions in crisis circumstances: anger, sadness, anxiety, and fright (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2007; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2009; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2012). Crisis experts argued that emotion influences how people think about the organization responsible for a crisis (Kim & Cameron, 2011) One supporting theoretical

PAGE 21

21 framework to this argument was the appra isal theory, which stemmed from psychology and was applied in strategic communication (Stone & Han, 2007; Kim & Cameron, interpretation, and explanation of their surrounding en vironment (Scherer, Schorr, & response, produced through their subjective evaluation when exposed to events (Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001). Among all appraisal the ories, the most cited by emotion focused public relations studies was the Appraisal Tendency Framework (see Kim & Cameron, 2011; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2007). The Appraisal Tendency Framework, proposed by business scholars, addressed how specific emotions r ooted in a prior experience of a similar situation provided reference to make judgments in terms of consumer marketing (Han, Lerner, and Keltner, 2007). Later scholars concluded that the Appraisal Tendency Framework implies that specific emotion can result in a particular appraisal tendency situation (Cananaugh, Bettman, & Luce, 2007) For example, fearful people made passive risk assessments while angry people made optimi stic risk evaluations (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). (Stone & Han, 2007). establish a crisis communication theor etical framework. Her emotion based study of psychological study. Duhacheck (2005) proposed that people cope with stressful

PAGE 22

22 situations with different emotional manifesta tions, and he developed eight types of rational thinking, emotional support, instrumental support, emotional venting, avoidance, positive thinking, and denial. Jin (2010) adop ted these coping mechanisms. For better understanding, she grouped them into three categories: cognitive (rational thinking and positive thinking), conative (action and instrumental support) and affective (emotional support and emotional venting). Jin sugg ested that the constituencies innately deal with crisis regarding different levels of predictability and controllability by using three coping strategies accordingly. Emotion and Crisis Responsibility Previous study showed that the public attributed diffe rent levels of responsibility when they went through different negative emotions ( Lerner & Keltner, 2001; Jin, 2010). In other words, the extent to which the public assigns responsibility to an organization was a significant predictor of their negative emo tion (Choi & Lin, 2009; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2009). Weiner (1986) argued that when audiences were digesting a piece of information, they were likely to generate general emotion about the crisis. After processing information, audiences would then search fo r attribution, and such attribution elicited different emotions, for instance anger, fear, surprise, worry, contempt, and relief (Choi & Lin, 2009). Similarly, Jin (2009) held that emotion in crisis was related to crisis predictability and controllabilit y. She examined the variances in the emotional responses of members of the public by testing their appraisal of crisis predictability and controllability. The result suggested that: 1) when stakeholders were exposed to highly predictable crisis

PAGE 23

23 situations that they had little control over, sadness was reported as the primary emotion; 2) when they were exposed to crisis situations that were both hard to predict and difficult to control, fright was reported as the primary emotion; 3) when constituencies were exposed to highly predictable and highly controllable crisis circumstances, anger was reported as the primary emotion. Coombs and Holladay (2004) also tested the influence of emotions in the SCCT model by integrating crisis responsibility. According to th eir research, if the public attributed a higher level of crisis responsibility to an organization, they would feel stronger anger and schadenfreude (satisfaction with the pain of other people) (Coombs & Holladay, 2005) The stronger negative emotion member s of the public hold, the less likely they would be supportive of an organization (Coombs & Holladay, 2004) Integrated Crisis Mapping (ICM) Model The Integrated Crisis Mapping model was proposed by Jin, Pang, & Cameron (2007; 2009; 2012). It was a syste corporate action, and crisis type together, which was regarded as a crisis management The model was initially proposed and named as Integrated Crisis Mapping in the year 2007, and in the year 2012, the authors tested t he model with the scientific method and revised it (see Figure 2 1 ). Four elements were included in the IMC model: primary negative emotions, moderate engagement, conative coping (i.e. publics takes actions to deal with a stressful situation), and types of crises. The main conclusions of this model

PAGE 24

24 were: 1) crises elicit four primary negative emotions, i.e. anger, sadness, fright, and anxiety; 2) among those four primary negative emotions, anxiety is the default emotion, which means whenever there is a cris crisis situations, and segme nted publics are distinguishable by their emotional engagement (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2009; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2012). The ICM model contributed to mapping out the negative emotions that may occur to stakeholders during crises, and it addressed the signi strategies should be in accordance with the emotional needs of the public (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2007; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2009). Emotion ser to day work. Researchers suggested that the attacking an accuser, scapegoat, and excuse strategies are the most acceptable to an angry publics, and compensation and apology are preferred when dea ling with a sad publics (Jin, 2009); also, people tend to evaluate corporations more positively when the message contains more emotional appeal than information with little emotional appeal (Kim & Cameron, 2011). Attribution of Blame When social ps ychologists speak of attribution, they often mean responsibility attributions and blame attributions, which are judgments of a moral nature (Malle, 2007). Social psychologists assumed that people develop explanations about what is happening to make sense o f the world, and put forward attribution theory to provide an

PAGE 25

25 (McDermott, 2009). Psychologist Fritz Heider first developed attribution theory in his book The Psychology of Inter personal Relations (Heider, 1958). In the 1970s and 1980s, Bernard attribution theory was done by Harold Kelley, who investigated how people validate their perceptions by consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus (Simmering, 2007). There are three dimensions to scrutinize attributions: stability, external control, and personal control/locus (Weiner, 1986). Stability reflects whether the cause of the event is frequent. I f the same cause appears repeatedly, it is stable, but the mistake is unstable or it shows infrequently. External control refers to whether the cause of the crisis was controllable or uncontrollable by any other element. For instance, if another element co ntrols what happens to the stakeholder, there is an external control in the on exter nal control and locus demonstrates an overlap, Wilson et al. (1993) suggested that the two causal dimensions be combined as one. Although primarily used to examine interpersonal processing, Attribution Theory has been applied to many social science disci plines (Hart, 2005) For example, Coombs (2006) applied it to crisis management to examine perceptions of crises and their impact on organizational image. He held that people in threatening situations tend to find out who is responsible for leading the cri sis; thus, if an organization is blamed by the public,

PAGE 26

26 Attribution Theory to crisis communication. Situational Crisis Communication Theory Inspired by psychological res earch on Attribution Theory, Timothy Coombs spent over ten years building his Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT). Because the two key characteristics of crises that they are unexpected and negative (Coombs, 2006) are also the key traits that dr in Attribution Theory (Weiner, 1985), it is reasonable to connect crisis with Attribution however, the author took legal and financial cost into consideration (Coombs, 2005). is essential to identify what factors shape how stakeholders perceive a crisis. Given its origins in Attrib ution Theory, the central point of the SCCT was the idea of crisis responsibility. Coombs (2007) stated that stakeholders decide whether or not an organization was responsible or not responsible for a crisis, and if stakeholders attribute greater responsib affected negatively. The SCCT was a two stage system: first, identify crisis type; second, identify crisis intensifiers. There were three types of crisis in accordance with th ree levels of attributions of organizational crisis responsibility. The first crisis cluster was victim, which means the organization has very low responsibility, or sometimes even the organization itself is a victim of the crisis. This cluster included na tural disaster, rumor, workplace violence, and product tampering crises (Coombs & Holladay, 2007). The

PAGE 27

27 second one was the accidental cluster. The defining characteristic of an accidental crisis was that it was unintentional. This cluster included challenge s, megadamage, technical breakdown accidents, and technical breakdown product recalls (Coombs, 2006). This cluster produced moderate attribution to the responsible organization. The third cluster, and the most difficult one to manage, was called preventabl e crisis. In a preventable crisis, stakeholders often strongly believe that the organization is responsible for a crisis. Some examples for this type of crisis included three variations of organizational misdeeds, human breakdown product recall, and human breakdown accident (Coombs, 2006). In addition to crisis type, Coombs (2004) and his colleague added intensifiers to 2006, p. 182). There were three intensifiers in SCCT: 1) crisis history, or whether a similar crisis happened in the past; 2) crisis severity, or the amount of damage from the accident; 3) and relationship history, or whether the organization had a good re cord of behavior toward stakeholders (Coombs, 2004) perception of organizational responsibility, while a negative performance history intensifies the attribution of crisis responsibility (Coombs, 2004; Coombs, 2006). When applying crisis situation theory to practical work, Coombs (2004) suggested that practitioners should better match crisis response strategies with a combination of assessments of crisis type and modifiers. The basic idea behind this guidance was that level of responsibility (Coombs, 2006), and that the objective of crisis response strategy

PAGE 28

28 hange perception for the organization in crisis SCCT developed four postures of crisis response strategies, based upon perceptions of accepting responsibility for a crisis. Four prima ry types of crisis response strategies were proposed: 1) denial, 2) diminish, 3) rebuild, and 4) bolster. Table 2 1 explains the SCCT crisis response strategies (Coombs, 2007) Coombs (2006) proposed that different crisis response strategies imply differen t degrees of acceptance of crisis responsibility. For example, victim organizations should use denial. In an accident crisis, organizations were encouraged to use the diminish strategy, while in a preventable type of crisis an organization should use the r ebuild strategy. The bolster strategy was found to be helpful in every situation; therefore, it was argued, bolstering should be used together with other strategies to optimize effectiveness (Coombs, 2006). crisis communication field, critics refuted that certain public relations crisis situations were better settled if organizations adopted specific crisis response strategies. For example, in the real world, the Red Cross only chose crisis response strategie s suggested by SCCT one third of the time (Sisco, Collins, & Zoch, 2010). Claeys and his colleagues (2010) also learned that the interaction between the SCCT crisis type and the crisis response strategy to deal with organizational reputation was not that s ignificant. In addition to that, evidence has shown that crisis communication outside of America was practiced not exactly the same with American public relations professionals (Harro Loit, Vihalemm, & Ugur, 2012).

PAGE 29

29 Cultural Issues in Crisis Communication While the U.S. is the birthplace of public relations theory and has dominated public relations for several decades, intercultural/international public relations is one of the most quickly evolving areas in public relations, and U.S. dominance in this area is fading (Botan & Hazleton, 2006) The rapid growth of public relations practice worldwide brings us many new cultural insights (Botan & Hazleton, 2006) With the growing number of multinational corporations and the development of modern media, crise s can travel across geographical boundaries easily (Lindholm & Olsson, 2011). Despite the fact that intercultural public relations is still a underdeveloped area (Boton & Hazelton, 2006), scholars argued that there has been an increasing need for public re lations practitioners to develop an understanding of not only different cultures, but also how cultural variances influence modern public relations work (Kanso, Sinno, & Adams, 2001) Intercultural crisis experts often look at differences of practic e through the lens of (An, Park, Cho, & Berger, 2010; Haruta & Kirk, 2003; Wertz & Kim, 2010; Taylor, 2000). Cultural dimensions established criteria for describing different cul tural features and provided an intercultural perspective to crisis management. programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from anot differences among national societies and identified five areas of common differences.

PAGE 30

30 The diffe rences are identified as power distance, femininity versus masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long term versus short term orientation, and individualism and collectivism (Hofstede, 1984). Hofstede then investigated how these cultural variances influenced corporate behavior in many countries. Among all five cultural dimensions, collectivism and individualism is the one that has been studied most thoroughly, especially in cross cultural psychology, to explain differences between Asian culture and Wes tern culture (Triandis, 1995). This dimension independence, self initiative (H ofstede, 1984), self dependency, freedom of choice, and individual rights over duties (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, & Tipton, 1985) whereas group, conformity, harmony, sha ring duties, and obligations (Hofstede, 1984). (Martin & Nakayama, 2008, p. 109). For example, North European coun tries value small power distance (Taylor, 2000), and citizens from those countries believe that less hierarchy is better and that power should be used only for legitimate purposes (Martin & Nakayama, 2008). Taylor (2000) held that power distance can help p ublic relations practitioners better understand the it reflects how people deal with inequality and conflict. Also, it was argued that people from regions with a hig her power distance were less likely to trust authority and power.

PAGE 31

31 Masculinity femininity valuing fluid gender roles, quality of life, service, relationships, and interdependence and the de gree of being masculine emphasizing distinctive gender roles, ambition, masculine side of this dimension stands for a society that prefers achievement, heroism, assertiveness, an d material reward for success. A society with higher level of masculinity is more competitive (Hofstede, 2012). yama, 2008, p. 104), which means that people feel threatened by ambiguous situations and try to establish more structure to compensate for the ambiguity. Great Britain, Sweden, Hong Kong, and the United States are all weak uncertainty avoidance societies, and people from those regions prefer to limit rules, accept dissent, and take risks (Martin & Nakayama, 2008). Long term versus short term orientation, also known as Confucian dynamism, was developed later than the previous four dimensions in orde r to compensate for Western bias (Martin & Nakayama, 2008) People with this long term trait are concerned with the demands of virtue and are more willing to accept slow results (Haruta & Kirk, 2003) ome scholars, have been proved by decades of research and helped reduce uncertainty in intercultural communication encounters (Olaniran, 1996; Martin & Nakayama, 2008) Despite being cited in many fields, the cultural dimensions theory was criticized for b eing static and not taking social changes, power, diversity, and other activism into scope (McSweeney, 2002). Those

PAGE 32

32 deficiencies might not have enforced comprehensive understanding of each specific culture, but reinforced national stereotypes (McSweeney, 2 002). Cultural Issues, Blame of Attribution, and Negative Emotions cultural crisis communication scholars studied several intercultural cases by contrasting organizational r esponses of different cultures, for instance, a Korean rotten dumpling crisis and an American E. coli spinach crisis (Wertz & Kim, 2010), a Japan Airlines crisis and an American Delta Air crisis (Haruta & Kirk, 2003) and Coca Cola crises in six European c ountries (Taylor, 2000), etc. All of these studies revealed significant differences in the use of apology, media strategies, and litigation concerns. For instance, Taylor (2000) concluded from the Coca live in natio ns that are high in uncertainty avoidance and power distance tend to react onse strategies. Lee (2010) studied organizational crisis in Hong Kong and concluded that apology, compensation, and corrective action demonstrated a hierarchy of acceptance of crisis responsibility, and Hong Kong respondents did not show much sympathy tow ards apology strategy. This result was in scholar who argued that publics usually did not have a personal understanding of crisis background information and were not able to e acceptance of responsibility, for instance through apology, could be effective in American culture (Weiner, Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991). The difference of

PAGE 33

33 attribution of blame. crisis reaction, and found that Koreans revealed a higher level of anger than Americans towards the responsible organization. respondents consider the empl so they might regard blaming an individual in an organizational crisis as inappropriate. Hypotheses and Research Questions Based upon the literature r eview and exxisting theory, the Chinese and American cultures were selected as the two comparative cultures in this study, because the U.S. was the birthplace of public relations as well as crisis communication, and represents Western culture. On the other hand, China, where crisis communication evolved rapidly in recently years, represents Eastern culture, and provides a contrast with Western culture. The following Figure 2 2 between China and America. According to An et al. (2010), people with different cultural backgrounds would perceive the same organizational crisis differently. They tested the relationship between individualism risis, attitudes, emotions, and impressions toward the organization than those respondents

PAGE 34

34 org anizational crisis when compared with American respondents assign more blame attribution and express more negative emotion. Thus from an intercultural and public based crisis communication perspective, the author predicted that it would be more difficult in an organizational crisis. Two hypotheses were proposed: H1: Organizational crisis response strategies would be less effective in ame in China than in America. H2: Organizational crisis response strategies would be less effective in mitigating negative emotion in China than in America. Previous intercultural crisis communication studies have also suggested othe r cultural dimensions might be valuable as a tool to analyze cross cultural differences, and were underscored in previous studies (Haruta & Hallahan, 2003). Confucian dynamism, also known as long term versus short term orientation, was found highly related held that those nations with higher levels of Confucian dynamism placed an emphasis on virtue over truth. As such, individuals from countries with a higher score in Confucian dynamism held less tolerance for ambiguity. This mindset makes it more difficult for companies to satisfy stakeholders through avoidance of responsibility. Based on this, the following hypothesis was drawn:

PAGE 35

35 H3: A higher level of power distance is posi level of blame attribution and lower level of negative emotion. In regards to crisis communication strategies, Coombs (2006) found that the most frequently used crisis communication strategy types were: denial (tak ing responsibility apology and corrective action), diminish (the attempt of minimizing the responsibility), s (2011) study analyzed breakdown percentage was: denial (47.4%), diminish (9.2%), deal (41.3%), and silence (1.8%). This study will be only focusing on testing the effects of denial, diminish and rebuild clusters. Previous research conducted has shown that silence was more effective in Eastern countries than in Western countries (Lee, 2004; Davis & Holtgraves, 1984). Easterners demonstrated a more tolerant attitude t owards non comments response due to the fact that, in their culture, a silent, reserve gesture is often regarded Secondly, some crisis response strategies under deal cluster have also been tested in cross cultural studies, while some were not. For example, An, Park, Cho, and Berger (2010) suggested that organizations from highly collectivistic culture should not punish individuals in an internal crisis. Corrective actions such as punishing staff could elicit negative public sentiment toward the company. However, the cross cultural effectiveness of rebuild strategies, such as compensate were seldom studied.

PAGE 36

36 Other strategies, such as bolstering and praising others, were considered as caring for victims, and sympathy towards stakeholders (Coombs, 2007). Coombs (2007) believed that this type of crisis r esponse strategy were used to supplement the primary responses (e.g. diminish, denial and rebuild), not as a replacement, and were considered effective in any type of crisis communication. Since research has been conducted in the aforementioned areas, this study is designed to test the effectiveness of these three clusters in cross cultural crisis communication.

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2 1 Revised Integrated Crisis Mapping Model Jin, Pang, & Cameron, Toward a public driven, emotion based conceptualization in crisi s communication: Unsearthing dominant emotions in multi staged testing of the integrated crisis mapping (ICM) model, 2012

PAGE 38

38 Table 2 1 Crisis Response strategies, by Postures

PAGE 39

39 Figure 2 2

PAGE 40

40 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY A n experiment is an appropriate method to test the hypotheses for this study P revious studies showed that an experiment was the proper way to test, compare, and contrast differences between cultures (An, Park, Cho, & Berger, 2010; Diener, Osshi & Siswas Diener, 201 2). Therefore, this study adopt ed a 2 (nationality : China vs. the U.S. ) 4 ( crisis response strategies : denial, justification, apology, and control group ) between subjects experiment design to test the hypotheses. Participants This study collected a total of 330 responses but after excluding incomplete responses 16.97% ( n =56), a total of 274 were participated in this study. Among the participants, 48.5 % ( n= 1 33 ) were Chinese while 51.5 % ( n= 1 41 ) were American respondents. The Chinese respondents were recruited at Remin University of China whereas t he American participants were re cruited at the University of Florida. Since it is difficult to reach Chinese respondents via traditional paper pe ncil method, this study conduct ed this experiment online via Qualtrics. Gender (male n = 99, 36.1%; female n = 175, 63.9%) and age ( M = 21.5, S D = 2.53) were measured as possible variables Procedure All participants w ere asked to report nationality and po wer distance level before expos ing to stimuli. Then, they w ere randomly assigned to only one of the experimental conditions. A merican t reatment groups w ere exposed to an English crisis news article in addition to three organizational crisis response strategies, while Chinese treatment groups w ere exposed to the same translated stimuli. After reading the crisis news article

PAGE 41

41 participants w e re asked to report their attributions of blame and negative emotions toward the company. Stimulus Material Crisis type This study use d a preventable crisis type a technical error accident leading to c ell phone battery explosion. A preventable crisis ty pe was chosen due to its frequency, since 85% of organizational crises were of the preventable type (An, Gower, & Cho, 2011). Cell phone battery explosion was chosen, because: 1) a cell phone battery is a product in which stud ents would be highly invested and participants will perceive a daily used product more seriously (Coombs, 2007); an d 2) a cell phone battery problem is a scenario that respondents are familiar with, because similar crises have happened before. An example of this was the Kyocera Wirele ss case in 2004 (Charny, 2004) A fictitious company w as used to prevent any previous company judgments that might be attributed to actual organizations. The constru cted crisis news article w as about a cell phone battery explosion at TG Technology (i.e., fictitious company), caused by human error. The news article includes a brief description about the battery explosion and an organizational crisis response (i.e., denial, justification, or apology). In order to rule out possible confounding effects, the locatio n of the crisis w as kept domestic: the explosion crisis happened in Hebei Province for Chinese participants, and this province is adjacent to Beijing, where the majority of Chinese respondents live; and Florida for American participants, wh ere Amer ican respondents w ere recruited. For the same concern the choice of news agency w as also kept domestic: Associate Press for American participants, and Xinhua Press for Chinese respondents.

PAGE 42

42 remain ed the same, but w as translated into Ch inese for Chinese participants. In order to help participa nts believe the news stories were real, the experiment w as conducted online wi th news stories. In addition, all stimuli w ere translated into Chinese for Chinese partici pants by the author, and were verified by a Chinese doctoral student. A pretest was conducted to ensure that participants response would not be affected by readability of translation. Participants were asked to answer I think this news article reads well in a seven point Likert scale (1 = disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Respondents reported similar evaluation s in terms of the readability ( F (1, 69) = .326, p = .570). Crisis response strategy Although An, Gower, and Cho (2011) categorized four crisis response postures ( denial, diminish, rebuild and bolstering), some other scho lars suggested silence to be a fifth posture (see Lyu, 2011 ). This study, however, did not examine the silence posture, because previous studies have suggested that the silence posture is more effec tive in Eastern countries. Also, this study did not examine secondary strategies such as bolstering, because Coombs (2007) stated that this type of crisis response strategy would be more effective as a supplement ed strategy, while the other three types of strategies are not replaceable. Since denial, diminish and rebuild strategy clusters include more than one specific crisis response strategy (see Table 2 1), this study select ed only one strategy from each posture: a denial strategy from the denial post ure, a justification strategy from the diminish posture, and an apology strategy from the rebuildi ng posture. A denial strategy

PAGE 43

43 was selected because it has been most often used in preventable crisis, and 47.7% of organizational responses to a preventable c risis were denial (An, Gower, and Cho, 2 011). A justification strategy wa s selected because the strategy was frequently used in the Eastern culture, but seldom seen in the Western culture (e.g., Wertz & Kim, 2010). The salient difference in the adoption of justification would provide a better change to explore cultural differen n of blame and negative emotions inflicted by the crisis. Finally, previous studies have shown that in some Eastern cultures, such as Korea and Japan, a pologizing does not necessarily mean accepting responsibility (Wertz & Kim, 2010; Haruta & Kirk, 2003). Thus, to explore further cultural differences in emotions and blame attributions, this stu dy select ed an apology strategy from the rebuilding posture. For a de nial strategy, the news article include d crisis responses such as TG justification strategy conditi on include d hig battery products are still safe, especially compared to contemporary battery products. For an apology strategy, the company issue d an apology offering deep and sincere condolence f or the victims of the crisis. In order to insure the appropriateness of those strategies, all three response messages were reviewed and verified by a crisis communication expert.

PAGE 44

44 Measures Power distance scale Power distance levels of respondents were measured because this study is interpersonal power or influence between [boss] and [subordi nate] as perceived by the 71). Hofstede (1984) developed several questions to test the power distance dimension. To measure participan individualism, this study adopted and revised Klein & Dawar s (2004) power distance scale, such the following three questions measured through Likert scale s ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). 1. Students should not disagree with decisions made by professors. 2. I believe that students should not treat tea chers as equals. 3. Teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class Negative emotions d by the crisis, this study adopt ed emotion measures from Jin, Pang, and Cameron (2007; 2009; 2 012). fearful, afraid ; and 4) nervous, anx ious, worried. Responses w ere recorded with a 7 point Likert type scale, with 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree Blame attribution

PAGE 45

45 This study adopt ed and modif ied Klein and Dawar s (2007) scale to measure point Likert type sc ale that asks respondents to address the following : 1) TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. 2) TG Technology should be held accountable for the battery explosion. 3) The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology. Measures The reliability test was performed to examine the negative emotions scale, attribution of blame scale and power distance scale. The data showed that for negative the four negat ive emotion items was .83, for the three negative attribution items was .86, and the three power distance items score were .995. Therefor e the measures in this study are reliable.

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Manipulation check To ascertain whether the experimental manipulations were effective a one way ANOVA were performed. A si gnificant difference among the three crisis response strategies was found. For denial response strategy, those who exposed to the denial response strategy considered the company denied their responsibility for the cris is ( M = 5.14, SD =1.700) more than those in the apology condition ( M = 3.101, SD =1.619 T ukey HSD p < 01 ) but not significantly different from those in the justification condition ( M = 4.75, SD =1.631 Tukey HSD p = .99). Respondents exposed to justif ication response strategy considered the company justified the responsibility for the crisis ( M = 4.17, SD = 1.840) more than those in apology strategy condition ( M = 2.61, SD = 1.583 Tukey HSD p < .01 ) but considered it not much different from the denia l response strategy ( M = 3.30, SD = 1.727 Tukey HSD p = .317). Participants exposed to apology strategy considered the company apologized for the crisis ( M = 5.22, SD = 1.57) more than those in justification condition (M = 2.55, SD = 1.481 Tukey p < .01 ) or denial condition ( M = 2.53, SD = 1.657 Tukey p = .039 ) Considering in a preventable type crisis, people may regard justification as a kind of denial, because both of the strategies were aiming at evading responsibility, therefore it is acceptable tha t people consider these two strategies are similar in this case. Therefore, the stimuli manipulation was successful. Test of Hypotheses H1: Organizational crisis response strategies would be less effective in ina than in America.

PAGE 47

47 H1 examined the effectiveness of different crisis response strategies in terms of ribution of blame. Because all three items in the attribution of blame measurement were testing the same d imension, the author of this paper collapsed the value of those three items. An ANOVA test was conducted to test this hypothesis. Results showed that the difference between Chinese F (1, 266) = 4.15, p = .04. As predicted in H1, organization al response strategies were more effective among the US respondents ( M = 5.51, SD = 1.06) than Chinese respondents ( M = 5.78, SD = 1.03) in terms of alleviating attribution of blame. Thus H1 was supported. Results also indicated that there was a significant main effect of organizational F (3, 266) = 3.72, p = M = 5.32, SD = .216) turned out to be the most effective corporate response strategy among 3 treatment group s and 1 control group, and apology ( M = 5.82, SD = 122) has the t difference existed between denial ( M = 5.32, SD = .216) and the control group ( M = 5.83, SD = .122, Tukey HSD p = .024 ) A considerable difference also exists between apology ( M = 5.82, SD = .123) and denial ( M = 5.32, SD = .126, Tukey HSD p = .045 ) Da ta also revealed that there is a significant two way interaction effect between nationality and crisis response strategies in terms of blame attribution: F (3, 266) = 3.09 p =.028. When examin ing the data for each treatment group, Chinese participants at tributed significant higher blame levels to the company than Americans for justificatio n ( p = .05 ; p 2 = .014 ) and apology ( p = .04, p 2 = .016). However, the participants from

PAGE 48

48 both countries who exposed to control stimuli ( p = .087, p 2 = 011) and denia l stimuli ( p = .108, p 2 = 010) did not revealed much difference in terms of blame attribution Please see Table 3 1 and Figure 3 1 Among all 8 experiment groups, Chinese apology treatment group revealed the highest level of blame, while the denial stra tegy in China created the lowest level of blame attribution. H2: Organizational crisis response strategies would be less effective in mitigating negative emotion in China than in America. A MANOVA test was conducted to explore H2, which predicted a signif icant main All four items of negative emotions were explored using a MANOVA because this study uch as anger, sadness, fear and anxiety. .947, F ( 1 266 ) = 3.704, p = .006) indicating Chinese participants tended to reveal more negative emotions than American partic ipants effect on each individual negative emotion, results showed that anger ( F (1, 266) = 5.12, p = .022) and anxiety ( F (1, 226) = 12.40 p = .001) was more significantly affe cted by nationality than sadness ( F (1, 266) = 1. 85 p = .175) and fear ( F (1, 266) = 3.29 p = .071) When comparing people from which country has more intensive negative emotion, Chinese respondents experienced significant higher anger (Mean Difference = .371, SD = .161, p = .022 p 2 = .022) and anxiet y (Mean Difference = .632, SD = .179, p = .001 p 2 = .001) than American respondents (see Table 3 2) However Chinese sadness (Mean Difference = .242, SD = .178 p = .175 p 2 = .007) and fear

PAGE 49

49 (Mean Difference = .330, SD = .182, p = .071 p 2 = 0 12 ) was not significantly different from American respondents. Therefore, for H2, Organizational cri sis response strategies are less effective in mitigating anger and anxiety in China than in America but have similar effect in mitigating sadness and fear in China and America. F ( 3 266 ) = 5.23, p < 0001 ). There were significant differences among different crisis strategies in terms of a ll negative emotions : anger: F (3, 266) = 10.28, p < .0001; sadness: F (3, 266) = 4.90, p = .002; fear: F (3, 266) = 12.95, p < .000 1 ; anxiety : F (3, 266) = 11.31, p < .000 1. When the company used an apology strategy, respond ents regardless of nationality t end to show less anger than control group (Tukey HSD, p < .0001), justification group (Tukey HSD, p < .0001), and denial group (Tukey HSD, p < .0001). Also the experiment al groups exposed to justification strategy (Tukey HSD, p < .0001), apology strategy (Tukey HSD, p < .0001), and denial strategy (Tukey HSD, p = .003) displayed less fear than the control group. Respondents from justification group (Tukey HSD, p = .001), apology group (Tukey HSD, p <.0001), and denial (Tukey HSD, p = .004) revealed less an xiety than the control group. However, no significant interaction effect was found between nationality and crisis response strategies in terms of negative emotions: F ( 3 266 ) = 1.03, p = .415. H3: A higher level of power distance i higher level of blame attribution and lower level of negative emotion.

PAGE 50

50 attribution and level of negative emotion. Mean scores of power distanc e measure were calculated for an ANOVA test Surprisingly, the ANOVA test revealed that there was no significant difference in the level of power distance between Chinese and Americans, F (1, 266) = .107, p = .744. A series of correlation tests were perfor med to identify the relation between power distance and blame attribution and between power distance and n egative emotion. The data showed that there is no correlation between power distance and attribution of blame (Pearson Correlation = .073, p = .114) The analysis run between power distance and negative emotion yielded the same result : anger: Pearson Correlation = .117, p = .027; sadness: Pearson Correlation = .002, p = .484; fear: Pearson Correlation = .110, p = .034; Anxiety Pearson Correlat ion = .110, p = 035 Therefore, H3 was not supported.

PAGE 51

51 Table 4 1 Mean and Standard Deviation of Blame attribution in China and the US Figure 4 1 Interaction between Nationality and Corporate Response in Reducing

PAGE 52

52 Table 4 2 Means and Standard Deviati on of Negative Emotions for Crisis Response Strategies in the United States and China

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The current investigation revealed that 1) overall, crisis response strategies are in China than in the US, 2) crisis response strategies are also less effective regardi ng diminishing public anger and anxiety in China than in the US, and 3) the difference of power dista nce between not correlated with their blame attributions and negative emotions toward the organization in crisis. The findings of this study should be carefully interpret ed: although denial strategy most effectively reduced blame attribution in this study, it does not necessarily infer th at denial strategy is the best practice in every crisis. For example, Huang (2006) suggested that denial strategy is more appropriate in a commission situation (i.e. no evidence of corporate commission), while justification strategy is more effective in a control situation (i.e. evidence of corporate commission, but no evidence of corporate control). Moreover, denial strategy may be most e ffective in reducing attributions of crisis responsibility, but it may also generate the most negative corporate reputation or evaluation (e.g. Coombs, 2006). In addition, the findings of this study suggest that although the apology strategy has generated the highest blame attribution, it also has the most significant positive effect in mitigating all 4 negative emotions in both countries Previous literatures also suggested that victims in a crisis want an apology, and this strategy can generate a favorab le reaction from them (see Coombs & Holladay, 2008). Finally, r egardless of corporate response strategies, Chinese revealed more intense negative emotions than

PAGE 54

54 the US audiences. Thus, the result of this study suggested that different crisis response strate gies should be applied when dealing with a cross cultural crisis in different nations. For example, when dealing with a corporate crisis, public relations practitioners should avoid using denial strategy in the US, but may consider applying this strategy i n China. Moreover this experiment may suggest that p ublic relations professionals should be careful w h e n applying apology strategy Previous researchers recommended the apology strategy has long been the response in crisis, because it may be helpful to comfort victims and generate favorable evaluation from them and the apology strategy has the strongest positive effect on perceptions of an organization s reputation. Yet the current study implies that, in a preventable crisis, the apology may potential ly increase the blame attribution from the general public. Furthermore the vast majority of the targets for public crisis response strategies are stakeholders who are not victims of the crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2008) and when an organization offers an apology it opens itself to leg al liability and financial loss (Bradford & Garrett, 1995 ; Dean, 2004) There are several interesting findings in this study. First of all, this study indicated that in a preventable type crisis, denial effectively reduced th attribution of blame in China, however apology and justification ha ve limited effect s for (1996, 2007) recommendations it can be explained from a cultu ral perspective In Chinese culture, apology does not necessarily mean accepting the responsibility. In fact, it is often used to soften the conversation (Chinese Business Culture, 2009) China is not the only country that use apology in this way. Other As ian countries, such as

PAGE 55

55 South Korea, also have a tendency to adopt this rhetorical approach to downplay their part in crises (Wertz & Kim, 2010). Additionally, it should be noted that denial strategy was more effective in ttribution of blame than expected. To understand such findings, public relations practitioners should first pay attention to traditional Chinese philosophy. Traditional Chinese philosophy emphasizes movi ng after rational and deep thinking ( ), arguing with solid evidence ( ) and listening to both sides of a story ( ). Also, Chinese people treat cases involving human life with the utmost care ( ). Therefore, Chinese respondents may value accur acy over response speed regarding crisis cases in which death s are involved Chinese people tended to demonstrate a higher level of tolerance toward further investigation and more solid evidence, and therefore they showed higher tendency to accept the deni al strategy. However, t he finding above is not in line with previous studies, which predicted that people s level of uncertainty avoidance is related to their to lerance toward the accuracy. For example, Hofestede s (2012) cultural dimension index suggeste d that China (scored 24) has a lower level of uncertainty avoidance than the US (scored 36). Another surprising finding is that Chinese respondents demonstrated a similar level of power distance to the US respondents distance index, there should be a huge difference between Chinese power distance and that of the US (China scored 91 and the US scored 20). Th ese two surprising finding s may be were recruited from a graduate college in Beijing. These highly educated participants from an

PAGE 56

56 international metropolis may be more open to Western ideology. This finding may imply that the gap of power distance between China and the US is narrowing down, and changing and dynamic. According to Pew Global Attitude Project (2012) report, the roug about democracy. Therefore, there is a need to extensively and systematically re c ultural dimension index This study also revealed that in a crisis situation, C hinese demonstrated more intense negative emotions than American regardless of corporate response strategy. This finding is consistent with prior psychological studies. For example, Scollon et al. (2004) suggested that in each culture people view events as either desirable or undesirable, and react with either pleasant or unpleasant emotions respectively. In their study, they observed 5 groups of people, who are European Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Japanese, and Indians, and reported that Europe an Americans and Hispanics displayed the lowest level of unpleasant emotion, whereas Asian Americans, Japanese, and Indians were higher in unpleasant feelings. Therefore, in this case, although the US respondents were angry with TG Technology, they were no t as outrageous as their Chinese counterparts. With regard to anger and emotion s in recent years. Pew Global Attitude Project (2012) reported that, given the number of high profile product safety scandals in recent years, the Chinese public is increasingly

PAGE 57

57 worried about consumer protection. Plus there is also a growing scandal over the quality and safety of Chinese made exports, ranging from contaminated pet food and counterfeit toothpaste to toxic toys (Barboza, 2007) and the Chinese consumer confidence to domestic product was badly damaged.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 6 IMPLICATION AND LIMITATION Currently, t he ever increasing globalization of communication and growing global business es dictate that public relations practitioners must consider culture when creating messages. This study further emphasizes the importance of culture to be considered in crisis com munication. From a theoretical point of view, the current study validated and advanced the Integrated Crisis Mapping model and cognitive appraisal approach literature ( e.g. Jin, 2009) in the context of an organizational crisis. Specially, this study supp orted : 1) crisis situation can universally elicit negative emotion, such as anger, sadness, fear and anxiety but t here is a cultural difference between such elicited emotions ; 2) the elated to the strategy that the organizations use. Instead of being organization centered and situation e.g., Jin, Pang & Cameron 2007). The finding of this study highlights one key aspect of best practice of crisis Organization should identify different emotions and attribution of blame with different intensity experienced by publics in various crises, so as to strategically choose the most effective response in different countries. Organizations should play the role as intercultural messaging facilitators in the eyes of publics and respect the nature of people from differe nt cultures with the sincerity.

PAGE 59

59 This study also indicated that the rapid trend of globalization has homogenized the difference of cultures to some extent, and the modern Chinese culture has changed hugely compared to its history. The trend should be furth er examined in future research. International public relations practitioners should notice that the Chinese people are more concerned with inequality in recent years. This is also a sign for international public relations practitioners that we should not r ely on former experience but firsthand research. At the same time, when preparing for and managing a cross cultural crisis, one of the top priorit ies could be to psychological status and needs. There are several limita tions that need to be addressed regarding the present study. First, it should be acknowledged that this study employed only one corporate crisis type, limiting the generalizability of its findings. In real world, organizational contexts are involved with m any crisis types, such as human error accident, technical error recalls and etc., and those crisis types should be further examined to extend the finding of this study. Second, the selected company could be improved in future work. Although participants be lieve that a battery explosion crisis may happen in real life, and this study did find a significant difference between the corporate crisis response strategies, a evaluation of t he company and negative emotions. Additionally, the use of a translated instrument may always be problematic. Although pretest was conducted to ensure its appropriateness, language and different cultural backgrounds may have influenced the prehension and perception when answering the questions. Finally, this experiment study has a weak generalizability, due to the limited number of

PAGE 60

60 participants obtain ed from two universities. Since c ollege students were chosen for convenience in this study the representative ness of the two countries is limited Future research should be conducted among various multiple audiences and cultures/countries.

PAGE 61

61 A PPENDIX A STIMULI Officials: Florida Man Killed by Cellphone Battery Explosion TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -Last week, a 22 year old man in Florida, was killed when his cellphone battery exploded. Emergency responders were unable to revive the man, who died from his injuries while in transit to an area hospital. A coworker who witnessed the incident reporte d that she heard a loud explosion. When she entered the room she found the victim seriously injured on the floor. It is believed the man had just finished charging the phone and placed it in his shirt pocket. The phone in last week's incident was sent to F OCP's Product Analysis Lab outside of Orlando. Early analysis of the phone suggests the explosion occurred due to an improperly manufactured lithium ion battery. due to the failure of TG Technology to follow safety prot ocols during manufacturing, seals around the volatile lithium ion battery do not meet safety expectations. Lithium ion batteries must be sealed completely for safety concerns, but TG Technology's products fail to meet the sealing requirement. This is not the first report of such an explosion involving TG Technology's XH200 model. The Florida Office of Consumer Protection (FOCP) reports 38 similar complaints from 2012, ranging from swelling caused by overcharging, to overheating, fires and explosions. The F OCP believes that there may be more such incidents in 2013 with 14 complaints already filed this year. Diminish Justification ion battery of XH200 adopts a new and innovative technolo gy. Considering a high explosion rate in it has caused a few safety incidents recently, the lithium ion battery is still safer than any other contemporary recharging batt eries. Rebuild Apology victims and their families. We offer our deepest condole nces to those who have been affected by this event and understand this is distressing to our customers and Denial Denial

PAGE 62

62 d iscussion of the incident is entirely speculative and cannot be confirmed at this time. ou r production. Also, this incident was unrelated to TG or any other production

PAGE 63

63 APPENDIX B C HIN ESE VERSION STIMULI 22 TG TG XH200 2012 38 2013 20 TG TG TG Diminish Justification TG XH200 TG TG Rebuild Apology TG TG TG Denial Denial

PAGE 64

64 TG TG

PAGE 65

65 APPENDIX C QUESTIONNARE Consent form Informed Consent Form Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. The study explores the effectiveness of organizational crisis response strategy in a cell phone battery explosion crisis. You will be asked to participate in this study voluntarily. Before participating in the experimental study, you will read a separate informed consent introduction. If you choose to participate in this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your nationality and cultural background and then you will be asked to read a news rele ase about cell phone battery explosion. After that, questions asking your perceptions about the company such as the attributions of crisis responsibility and your response to the crisis will follow. Completion of the study is expected to take about 5 10 minutes. Your participation will contribute to the advancement of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of participants who would be working in the communication and mar keting field in the future would gain insights/experiences in terms of how an experiment study would look like. There will be no names collected; therefore, anonymity will be preserved. Since participants will be randomly assigned to different types of s timuli and questionnaire, exposed to the public. Your identity will be kept anonymous to the extent provided by law. Your participation in this study is voluntary; you may decline to participate without penalty. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is completed, your data will be destroyed, so that you can feel free not to participate. There are no direct benefits or risks to you for participating in the st udy.

PAGE 66

66 Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Xi Jiang Graduate Student Tel: 001 ( 222 ) 222 9306 222 @ufl.edu Or my supervisor: Sora Kim Ph.D. / Assistant Professor Tel: 001 ( 222 ) 222 9306 222 @jou.ufl.edu Whom to contact about you r rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 352 392 0433. I have read the procedure described above. I acknowledge that return of the completed questionnaire constitut es consent to participate. I voluntarily agree to participate in the study. I agree I disagree What is your nationality Chinese American Other American_power distance Please respond to the following questions based on your personal experience. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Students should not disagree Please respond to the following questions based on Students should not Students should not Students should not Students should not Students should not Students should not

PAGE 67

67 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree with decisions made by professors your personal experience. Student s should not disagree with decisions made by profe ssors. Strongly Disagree disagree with decisions made by professors Disagree disagree with decisions made by professors Somewhat Disagree disagree with decisions made by professors Neutral disagree with decisions made by professors Somewhat Agree disagree with decisions made by professors Agree disagree with decisions made by professors Strongly Agree I believe that students should not treat teachers as equals. Please respond to the following questions based on your personal experience. I believe that students should not treat teachers as equals. Strongly Disagree I believe that students s hould not treat teachers as equals. Disagree I believe that students should not treat teachers as equals. Somewhat Disagree I believe that students should not treat teachers as equal s. Neutral I believe that students should not treat teachers as equals. Somewhat Agree I believe that students should not treat teachers as equals. Agree I believe that students should not treat teachers as equals. Strongly Agree Teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class. Please respond to the following questions based on your personal experien ce. Teacher s are expected to take all initiatives in class. Strongly Teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class. Disagree Teachers are expected to take all init iatives in class. Somewhat Disagree Teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class. Neutral Teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class. Somewhat Agree Teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class. Agree Teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class. Strongly Agree

PAGE 68

68 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree American justification Instruction: In the next section yo u will be asked to read a brief newspaper article regarding a crisis involving a company. Please take your time and read carefully, as the questions will be asking you about this article. Thanks! Officials: Florida Man Killed by Cellphone Battery Explos ion TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -Last week, a 22 year old man in Florida, was killed when his cellphone battery exploded. Emergency responders were unable to revive the man, who died from his injuries while in transit to an area hospital. A coworker who witnessed the incident reported that she heard a loud explosion. When she entered the room she found the victim seriously injured on the floor. It is believed the man had just finished charging the phone and placed it in his shirt pocket. The phone in last week's incident was sent to FOCP's Product Analysis Lab outside of Orlando. Early analysis of the phone suggests the explosion occurred due to an improperly manufactured lithium ion battery. official report, due to the failure of TG Te chnology to follow safety protocols during manufacturing, seals around the volatile lithium ion battery do not meet safety expectations. Lithium ion batteries must be sealed completely for safety concerns, but TG Technology's products fail to meet the seal ing requirement. This is not the first report of such an explosion involving TG Technology's XH200 model. The Florida Office of Consumer Protection (FOCP) reports 38 similar complaints from 2012, ranging from swelling caused by overcharging, to overheat ing, fires and explosions. The FOCP believes that there may be more such incidents in 2013 with 14 complaints already filed this year. ion battery of XH200 adopts a new and innovati

PAGE 69

69 products are very safe. Although it has caused a few safety incidents recently, the lithium ion battery is still safer than any other contemporary rech Based on TG Technology spokesman's response on the last paragraph, please answer the following questions. Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology denied their respo nsibilit y for the battery explosion. Based on TG Technology spokesman' s response on the last paragraph, please answer the following questions. TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Str ongly disagree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Disagree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Somewhat agree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Strongly agree TG tried to minimize the perceived Based on TG Technology TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the

PAGE 70

70 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree damage ass ociated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. spokesman' s response on the last paragraph, please answer the following ques tions. TG tried to minimize the perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Strongly disagree perceive d damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Disagree perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Somewhat disagree perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than ot her contempora ry recharging batteries. Neutral perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Somewhat ag ree perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Agree perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Strongly agree TG Based TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 71

71 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree apologized for the battery explosion. on TG Technology spokesman' s response on the last paragraph, please answer the following questions. TG apologized for the battery explosion. Strongly disagree apologized for the battery explosion. Disagree apologized for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree apologized for the battery explosion. Neutral apologized for the battery explosion. Somewhat agree apologized for the battery explosion. Agree apologized for the battery explosion. Strongly agree After reading the news article, please answer the following questions b ased on your initial reaction...(You can go back to the news article if needed) Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel After reading the news article, please answer the following TG Technology in the news story made me feel TG Technology in the news story made me feel TG Technology in the news story made me feel TG Technology in the news sto ry made me feel TG Technology in the news story made me feel TG Technology in the new s story made me feel

PAGE 72

72 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree angry, irritated, annoye d. questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) TG s response in the news story made me feel angry irritated, annoyed. Strongly disagree angry, irritated, annoyed. Disagree angry, irritated, annoyed. Somewhat Disagree angry, irritated, annoyed. Neutral angry, irritated, annoyed. Somewhat agree angry, irritated, annoyed. Agree angry, irritated, annoyed. Strongly agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and After reading the news article, please answer the following ques tions based on your initial TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Techn ology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and

PAGE 73

73 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree unhappy. reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) TG s response in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Strongly disagree unhappy. Disagree unhappy. Somewhat Disagree unhappy. Neutral unhappy. Somewhat agree unhappy. Agree unhappy. Strongly agree TG Technology response in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Somewhat Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Neutral TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Somewhat agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Strongly agree

PAGE 74

74 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree news article if nee ded) TG s response in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Strongly disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) TG TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxio us, and worried. Somewhat Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Neutral TG Technology in the news story made me f eel nervous, anxious, and worried. Somewhat agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Agree TG Technology in the news st ory made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Strongly agree

PAGE 75

75 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree s response in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. St rongly disagree After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(You can go back to the news article if needed) Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...( Yo u can go back to the news article if TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Disagree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology is responsible for the bat tery explosion. Somewhat agree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Strongly agree

PAGE 76

76 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree needed) TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Strongly disagree TG Technology sho uld be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u can go back to the news article if needed) TG Technology should be held accountable for the battery explosion. Strongly TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Disagree TG Technology should be held acc ountabl e for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the bat tery explosion. Somewhat agree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Strongly agree

PAGE 77

77 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u can go back to the news article if nee ded) The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology. Strongly disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Disagree The battery explosion inci dent is the fault of TG Technology Somewhat disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Neutral The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technolo gy Somewhat agree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Agree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Strongly agree I believe that a cellphone battery may explode Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 78

78 American denial Instruction: In the next section you will be asked to read a brief newspaper article regarding a crisis invo lving a company. Please take your time and read carefully, as the questions will be asking you about this article. Thanks! Officials: Florida Man Killed by Cellphone Battery Explosion TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -Last week, a 22 year old man in Florida, was killed when his cellphone battery exploded. Emergency responders were unable to revive the man, who died from his injuries while in transit to an area hospital. A coworker who witnessed the incident reported that she heard a loud explosion. When she entered the room she found the victim seriously injured on the floor. It is believed the man had just finished charging the phone and placed it in his shirt pocket. The phone in last week's incident was sent to FOCP's Product Analysis Lab outside of Orla ndo. Early analysis of the phone suggests the explosion occurred due to an improperly manufactured lithium ion battery. official report, due to the failure of TG Technology to follow safety protocols during manufacturing, seals around t he volatile lithium ion battery do not meet safety expectations. Lithium ion batteries must be sealed completely for safety concerns, but TG Technology's products fail to meet the sealing requirement. This is not the first report of such an explosion invol ving TG Technology's XH200 model. The Florida Office of Consumer Protection (FOCP) reports 38 similar complaints from 2012, ranging from swelling caused by overcharging, to overheating, fires and explosions. The FOCP believes that there may be more such in cidents in 2013 with 14 complaints already filed this year. pportunity to examine the device, it appears

PAGE 79

79 Ba sed on TG Technology spokesman's response on the last paragraph, please answer the following questions. Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the batter y explosion. Based on TG Technology spokesman' s response on the last paragraph, please answer the following questions. TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Strongly disagree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Disagree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Somewhat agree TG Technol ogy denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Strongly agree TG tried to minimize the perceived damage associated with the Based on TG Technology spokesman' s response on the last TG tried to minimize the perceived damage associated TG tried to minimize the perceived damage associated TG tried to minimize the perceived damage associated TG tried to minimize the perceived damage associated TG tried to minimize the perceived damage associated TG tried to minimize the perceived damage associated

PAGE 80

80 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. paragraph, please answer the following questions. TG tried to minim ize the perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Strongly disagree with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Disagree with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Somewhat disagree with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharg ing batteries. Neutral with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Somewhat agree with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Agree with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Strongly agree TG apologized for the battery Based on TG Technology spokesman TG apologized for the battery TG apologized for the battery TG apologized for the battery TG apologized for the battery TG apologized for the battery TG apologized for the battery

PAGE 81

81 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree explosion. s response on the last paragraph, please answer the following questions. TG apologized for the battery explosion. Strongly disagree explosion. Disagree explosion. Somewhat disagree explosion. Neutral explosion. Somewhat agree explosion. Agree explosion. Strongly agree After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial rea ction...(You can go back to the news article if needed) Stronly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial TG Technology in the news story made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. TG Technology in the news story made me feel angry, irritated, an noyed. TG Technology in the news story made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. TG Technology in the news story made me feel angry, irr itated, annoyed. TG Technology in the news story made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. TG Technology in the news story made me feel angry irritated, annoyed.

PAGE 82

82 Stronly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) TG s response in the news story made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. Str only disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initia l reaction...(Y ou can go back to the TG Technology in the news story made me fee l sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Somewhat Disagree TG Technology in the new s story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Neutral TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Somewhat agree TG Technology onse in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Strongly agree

PAGE 83

83 Stronly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree news article if needed) TG s response in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Stronly disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) TG TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Disagree TG Techn ology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Somewhat Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Neutral TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Somewhat agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Strongly agree

PAGE 84

84 Stronly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree s respon se in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Stronly disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. After readin g the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) TG s response in the news TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Somewhat Dis agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Neutral TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and wor ried. Somewhat agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anx ious, and worried. Strongly agree

PAGE 85

85 Stronly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Stronly disagree After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(You can go back to the news article if needed) Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat ag ree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u can go back to the news a rticle if needed) TG Technology is responsible TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Disagree TG Technology is responsi ble for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Somewhat agre e TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Strongly agree

PAGE 86

86 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat ag ree Agree Strongly agree for the battery explosion. Strongly disagree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for t he battery explosion. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u can go back to the news article if needed) TG Technology should be held accountable f or the battery explosion. Strongly disagree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Disagree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery expl osion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Somewhat agre e TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Strongly agree

PAGE 87

87 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat ag ree Agree Strongly agree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u can go back to the news article if needed) The battery explosion in cident is the fault of TG Technology. Strongly disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Techn ology Somewhat disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Neutral The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Somewhat agree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Agree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Strongly agree I believe that a cellphone battery may explode Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree

PAGE 88

88 Agree Strongly agree American apology Instruction: In the next section you will be asked to read a brief newspaper article regarding a crisis involving a company. Please take your tim e and read carefully, as the questions will be asking you about this article. Thanks! Officials: Florida Man Killed by Cellphone Battery Explosion TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -Last week, a 22 year old man in Florida, was killed when his cellphone batter y exploded. Emergency responders were unable to revive the man, who died from his injuries while in transit to an area hospital. A coworker who witnessed the incident reported that she heard a loud explosion. When she entered the room she found the victim seriously injured on the floor. It is believed the man had just finished charging the phone and placed it in his shirt pocket. This is not the first report of such an explosion involving TG Technology's XH200 model. The Florida Office of Consumer Protect ion (FOCP) reports 38 similar complaints from 2012, ranging from swelling caused by overcharging, to overheating, fires and explosions. The FOCP believes that there may be more such incidents in 2013 with 14 complaints already filed this year. The phone i n last week's incident was sent to FOCP's Product Analysis Lab outside of Orlando. Early analysis of the phone suggests the explosion occurred due to an improperly manufactured lithium official report, due to the failure of TG Technology to follow safety protocols during manufacturing, seals around the volatile lithium ion battery do not meet safety expectations. Lithium ion batteries must be sealed completely for safety concerns, but TG Technology's products fail to meet th e sealing requirement. families, and we are deeply sorry for what happened to the victims and their families. We offer our deepest condolence s

PAGE 89

89 to those who have been affected by this event and understand this is distressing to our customers and employees. We Based on TG Technology spokesman's response on the last paragraph, please answer the following quest ions. Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Based on TG Technology spokesman' s response on the last paragraph, please answer the following questions. TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Strongly disagree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. D isagree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Somewhat agree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology denied their responsibilit y for the battery explosion. Strongly agree TG tried to minimize the perceived Based on TG Technology TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the TG tried to minimize the

PAGE 90

90 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. spokesman' s response on the last paragraph, please answer the following questions. TG tried to minimize the perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Strongly disagree perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batte ries. Disagree perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Somewhat disagree perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Neutral perceived dam age associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Somewhat agree perceived damage associated with the battery explosion b y claiming their battery is safer than other contempora ry recharging batteries. Agree perceived damage associated with the battery explosion by claiming their battery is safer than other contemp ora ry recharging batteries. Strongly agree TG Based TG TG T G TG TG TG

PAGE 91

91 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree apologized for the battery explosion. on TG Technology spokesman' s response on the last paragraph, please answer the following questions. TG apologized for the ba ttery explosion. Strongly disagree apologized for the battery explosion. Disagree apologized for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree apologized for the battery explosion. Neutral apologized for the battery explosion. Somewhat agree apologized for the battery explosion. Agree apologized for the battery explosion. Strongly agree After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(You can go back to the news article if needed) Completely disagree Disagree Somewha t Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel After reading the news article, please answer the following TG Technology in the news stor y made me feel TG Technology in the news story made me feel TG Technology in th e news story made me feel TG Technology in the news story made me feel TG Technology e in the news story made me feel TG Technology in the news story made me feel

PAGE 92

92 Completely disagree Disagree Somewha t Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree angry, irritated, annoyed. questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) TG s response in the news story made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. Completely disagree angry, irritated, annoyed. Disagree angry, irritated, annoyed. Somewhat Disagree angry, irritated, annoyed. Neutral angry, irritated, annoyed. Somewhat agree angry, irritated, annoyed. Agree angry, irritated, annoyed. Strongly agree TG Technology in the news story made me fee l sad, downhearte d, and After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Technol ogy in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and TG Technology in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and

PAGE 93

93 Completely disagree Disagree Somewha t Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree unhappy. reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) TG s response in the news story made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Completely disagree unhappy. Disagree unhappy. Somewhat Disagree unhappy. Neutral unhappy. Somewhat agree unhappy. Agree unhappy. Strongly agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Somewhat Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Neutral TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afr aid. Somewhat agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel scared, fearful and afraid. Strongly agree

PAGE 94

94 Completely disagree Disagree Somewha t Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree news article if needed) TG s response in the news story made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Completely disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reacti on...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) TG TG Technology in the news story made me feel ner vous, anxious, and worried. Disagree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Somewhat Disagree TG Technology in the news sto ry made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Neutral TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Somewhat agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Agree TG Technology in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Strongly agree

PAGE 95

95 Completely disagree Disagree Somewha t Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree s response in the news story made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Completely disagree After reading the news article, please answer th e following questions based on your initial reaction...(You can go back to the news article if needed) Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u can go back to the news article if TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Disagree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Somewhat agree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Strongly agree

PAGE 96

96 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree needed) TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Strongly disagree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. After reading the ne ws article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u can go back to the news article if needed) TG Technology should be held accountable for the battery explosion. Strongly TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Disagree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Somewhat agree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Strongly agree

PAGE 97

97 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Af ter reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u can go back to the news article if needed) The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology. Strongly disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Somewhat disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Neutral The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Somewhat agree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Techno logy Agree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Strongly agree I believe that a cellphone battery may explode Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree

PAGE 98

98 Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Stron gly agree American control group Instruction: In the next section you will be asked to read a brief newspaper article regarding a crisis involving a company. Please take your time and read carefully, as the questions will be asking you about this article. Thanks! Officials: Freshly charged battery exploded, killing one person TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -Last week, a 22 year old man in Florida, was killed when his cellphone battery exploded. Emergency responders were unable to revive the man, who died fr om his injuries while in transit to an area hospital. A coworker who witnessed the incident reported that she heard a loud explosion. When she entered the room she found the victim seriously injured on the floor. It is believed the man had just finished charging the phone and placed it in his shirt pocket. This is not the first report of such an explosion involving TG Technology's XH200 model. The Florida Office of Consumer Protection (FOCP) reports 38 similar complaints from 2012, ranging from swelling caused by overcharging, to overheating, fires and explosions. The FOCP believes that there may be more such incidents in 2013 with 14 complaints already filed this year. The phone in last week's incident was sent to FOCP's Product Analysis Lab outside o f Orlando. Early analysis of the phone suggests the explosion occurred due to an improperly manufactured lithium official report, due to the failure of TG Technology to follow safety protocols during manufacturing, seals ar ound the volatile lithium ion battery do not meet safety expectations. Lithium ion batteries must be sealed completely for safety concerns, but TG Technology's products fail to meet the sealing requirement.

PAGE 99

99 After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(You can go back to the news article if needed) Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) The company in the crisis (TG Techno logy) made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. Strongly disagree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. Disagree The company in the crisis ( TG Technology ) made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. Somewhat Disagree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. Neutral The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. Somewhat agree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. Agree The company in t he crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel angry, irritated, annoyed. Strongly agree

PAGE 100

100 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. After reading the news article, please answer t he following questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) The company in the crisis (TG Technology) made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Strongly disagree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Disagree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Somewhat Disagree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Neutral The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Somewhat agree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Agree The company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel sad, downhearte d, and unhappy. Strongly agree The co mpany in After The The The The The The

PAGE 101

101 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news artic le if needed) The company in the crisis (TG Technology) made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Strongly disagree company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Disagree company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Somewhat Disagree company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Neutra l company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Somewhat agree company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel scared, fearful, and afrai d. Agree company in the crisis (TG Technology ) made me feel scared, fearful, and afraid. Strongly agree The company in the crisis (TG After reading the news article, please The company in the crisis (TG The company in the crisis (TG The company in the crisis (TG The company in the crisis (TG The company in the crisis (TG The company in the crisis (TG

PAGE 102

102 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Technology ) made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Y ou can go back to the news article if needed) The company in the crisis (TG Technology) made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. St rongly disagree Technology ) made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Disagree Technology ) made me feel nervous, anxious and worried. Somewhat Disagree Technology ) made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Neutral Technology ) made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Somewhat agree Technology ) made me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Agree Technology ) ma de me feel nervous, anxious, and worried. Strongly agree After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(You can go back to the news article if needed) Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disag ree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree TG Technology After reading the TG Technology TG Technology TG Technology TG Technology TG Technology TG Technology

PAGE 103

103 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disag ree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree is responsible for the battery explosion. news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u ca n go back to the news article if needed) TG Technology is responsible for the battery explosion. Strongly disagree is responsible for the battery explosion. Disagree is responsible for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree is responsible for the battery explosion. Neutral is responsible for the battery e xplosion. Somewhat agree is responsible for the battery explosion. Agree is responsible for the battery explosion. Strongly agree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Disagree TG Technology should be held accountab l e for the battery explosion. Somewhat disagree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Neutral TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery e xplosion. Somewhat agree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Agree TG Technology should be held accountabl e for the battery explosion. Strongly agree

PAGE 104

104 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disag ree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree u can go back to the news article if needed) TG Technology shoul d be held accountable for the battery explosion. Strongly disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology After reading the news article, please answer the following questions based on your initial reaction...(Yo u can go back to the news article if needed) T he battery explosion The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Disagree The battery explosion incident i s the fault of TG Technology Somewhat disagree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Neutral The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology So mewhat agree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Agree The battery explosion incident is the fault of TG Technology Strongly agree

PAGE 105

105 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disag ree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree incident is the fault of TG Technology. Strongly disagree I believe that a cellph one battery may explode Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Chinese_power distance

PAGE 106

106

PAGE 107

107 Chinese denial 22 TG TG XH200 2012 38 2013 20 TG

PAGE 108

108 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 109

109 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 110

110 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 111

111 TG TG TG T G TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 112

112 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 113

113 TG

PAGE 114

114 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 115

115 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 116

116 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 117

117 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 118

118 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 119

119 Chinese apology 22 TG TG XH200 2012 38 2013 20 TG

PAGE 120

120 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 121

121 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 122

122 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 123

123 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 124

124 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 125

125 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 126

126 TG

PAGE 127

127 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 128

128 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 129

129 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 130

130 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 131

131 Chinese justification 22 TG TG XH200 2012 38 2013 20 TG

PAGE 132

132 TG XH200 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 133

133 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 134

134 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 135

135 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 136

136 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 137

137 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 138

138 TG

PAGE 139

139 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 140

140 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 141

141 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 142

142 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 143

143 Chinese_control group 22 TG TG XH200 2012 38 2013 20 TG

PAGE 144

144 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 145

145 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 146

146 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 147

147 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 148

148 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 149

149 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 150

150 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

PAGE 151

151 TG American demography

PAGE 152

152 Please choose your gender. Male Female What is your age? Please write down below. What is your ethnicity? White Hispanic or Latino Black of African American Native American or American Indian Asian / Pacific Islander Other Please identify your name, UFID, and course number for extra course credit. These information will be kept confidential, and your response to the previous questions will not be associated with your personal information. These 3 questions are not mandatory. Name UFID Course Number Chinese Demographic question

PAGE 153

153

PAGE 154

154 LIST OF REFERENCES Alkailani, M., Azzam, I. A., & Athamneh A. B. (2012). Replicating Hofstede in Jordan: Ungeneralized, reevaluating the Jordanian Culture. International Business Research, 5 (4), 71 80. An, S., & Cheng, I. (2010). Crisis communication research in public relations journals: Tracking research trend s over thirty years. In W. T. Coombs, & S. J. Holladay, The handbook of crisis communication (1 ed., pp. 65 90). Malden, MA: Blackwell. An, S. K., Gower, K. K., & Cho, S. H. (2011). Level of crisis responsibility and crisis response strategies of the media Journal of Communication Management, 15 (1), 70 83. An, S. K., Park, D. J., Cho, S., & Berger, B. (2010). A cross cultural study of effective organizational crisis response strategy in the United States and South Korea. International Journal of Strategic Communications 225 243. Anagondahalli, D., & Turner, M. M. (2012). Predicting psychological ripple effects: The roles of cultural identity, in croup/out goup identification, and attributions of blames in crisis communication. Risk Analysis, 32 (4), 695 712 Andersen, P. A. (2009). Emotion and Communication. In S. W. Littlejohn, & K. A. Foss, Encyclopedia of Communication Theory (pp. 333 337). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Barboza, D. (2007, July 4). China reveals deep consumer product quality pro blems Retrieved 4 11, 2013, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht food.5.6497264.html?_r=0 Battery safety. (2008, March 1). The Korea Herald Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitement in American Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23 (2), 177 186. Bond, M. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Hong Kong, People's Republic of China: Oxford University Press (China) Ltd.

PAGE 155

155 Botan, C. H., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Public relations in a new age. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton, Public Relations Theory II (pp. 1 20). NJ Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bradford, J. L., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). The effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to accusations of unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 14 1995. Bradford, L. M., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). Th e effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to accusation of unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 14 875 892. Carver, C. S., & Balney, P. (1977). Pereived arousal, focus of attention, and avoidance behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychol ogy, 86 154 162. Charny, B. (2004, January 23). "Exploding" cell phone battery recalled Retrieved November 15, 2012, from CNET: http://news.cnet.com/Exploding cell phone battery recalled/2100 1039_3 5146534.html Cho, S., & Gower, K. (2006). Framing effec t of the public's response to crisis: Human interest frame and crisis type influencing responsibility and blame. Public Relations Review, 32 420 422. Choi, Y., & Lin, Y. H. (2009). Consumer responses to Mattle product recalls posted online bulletin boards : Exploring two types of emotions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21 (2), 198 207. Claeys, A. S., Cauberghe, V., & Vyncke, P. (2010). Restoring reputations in times of crisis: An experimental study of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory and t he moderating effects of locaus of control. Public Relations Review, 36 256 262. ClaytonMark. (201 2, April 12 ). GM: Explosion at battery research facility 'unrelated to the Chevrolet Volt';. Christian Science Publishing Society. Commbs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). The negative communication dynamic: Exploring the impact of stakeholder affect on behavioral intentions. Journal of Communication Management, 11 (4), 300 312. Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for t he selection of the "appropriate" crisis strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8 477 476. Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the ''appropriate'' crisis response strategies. Manageme nt Communication Quarterly, 8 (4), 447 476.

PAGE 156

15 6 Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Public Relations Research, 11 (2), 125 142. Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communication : Insights from Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Journal of Business Communication, 41 (3), 265 289. Coombs, W. T. (2005). Crisis communication. In R. L. Heath, Encyclopedia of Public Relations (Vol. 1, pp. 221 224). CA: Thousand Oaks, Sage Referenc e. Coombs, W. T. (2006). Attribution Theory as a guide for post crisis communication research. Public Relations Review, 33 135 139. Coombs, W. T. (2006). Crisis management: A communicative approach. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton, Public Relations Theory I I (pp. 171 198). New York: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputation during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10 163 176. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experiment study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8 (4), 279 295. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Reasoned Action in crisis communication: An attribution theory based approach to crisis management. In D. P. Millar, & R. L. Heath, Responding to crisis communication approach to crisis communication (pp. 95 115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005 ). Exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect and crisis. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. Hartel, Research on emotion in organizations: Volume 1: The effect of affect in organizational settings (pp. 271 288). New York: Elsevier. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: Clarifying apology's role and value in crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 34 (3), 252 257. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2009). Further explorations of post crisis communication: Effects of media and response strategies on perceptions and intentions. Public Relations Review, 35 1 6. Cooper Chen, A., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Public relations in Japan: The cultural roots of Kouhou. Public Relations Research, 20 94 114. Culture, C. B. (2009, August 10). The Chinese Apology and the Chinese Ego Retrieved 4 11, 2013, from Chinense Business Culture:

PAGE 157

157 http://chinesebusinessculture.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/the chinese apology and the chinese ego/ Davis, D., & Holtgr aves, T. (1980). Perceptions of unresponsive others: Attribution, attraction, understandability, and memory of their utterance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20 383 408. Davis, D., & Holtgraves, T. (1984). Perceptionsof unresponsive others: A ttributions, attraction, understandability, and memory of their utterance. Journal of Experimental SOcial Psychology, 20 383 408. Dean, S. W. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity: Effects of corporate reputation, response, and responsibility fo r a crisis event. Journal of Business Communication, 41 192 211. Derbaix, C. M. (1996). The impact of affective reactions on attitudes toward the advertisement and the brand: a step toward ecological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (4), 470 479 DerksDaantje, FischerHAgneta, & BosE.RArjan. (2008). The role of emotion in computer mediated communication: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 766 785. Duhackek, A. (2005). Coping: A multidimentional, hierarchilcal framework of responses to stre ssful consumption episodes. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 41 53. Corporate Communication, 11 (4) 391 406. Gardner, H. (1985). age. New York: Basic. Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2009). Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations: Persuasive arguments and cultural differences. Journal o f Applied Psycology, 94 5 19. Grunig, J. E., Grunig, A. L., & Dozier, D. M. (2006). The excellence theory. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton, Public Relations Theory II (pp. 21 62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2007). F eelings and soncumer decision making: The appraisal tendency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 158 168. Harro Loit, H., Vihalemm, T., & Ugur, K. (2012). Cultural experience as a (Critical) factor in crisis communication planning. Journal of Co ntingencies and Crisis Management, 20 (1), 26 38.

PAGE 158

158 Hart, J. (2005). Attribution theory. In R. Heath, Encyclopedia of public relations (1 ed., pp. 48 50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Haruta, A., & Kirk, H. (2003). Cultural issues in airline cri sis communications a Japan US comparative study. Asian Journal of Communication, 13 (2), 122 144. Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Rrelations. New York: Wiley. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequencess. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2012). Dimensions Retrieved November 4, 2012, from Geert Hofstede: http://geert hofstede.com/dimensions.html Huang, Y. H. (2006). Crisis Situations, Communication Strategies, and Media Coverage: A Multicase Study Revisiting the Communicative Response Model. Communication Research, 33 180 205. Huang, Y. H., & Bedford, O. (2009). The role of cross cultural factos in intefrative confl ict resolution and crisis communication: The Hainan incident. American Behavioral Science, 53 (4), 565 578. Hutton, J. G., Goodman, M. B., Alwxander, J. B., & Genest, C. M. (2001). Reputation management: The new face of corporate public relations? Public Re lations Review, 27 247 261. Jin, Y. (2009). The effects of public's cognitive appraisal of emotions in crises on crisis coping and strategy assessment. Public Relations Review 310 313. Jin, Y. (2010). Making sense sensibly in crisis communication: How pu blics' crisis appraisals influence their negative emotions, coping stragegy preferences, and crisis response acceptance. Communication Research, 37 (4), 522 552. Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). Integrated crisis mapping: Towards a publics based, emotion driven conceptualization in crisis communication. Sphera Publica, 7 81 96. Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2009). Developing a Publics Driven, Emotion Based Conceptualization in Crisis Communication: Final Stage Testing of the Integrated Cri sis Mapping (ICM) Model. International Communication Association. Chicago. Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2012). Toward a public driven, emotion based conceptualization in crisis communication: Unsearthing dominant emotions in multi staged testing of the integrated crisis mapping (ICM) model. Journal of Public Relations Research 266 298.

PAGE 159

159 Kanso, A., Sinno, A. K., & Adams, W. (2001). Cross cultural public relations: Implications for American and Arab public relations practitioners. CompetitivenessRevie w: An international business journal incorporating journal of global competitiveness, 11 (1), 65 82. Kim, H. J., & Cameron, G. T. (2011). Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and sadness in the publics' response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response. Communication Research, 38 (6), 826 855. Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and brand evaluations in a product harm crisis. Research in Marketing, 21 203 217. Kumar, R. (1999). Commun icative Conflict in Intercultural Negotiations: The Case of American and Japanese Business Negotiations. International Negotiation, 4 63 78. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaption. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lee, B. K. (2004). Audience or iented approach to crisis communication: A study of Hong Kong Consumers' evaluation of an organizational crisis. Communication Research, 31 (5), 600 618. Lerner, J. S., & Kelter, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 146 159. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14 473 493. Lindholm, K., & Olsson, E. K. (2011). Crisis communication as a Multilevel Game: The Muhammad Cartoons from a crisis Diplomacy Perspective. International Journal of Press/Poltics, 16 (2), 254 271. Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: The interplay of information form and sourc e. Public Relations Review, 37 345 353. Loomis, L. M. (2008). Managing emotions: The missing steps in crisis communications planning. Public Relations Tactics, 15 (3), 13 13. Lyu, J. C. (In press). A comparative study of crisis communication strategies bet ween Mainland China and Taiwan: The melamine tainted milk powder crisis in Chinese context. Public Relations Review Madera, J. M., & Smith, D. B. (2009). The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of leadership in a crisis situation: The role of anger and sadness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 103 114.

PAGE 160

160 Malle, B. (2007). Attribution. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs, Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (pp. 75 76). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2008) Intercultural communication in context. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation and Emotion, 14 (3), 195 214. Matsumoto, D. (1992). American Japanese cultual difere nces in the recognition of universal facial expressions. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 23 72 84. MatsumotoD, KudohT, SchererK, & WallbotH. (1988). Antecedents of and reactions to emotions in the United States and Japan. Journal of Cross Cultural P sychology, 19, 267 286. McDermott, V. (2009). Attribution theory. In S. Littlejohn, & K. Foss, Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 61 64). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. McDonald, L. M., Sparks, B., & Glendon, A. I. (2010). Stakeholder re actions to company crisis communication and causes. Public Relations Reveiw, 36 263 271. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55 89 11 8. Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1999). Culture and the construalof agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (5), 701 717. Moss, W. (2007, July 4). China's food crisis PR strategy: Blame everyone else. Retrieved October 18, 2012, from Imagethief: http://imagethief.com/2007/06/chinas food crisis pr strategy blame everyone else/ Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differetially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30 224 247. Olaniran, B. A. (1996). Instructional practices and classroom communication apprehension: A cultural explanation. Communication Reports, 9 193 203. Pennebaker, J. W. (1982). The Psychology of Physical Symptoms. New York: Springer Verlag. Pew. (2012, October 12). Growing Concerns in China about Inequality, Corruption Retrieved April 11, 2013, from Pew Research:

PAGE 161

161 http://www.pewglobal.org/2012 /10/16/growing concerns in china about inequality corruption/ Quattrone, G. A. (1982). Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 593 607. Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. New York: Oxford University Press. Scollon, C. N., Oishi, S., & Biswas Diener, R. (2004). Emotions across cultures and methods. Journal of cross cultural psychology, 35 (3), 304 326. Sim mering, M. J. (2007). Attribution Theory Retrieved November 5, 2012, from Reference for Business: Encyclopedia of Business: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/A Bud/Attribution Theory.html Sisco, H. F., Collin, E. L., & Lynn, M. Z. (2010). Thr ough the looking glass: A decade of Red Cross crisis response and situational crisis communication theory. Public Relations Review, 36 21 27. Stone, T., & Han, S. (2007). Stress Appraisal Theory (primary and secondary appraisal). In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs, Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (pp. 952 954). CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Taylor, M. (2000). Cultural variance as a challenge to global public relations: A case study of the Coca Cola Scare in Europe. Public Relations Review, 26 (3), 277 293. T riandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Vananaugh, L. A., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (2007). Appraising the appraisal tendency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 169 173. Weiner, B. (1985). An attr ibutional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychology Review, 92 948 573. Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Harper and Row. Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confessi onand forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59 281 312. Wertz, E. K., & Kim, S. (2010). Cultural issues in crisis communication: A coomparative study of messages chosen by South Korean and US print media. Journal of Communication Management, 14 (1), 81 94.

PAGE 162

162 Wilson, S. R., Cruz, M. G., Marshall, L. J., & Rao, N. (1993). Anattributional analysis of compliance gaining interactions. Communication Monographs (60), 352 371. Wu, M., Taylor, M., & Chen, M. (2001). Exploring societal and cultural influences on Taiwanes e public relations. Public Relations Review, 27 317 336. Yeomans, L. (2007). Emotion in public relations: a neglected phenomenon. Journal of Communication Management, 11 (3), 212 221. Zemba, Y., Young, M. J., & Morris, M. W. (2006). Blaming leaders for org anizational accidents: Proxy logicin collectiveversus individual agency cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101 (1), 36 51.

PAGE 163

163 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Xi Jiang is a graduate student from the P ublic Relations Department at the Universi ty of Florida. Her research interests are crisis communications, international communications, and business management. Before gra duate school, Xi studied t elecommunications at Nanjing University of Science and Technology, China.