Tests comparing inoculation theory's preemptive refutation and image repair theory's reactive mortification in political scandals have indicated that the two monotherapies for crisis management are as effective as each other and perform equally well in adjunctive combination. Conspicuously absent from prior testing, however, is broader inoculation ("blanket protection"). I conduct preregistered multiple-message-design experiments testing a theoretical multiple-mediation model to assess messages affecting perceived scandal cover-up, followed by perceived trustworthiness, ultimately resulting in behavioral intentions. In the first study, N = 490 U.S. voters are exposed to political debate excerpts featuring a strongly favored politician under attack for sexist and higher-ed scandals. Isolated inoculation and mortification remain superior and do not vary. In the second study, N = 209 U.S. voters' supported politician is attacked for public safety scandals. Isolated inoculation demonstrates superiority.

Purpose When an audience mentally counterargues a spokesperson, the message is backfiring. In such cases, audience members are practically persuading themselves to take the opposite position advocated by the spokesperson. Yet spokespeople who are professional persuaders serving corporations often seem to instill counterargument. This paper examines the role of counterargument as the conduit through which a spokesperson's different message types affect a company during a crisis. The authors explore the paradox of spokespeople's (in)effectiveness by testing divides in research drawn from normative crisis communication theory, narrative persuasion theory and the theory of reporting bias. Design/methodology/approach Two controlled, randomized experiments are reported. Participants (total N = 828) watch video clips of media interviews of a company spokesperson fielding questions about a scandal. Findings In the first study, non-narrative information most effectively bolsters purchase intentions and reduces negative word-of-mouth. The effect is mediated by decreased counterargument. The second study replicates the results concerning on-topic narratives compared with spinning, while on-topic narratives and non-narratives perform equally well. Originality/value This study addresses conflicts between two distinct traditions of theory as well as between normative crisis communication and its frequent practice. Reducing counterargument matters in the context of non-narrative persuasion, and non-narratives can perform at least as well as narratives in crisis communication.

The growth of partisan media presents new challenges for political consultants. Informed by social identity theory and truth-default theory, this paper examines how U.S. voters react to politicians in combative news interviews. Experiment 1 (N = 320) establishes that an ingroup politician gains more trust among ingroup voters when interviewed by cross-partisan media accusing the politician of deception than when interviewed more congenially by co-partisan media. Experiment 2 (N = 131) finds that perceived media hostility increases Democrats' and Republicans' trust in a politician regardless of whether the interviewer accuses the politician of deception or is congenial. Experiment 3 (N = 126) replicates the findings when a Democrat is accused of deception on Fox News. The study tested a moderated mediation model, finding that Republican and Democratic voters do not react differently in the process. The discussion highlights the practical and theoretical implications of hostile media perceptions and ingroup-outgroup partisan bias in a polarized media environment with conflicting exposure to live fact-checking and deception detection.

Politicians tend to try deflecting scandals. Based on an attribution theory-driven perspective on persuasion, however, politicians should proactively confess. In a preregistered, multiple-message design, we conduct controlled, random assignment experiments. A mediation model is tested. Inspired by crisis communication’s change-of-meaning concept, the first variable appraises the extent to which voters perceive that the messaging indicates the politician is engaging in a cover-up. The second linkage is the politician’s credibility. The outcome variable is voters’ behavioral intentions. In Experiment 1 (N = 905 U.S. voters), stealing thunder and apologizing outperform stonewalling, changing the subject, sequentially apologizing plus deflecting, or silence. Experiment 2 (N = 277) finds that, in a sex scandal, stealing thunder and apologizing continue to perform equally well. Our theoretical contribution resides in enhancing the explanatory power of theories designed to explain image repair, as well as empirically testing the independent and combined role of apology and stealing thunder.

When journalists accuse politicians of deception and politicians return fire, how do voters decide what to believe? Grounded on truth-default theory and visual primacy theory, this paper reports experiments with stimuli of interviews in which a journalist accuses a politician of deceptive evasion. In Study 1, we manipulate whether the journalist's allegation is accurate. Voters seem unable to tell, basing their perceptions on the politician's demeanor. In Study 2 we test the effect of a politician honestly refuting a dishonest journalist. Voters still attend to demeanor, not verbal message content. In Study 3 partisanship, verbal refutation, and nonverbal demeanor interact. Democratic voters respond more favorably to their politician refuting a journalist and are not misled by demeanor like Republicans.

Although spin pervades mass communication, crisis communicators claim that they share society's aversion to spin. Grounded upon image repair theory and the practical model for ethical decision making, we report two experiments testing the reactions of crisis communicators exposed to a media interview in which a company spokesperson either spins or provides answers in line with normative crisis communication. Study 1 (N = 261 public relations practitioners and professional journalists) tests whether crisis communicators' cognitions align with those working in the media and with normative theory. Study 2 (N = 315 public relations students aspiring to work in the industry) provides a replication of Study 1 concerning the processing of spin, and adds perceived competence as a theoretical variable. The studies indicate that present and future crisis communicators have positive attitudes toward the organization under scrutiny, sense more goodwill, and perceive the message source as more competent, when normative crisis messaging is used rather than spin. Mediation analysis demonstrates that increased goodwill leads to more positive attitudes toward the organization, which bolsters organizational reputation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

U.S. presidential candidates aspire to have a “presidential image.” Political communication researchers, media pundits, political scientists, pollsters, campaign consultants, and other political marketers speculate about who is “presidential” and “unpresidential.” No prior research, however, has empirically measured and validated a presidential image construct. Based on data collected prior to the 2020 U.S. presidential election (N = 618 registered likely voters), we tested congeneric models of presidentiality. Results indicated (1) a six-item, single-factor model fit well when single group confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed separately on ratings of Donald Trump (Study 1) and Joe Biden (Study 2), (2) multiple-group CFA indicated configural and metric invariance (generalizability across candidates) of the model, and (3) presidential image factor scores were strongly associated with the candidate participants planned to vote for in the election. The resultant indicators also advance theorizing that a U.S. president is expected to serve as both “head of state” through components of personability and as “head of government” through components of capability. Theoretical implications for political marketing are discussed.

Incivility in U.S. political debates hurts democracy. But uncivil language is more entertaining, exciting, and arousing than civil language. Given the contradictory relationship between people's general aversion and the media attention to popularized incivility, insight can be gained through examining politicians' language intensity, a relatively common yet scarcely explored phenomenon in political debates. In a preregistered multiple-message experimental design with an original stimulus filmed for this study, participants (n = 538 registered U.S. voters) watch a debate featuring a real politician (with a real journalist moderating the debate). Participants are randomly assigned to high- or low-intensity language conditions. Inspired by language expectancy theory (LET), a multiple-mediation model is tested, whereby language intensity decreases a politician's trustworthiness through intense language being more uncivil than low-intensity language which is associated with voters' normative expectancies. Discussion concerns the practical implications for politicians' debate strategy and theoretical ramifications of LET via communication accommodation theory.

Drawing upon parasocial interaction theory, this paper examines the impact of narratives. A randomized experiment (N = 365) is reported in which a company spokesperson in a televised news interview is questioned about a scandal. The spokesperson replies to the journalist with (a) on-topic narratives, (b) off-topic narrative spinning, or (c) nonnarrative information. Multiple mediator modeling indicates nonnarrative information most effectively bolsters the audience's purchase intentions and reduces negative word-of-mouth. The effect is mediated by parasocial interaction reducing counterargument. Viewers react most adversely to off-topic narrative spinning.

Public relations and strategic communication are offered communication departments with a field of study largely geared toward professional communicators. The majors place a heavy emphasis on internships, which seem to be more competitive than ever. A class project can jumpstart students' preparation for entry-level positions in the industry by bolstering their ability to receive and excel at an internship. This paper provides instructors of courses in public relations and strategic communication with the tools to implement a semester-long class project. The series of assignments will embolden students to enter the communication profession with confidence and ethical certitude, grounded in practice and theory of ethics in public relations and strategic communication. Grading rubrics and further detailed instructions for each assignment are provided in the Supplementary Information.

Perceptions of a crisis communicator’s sincerity drive reactions to an organization’s response amidst a scandal. However, a spokesperson can nonverbally appear sincere while deceptively evading questions and can appear insincere while actually speaking sincere truths. Applying truth-default theory to crisis communication, we assess people’s reactions to a spokesperson varying in sincerity through demeanor and language. In an experiment ( N = 801), adults from across the United States were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a news interview. The stimuli present the spokesperson replying to questions with sincere or insincere demeanor and sincere language (conveying relevance and clarity) or insincere language (evasion and obfuscation). Results indicate that sincerity in demeanor and language interact to affect (a) account acceptance, (b) negative word-of-mouth intention, and (c) attribution of responsibility. But sincerity in language largely overrides behavioral impressions. Discussion concerns considering evasion and obfuscation as demeanor cues, when violations of relevance and clarity in language undercut a spokesperson’s believability.

This study applies truth‐default theory (TDT) to presidential candidates. TDT holds that people tend to passively believe others without consciously considering whether they are being told the truth. But do voters have a truth‐default toward presidential candidates? In an experiment, voters across the United States (N = 294) watched a news interview in which a presidential candidate was either honest or deceptive. Party affiliation was also manipulated. Consistent with TDT, thought‐listing tasks revealed that most voters did not mention deception after exposure to the presidential campaign interview. Voters largely defaulted to the truth even when sustaining outgroup partisan exposure and deception, and when asked about the candidate's demeanor. Filling out closed‐ended scales, though, voters reported distrust, suspicion, and perceiving deceptive messaging. The discussion concerns the implications of voters' perceptions of a presidential candidate's veracity varying based on how voters are prompted.

Crises in government and public affairs tend to present high-profile scandals, largely unforeseen which nonetheless necessitate timely and strategic media relations responses. An overview is provided of the domain of crisis communication in which journalists clamor for answers—on behalf of the public—and crisis communicators serve the public while also attending to the needs of their government/public affairs entity, protecting proprietary information, and bolstering their image and credibility. This chapter reviews pertinent theories applicable to politics and other terrains of government/public affairs, with a focus on empirical research and scholarship that provides actionable strategies. An explication is provided of “spin” as the primary means of operatives communicating their entity’s messaging with the public through reporters, with discussions of positive ethical framing relative to outright deception that misleads the public in an attempt to salvage wrongdoers. Recent anecdotes are presented to exemplify variations in practitioners employing “good” vs. “bad” spin, and the chapter features a case study drawn from a practitioner’s experience with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and closes with key takeaways based on theory and applied practice.

This article expands situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) to narrative persuasion. In a randomized experiment featuring a news interview of a scandalized company, an organization's spokesperson responds to a journalist's questions through (a) on-topic narratives, (b) off-topic (spinning) narratives, or (c) nonnarrative information. Consistent with SCCT, on-topic narratives and nonnarrative information reduce the public's blame toward the organization, enhancing attitudes toward the organization, and ultimately bolstering the company's image. However, the public ascribes more responsibility to the organization for causing the crisis when the spokesperson subverts questions through narrative spinning.

This article applies interpersonal deception theory (IDT) to crisis communication. As strategic communicators, spokespeople representing organizations in crisis often evade questions in media interviews. Upper management and legal counsel tend to prefer evasive language over directly answering questions. Normative crisis communication, however, exhorts honest and straightforward language. In Experiment 1 (N = 262), a company spokesperson either evades or directly answers questions during a media interview. Consistent with IDT, truth and completeness in the messaging mediate the effect of a spokesperson being perceived as less trustworthy when evading, which hampers the organization's reputation. The results replicate in Experiment 2 (N = 262), in which a spokesperson replies to questions in a media interview through varying degrees of narratives including on-topic narratives, off-topic (spin) storytelling, and nonnarrative answers. On-topic narratives and nonnarratives both serve as viable strategies - bolstering the spokesperson's trustworthiness and the organization's reputation - through the messaging components of truth, completeness, clarity, and relevance.

This paper combines theories of identification and image repair to explain why an organization in crisis should avoid designing messages that engage in “spin.” An experiment is reported (N = 262 nationwide U.S. Qualtrics Panel) in which a company spokesperson replies to questions from a journalist in a news interview. Results indicate that people (a) identify more with the spokesperson, and (b) have more favorable attitudes toward the business, when the spokesperson directly answers rather than spins. Serial multiple mediator modeling reveals the theoretical process of consumer behavioral intentions bolstered by an organization “coming clean” instead of spinning in a scandal.

This paper reports a test and extension of the model posited by the theory of crisis response narratives, in which the public manifests identification with a spokesperson who tells ethical narratives rather than spinning stories. The effect is hypothesized as being mediated through the public perceiving trustworthiness of, and positive attitudes toward, the spokesperson. An experiment is reported (N = 262) with a televised news interview featuring a spokesperson representing a scandalized company, in which the messaging varies in terms of narratives. The study finds support for the theoretical model as originally specified. In addition, the model is extended to serial and parallel multiple mediation, finding that the effect is processed through the public's anger.

The purpose of this study is to test the effects of narratives in crisis communication. This research assesses how organizations benefit from using stories in their media responses, relative to sharing nonnarrative information. The theory of crisis response narratives (Heath, 2004) holds that ethical narratives are effective because they enhance trustworthiness, attitudes toward the spokesperson, and identification with the spokesperson. Normative crisis communication theory exhorts disclosing truthful information rather than spinning. In an online experiment, participants (N = 365) watched a news interview in which a scandalized company’s spokesperson responded to a journalist’s questions with (a) ethical narratives, (b) unethical (spin) narratives, or (c) nonnarrative information. Multiple mediator modeling assessed identification with the spokesperson, attitudes toward the spokesperson, and perceived trustworthiness of the spokesperson. Results indicate ethical narratives are more effective than unethical narratives. However, nonnarrative information most effectively enhances trustworthiness and bolsters identification.

People are often exposed to polarized viewpoints in web comment sections. Inspired by attribution theory and framing theory, this article tests the effects of comments that frame a politician or a journalist as triggering evasiveness in a media interview. We compare attributions ascribing deceptiveness to the politician versus external attributions implicating the media situation. In the first experiment, comment sections affect perceptions of evasiveness, credibility of the politician relative to the journalist, and people’s attitudes toward the politician and journalist. A second study replicates, and voters type comments which largely reflect the comments to which they were exposed. Also, perceptions of external control by the journalist affect perceptions of the politician. The article extends attribution theory and framing theory via commonly encountered online exposure which affects people’s perceptions of politicians as deceptive relative to their journalistic arbiters.

Upwards of 200 studies over the past hundred years have reported on the relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists. However, no experiment has compared the group members' perceptions when seeing their roles in action. Inspired by frameworks of social identity theory, intergroup deception, and the black sheep effect, we test how public relations practitioners and journalists respond to a crisis communication media interview. In our experiment, a company spokesperson either answers questions or engages in stereotypical "spin," which journalists historically consider one of the most offensive public relations strategies. Results indicate that public relations practitioners align with journalists in their perceptions of a spokesperson's trustworthiness and the organization's trustworthiness across treatment conditions. Practitioners also manifest the black sheep effect, disliking their group representative engaging in deception. Furthermore, we explore whether the effects on perceptions of trustworthiness are moderated by psychological identification with their respective industry. Discussion concerns the theoretical and practical ramifications of the groups sharing ingroup affiliation, contrary to prevailing notions of acrimony.