2008 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

Limitations
An examination of the data in this investigation provided an interesting dilemma. A series
of analyses found significant differences in the way that men and women perceived the
effectiveness of the media strategies. However, these differences did not exhibit a high degree of
relational strength, and more importantly may be irrelevant given the scope of this research. This
investigation focused on identifying effective media strategies in the face of litigation based
charges. To the extent that these strategies tend to be needed in response to inquiries by news
media which are not gender specific, differences in perceptions by gender added little value to
the interpretation of these data. More simply put, because news content is not segmented into
different messages for men and women, it was more pragmatic to focus on overall strategies as
opposed to those that are perceived as more effective by any given group.
A second limitation was the use of a college based sample. While college students are
often apt to be less informed on current events, and perhaps less involved with “real world”
issues such as litigation based crises, they may also tend to be more liberal in their political and
ideological beliefs, and have less life “experience” with which to interpret the impact of issues
on organizations and communities. To that extent the use of a more age “balanced” sample might
have provided different results.
A last limitation of this study actually gives direction for future research. This
investigation simply assessed whether or not certain response strategies differentially impacted
perceptions. The crucial question of why these strategies did or did not have an impact was not
dealt with in this investigation. Does the use of a transcendence strategy or any attempt imply
guilt because it seems evasive? Or could it be the case that any strategy that is more
defensive/negative (Coombs 1998) in nature implies guilt in contrast to a more neutrally or
accommodative based approach such as bolstering. While the works of scholars such as Coombs
(1998; 2004a; 2004b), Coombs and Holladay (2001:2002), and Lyons and Cameron (2004)
continue to identify historical, situational, and strategic factors that impact perceptions of
response during crises, future research should explain not only what, but also why certain
strategies are effective or ineffective at impacting public opinion across differing crisis
situations.
Conclusion
This investigation examined the comparative effectiveness of bolstering as an image
restoration strategy in the face of organizational crisis. The results indicated that bolstering was
indeed more effective in eliciting lower perceptions of guilt and/or wrongdoing, higher levels of
trust, and was better at eliciting positive perception in regard to a positive work environment.
Comparatively it was more effective than other strategies such as denial, transcendence, and
refusal to comment. Theoretically these results add information to the currently limited base of
empirical public relations research on crisis and crisis response. From a prescriptive perspective,
these results provide the practicing professional at least some ability to make comparative
choices among crisis response strategies and to do so based on objective quantitative results, as
opposed to having to rely only on Post-Hoc rhetorical analyses.
References
Benoit, W. L. (1995a). Accounts, excuses and apologies: A theory of image restoration
strategies. Albany: New York State University Press.
56