2010 - Public Relations Society of America

especially if an efficacious response is not readily present. These ideas are echoed by Rogers et.
al. (2007), who notes that the public may doubt the credibility of governmental response
organizations, especially if they have been critical of past failures, and Heath, Lee, and Ni (2009)
who note that credibility may be questioned if stakeholders appear dissimilar to or less sensitive
to diverse populations.
Additionally, as noted above a consistent theme across all studies and disciplines is the
need for more research into specific empirically tested communication strategies that can be
effective in the face of a large-scale persistent crisis. All in all public relations as a discipline is
well suited to scientifically pursue the study of fear and the way that individuals seek to
minimize it, examine communicative mechanisms to help the public and/or stakeholders control
fear, prevent panic and to maximize the probability of a positive adaptive response.
Conclusion
This paper has forwarded a call for a shift in the focus of public relations research from
organizational crisis response that protects and repairs organizational image to a focus on
protecting the public by managing fear, preventing panic, and better communicating effective
adaptive response mechanisms in the face of persistent crises. To be clear this manuscript in no
way suggests that public relations scholars should abandon the lines of research that have
evolved from Benoit’s and Coomb’s models. Rather, given the recent governmental warnings
regarding threats such as a terrorist incident using a CBRN, or perhaps a deadly pandemic, this
paper suggests that public relations scholarship needs to diversify and to better balance research
efforts on protecting the image and reputation of organizations as well as on the needs of public
safety. Finally, this paper also forwarded a theoretical model which has received a large amount
of empirical support (Witte’s EPPM) that can first assist in better communicating more effective
adaptive responses in the face of crises, and second helps to control fear and prevent panic.
References
Allen, R.D. (1993). Special Issue: Handbook of Post Disaster Interventions. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 8, 5.
Auf der Heide (2004). Common Misconceptions about Disasters: Panics, the “Disaster
Syndrome”, and Looting. In M. Oleary (Ed.). The First 72 Hours: A community
approach to disaster planning. iUniverse Publishing: Lincoln, NE.
Avery, E.J., Lariscy, R.W., Kim, S., & T. Hocke. (2010). A quantitative review of the crisis
communication research in public relations from 1991 to 2009. Public Relations Review,
36, 28-34.
Avery, E. J., & Kim, S. (2009). Anticipating or precipitating crisis? Health agencies may not be
heeding best practice advice in avian flu press releases. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 21 (2) 187-197.
Benoit. W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration
strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Benoit. W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations
Review, 23, 177-186.
Cai, P., Lee, P.T., & A. Pang. (2009). Managing a nations image during a crisis: A study of the
Chinese Governments image repair efforts in the “Made in China” controversy. Public
Relations Review, 35, 213-218.
Caldiero, C.T., Taylor, M., & L. Ungureanu. (2009). Image repair tactics and information
subsidies during fraud crises. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21 (2), 218-228.
104