Strategic Ambiguity and Crisis Apologia: The Impact of Audiences' Interpretations of Mixed Messages

Abstract

Based on the perspectives of strategic ambiguity and organizational reputation, the current study examines the effects of mixed crisis response strategies, which adopt seemingly contradictory messages (i.e., apology and denial), through experiments. Consistent with the scope of strategic communication research, this study incorporates theoretical aspects of distinct areas of organizational communication to examine audience response to strategic messages, and makes recommendations for organizational communication strategies during crisis situations. The findings demonstrate that, instead of taking messages straightforwardly, people interpret the same messages divergently in their own ways, and these interpretations accordingly affect their attitudes and behavioral intentions. Findings indicate participants choose a dominant interpretation when given mixed messages, and subsequent responses are based on the initial interpretation, such that evaluating a mixed message as an apology yielded more positive outcomes than those who interpreted the message in other ways. In addition to people’s diverse interpretations, organizations’ crisis communication strategies and the business type also significantly influenced the outcomes. The apology-interpreters showed more positive outcomes than those who were exposed only to apology for an automaker’s crisis. On the other hand, for a nonprofit organization’s crisis, those who were exposed to a simple denial message showed more positive outcomes than those who perceived the mixed message as a denial. Based on these findings, this study offers practical recommendations on when to use single messages versus mixed messages, along with the explanation of how these divergent strategies work.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.