The Effectiveness of Crisis Communication Strategies on Sina Weibo in Relation to Chinese Publics’ Acceptance of These Strategies

Abstract

With their timely, interactive nature and wide public access, social media have provided a new platform that empowers stakeholders and corporations to interact in crisis communication. This study investigates crisis communication strategies and stakeholders’ emotions in response to a real corporate crisis—the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214—in order to enhance our understanding of socially mediated crisis communication. The authors examine 8,530 responses from Chinese stakeholders to crisis communication on the Chinese microblogging Web site Sina Weibo. Their findings suggest that the integrated use of accommodative and defensive communication strategies in the early stage of postcrisis communication prevented escalation of the crisis.

Keywords

crisis communication strategy social media Sina Weibo Asiana Airlines Chinese public Chinese stakeholders

Social media, particularly social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook, Twitter, or Sina Weibo, are becoming increasingly important means for companies to interact with their Web-savvy customers and other online stakeholders. Because they build on the technological foundations of Web 2.0 and allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), social media are more dialogic, faster instruments for building relationships between companies and their stakeholders than are classical off-line media (Schultz, Utz, & Goritz, 2011). Thus, social media have indeed become irreplaceable avenues of communication for corporations of all sizes.

Because various corporations have increasingly adopted social media for communication purposes due to their unique functions and features, researchers have investigated social media’s functional dimensions (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011); key driving factors, such as strategy, capacity, governance, and environment (Nah & Saxton, 2012); interaction with entrepreneurs (Fischer & Reuber, 2010); and transformation on corporate disclosure (Bonsón & Flores, 2011). There are also studies on the social media ecosystem (Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden, 2011), the personalities of social media users (Correa, Hinsley, & Gil de Zúñiga, 2010) and their use of emoticons (Fullwood, Orchard, & Floyd, 2012), translation behavior within social media (Piekkari, Welch, Welch, Peltonen, & Vesa, 2013), and the advantages and challenges of social media platforms (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Insights gained from these studies could guide existing and potential users to effectively make use of this interactive channel.

With its timely transmission and response time, as well as wide public access and interactive nature, social media facilitate two-way interaction between organizations and the public in crisis communication. Similarly, such media enable the dynamic interaction between corporations and stakeholders and between the stakeholders themselves, who are becoming more visible in the communicative process of crisis frame building (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013). In addition, social media provide corporations with a platform for regaining audience trust in crisis situations (Taylor & Perry, 2005), for serving as a resource not only for sharing information but also for allaying the public’s anxiety. As such, social media have the potential to prevent crisis escalation (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013).

Having realized the importance of social media in crisis communication and management, Austin, Liu, and Jin (2012) proposed a social-mediated crisis communication model (SCCM) that maps out the relationship between organizations and stakeholders in communication via both social media and traditional media. And factors including crisis origin, form, predictability, and controllability and publics’ acceptance of social media have been examined and identified by researchers in experimental settings (Austin et al., 2012; Jin, 2010; Jin, Liu, & Austin, 2014). Jin (2010) suggested that, especially on the interactive social media platform, organizations play the important role of a crisis—coping facilitator in helping to clarify information for stakeholders and reduce their uncertainty and negative feelings.

The study of crisis origin, crisis communication strategies, and public emotions in a crisis situation needs to be extended in order to enhance our understanding of socially mediated crisis communication in corporate contexts across cultural boundaries. Therefore, this study investigates the corporate management of crisis communication strategies on a leading social media platform in China, Sina Weibo, in relation to stakeholders’ emotions and their acceptance of the strategies. We selected the case of the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash to investigate how crisis communication was mediated on Sina Weibo.

To refer to the stakeholders in this crisis situation, we use the term publics, a “group of people who face a common issue” (González-Herrero & Pratt, 1996, p. 84). Various terms have been employed by different scholars to refer to publics. For instance, Fearn-Banks (2002) used both stakeholders and publics whereas Ulmer, Sellnow, and Seeger (2007) preferred stakeholders, and Benoit and Pang (2008) employed the term audiences. Rawlins (2006) succinctly defined publics as “the term used for stakeholders in the public relations literature … the term has frequently been related to the recipients of messages from organizations” (p. 2). And recent crisis communication studies (Choi & Lin, 2009; Jin, 2010; Jin et al., 2014; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2012; Kim & Cameron, 2011) have commonly used the term when referring to key stakeholders facing the same crisis situation.

Our study unfolds the dynamic nature of the mediation between the corporation and the publics in this complex crisis situation. We particularly focus on the corporation’s crisis communication strategies and the publics’ acceptance of these strategies, their emotions, and their coping strategies. Before we present the research questions, method, and findings for this study, we first provide a brief review of the literature on socially mediated crisis communication.

A Brief Review of the Literature

Taylor and Perry (2005) suggested that social media, as interactive platforms, have posted new possibilities for organizations’ proactive approach to a crisis and exemplified the paradigm shift from one-way communication—where an organization tells the publics what it chooses—to two-way interaction between the organization and the publics that gives publics the opportunity to respond. Social media serve as channels of news distribution during crises and help determine popular attitudes toward and opinions about the actions and responses of the protagonists (Henderson, 2003). Therefore, social media may have both a direct and an indirect impact on publics, particularly when the publics view social media as an unfiltered and up-to-date line of communication (Austin et al., 2012; Procopio & Procopio, 2007). In other words, social media, acting as crisis communication tools, have opened other doorways to regaining publics’ trust in the affected organizations (Taylor & Perry, 2005).

In the initial phase of a crisis, social media play a crucial role by acting as information-sharing resources to pacify the publics, allay fears, and avert crisis escalation (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013). During the crisis, timely, accurate, and effective communication is essential. The use of social media makes it possible to provide an early and prompt crisis response to the vast majority of stakeholders. An organization’s proactive approach in using social media for releasing information to stakeholders during a crisis is integral to effective crisis communication. If the crisis information is disseminated by a third party through social media, the publics’ attribution-dependent emotions, such as anger, contempt, and disgust, are likely to be intensified or aggravated when the organization is actually responsible for the crisis (Jin et al., 2014). But if organizations themselves disseminate crisis information through social media, they assume the important role of crisis-coping facilitator to clarify information for the publics and reduce their uncertainty and negative feelings (Jin, 2010).

Furthermore, Schultz, Utz, and Goritz (2011) have discovered that in crisis communication, the medium is more important than the message. Although people still refer to newspaper articles, social media have a more positive effect on secondary crisis communication (e.g., recipients hearing information and leaving messages) and reactions. Therefore, our study focuses on how a corporation uses social media as an interactive and effective way to mediate crisis communication to the publics in a real crisis situation. As Austin et al. (2012) suggested, having a well-established social media presence and good relationships with social media users is beneficial for releasing information during a crisis. Sharing user-generated content, particularly in disasters or emergency situations, may help to spread information the organization wishes to share (Austin et al., 2012) and maximize communicative effectiveness (Freberg, 2012).

Taking into account the importance of using social media for prompt and effective crisis communication, scholars have started to investigate the conceptual framework of socially mediated crisis communication with various groups of companies, crises, and stakeholders so as to further refine the framework with a more in-depth analysis and wider coverage of samples that cater to different social and cultural contexts (Austin et al., 2012; Jin, 2010; Kietzmann et al., 2011; Kim & Cameron, 2011; Schultz et al., 2011). For instance, Austin et al. (2012) proposed an SCCM that explores the relationship between organizations and publics in communication via social and traditional media. And the association between crisis origin, form, predictability, controllability, and response strategies and publics’ acceptance of social media has also been examined by researchers in experimental settings (Austin et al., 2012; Jin, 2010; Jin et al., 2014). But further study into crisis communication strategies and response management in an “ongoing real crisis situation” is warranted (Jin et al., 2014, p. 90).

We believe that a detailed investigation of current studies of real crisis situations from a sociopsychological perspective that focuses on perception and response shaping in a specific cultural context, such as the fast-growing China, would help us understand socially mediated crisis communication in corporate contexts. A number of related studies have been done on crisis communication in the China context (e.g., Chen, 2013; Liang, 2012; Jing Zhao, 2012; Jing yang Zhao, 2013), but few studies have investigated communication with the Chinese publics via the Chinese social media platform in a real crisis situation. Therefore, this study examines an ongoing real crisis situation with respect to the corporate management of crisis communication strategies on a leading social media platform in China, Sina Weibo, in relation to the publics’ acceptance of the strategies and expressed emotions.

In the crisis situation that we selected for investigating how crisis communication was mediated on Sina Weibo, the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, the Chinese publics, who learned about the crisis through news media (Jin, 2010), had a high stake because the plane crash caused the death of three Chinese students. After the crisis, Sina Weibo became the leading platform for corporate–stakeholder communication.

Unlike Facebook and Twitter, which are both globally used, Sina Weibo has a user population that is concentrated in the Greater China region. Sina Weibo is “a Twitter-like microblogging service provided by Sina corporation.… It is reported to have over 300 million registered users and generate about 100 million posts per day” (Yuan, Feng, & Danowski, 2013, p. 1014). Although Twitter and Sina Weibo have a comparable number of users—Sina Weibo’s registered users reached 600 million in 2015—Twitter is available in 29 languages (and Facebook is available in 70 languages) whereas Sina Weibo is available only in Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and English (but without a complete English interface). Despite the limited number of languages that are available on Sina Weibo, it is considered to be the “direct interface” in public relations management in Hong Kong and China (Ngai & Ng, 2013, p. 577). Having a range of features similar to those of Facebook and Twitter, Sina Weibo (see Appendix) has a unique positioning and characteristics that attract different groups of users in China.

Purpose of Study and Research Questions

Given its dominance and functional role, Sina Weibo became the main social media platform for crisis communication between the corporation and the Chinese publics in the aftermath of the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 on July 6, 2013. We found 38 corporate posts from Asiana Airlines and 8,350 responses from Chinese publics on Sina Weibo related to this crash. In contrast, we found only 566 and 53 responses on Facebook and Twitter, respectively. We examined the crisis communication mediated by Sina Weibo using a qualitative content analysis to unfold the dynamic nature of the mediation between the corporation and the publics in this complex crisis situation. In particular, we focused on the corporation’s crisis communication strategies and the publics’ acceptance of these strategies, emotions, and coping strategies.

To begin with, we needed to identify the crisis communication strategies that the airlines adopted on Sina Weibo in connection to the origin and appraisal dimensions (i.e., predictability and controllability) of the crisis. Based on the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) investigation, the cause of the crash was closely associated with the pilot’s control of speed in the last 2.5 minutes before the crash (Associate Press, 2013). Because, as the investigation determined, the pilot’s slow and low flying of Flight 214 was responsible for the crash, it could be categorized as an internally generated crisis with high corporate responsibility (Coombs & Holladay, 2002), low crisis predictability, and low crisis controllability (Jin, 2010; Jin et al., 2014). Crisis predictability refers to how well the publics could predict what was going to happen in the situation whereas crisis controllability refers to how the publics “view their own control over the crisis situation” (Jin, 2010, p. 526).

Taking crisis origin, predictability, and controllability into consideration, a corporation could employ a variety of crisis response strategies ranging from accommodative (e.g., providing compensation or an apology) to defensive (e.g., attacking the accuser, issuing a denial, providing excuses or justifications) for postcrisis reputation building (Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Huang, 2006). Of these, the accommodative strategy is often regarded as an effective strategy for image repair, especially when the publics regard the corporation as responsible for the crisis (Coombs, 1998; Jin et al., 2014; Lee, 2004; Lyon & Cameron, 2004). Coombs and Holladay (2002) have suggested that the accommodative crisis communication strategy, particularly a full apology strategy, is expected in a crisis situation where corporate holds a high responsibility. Jin (2010) has also proposed that accommodative strategy is preferred in a crisis with high predictability and low controllability. But in a crisis with low predictability and controllability, as in the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, a justification strategy is most preferred. The organization’s reputation could be preserved and their image could be restored if it chooses an appropriate crisis communication response (Heath & Coombs, 2006). Our first research question (RQ), then, was the following:

Research Question 1: What crisis communication strategies did Asiana Airlines employ on Sina Weibo?

For a thorough understanding of the crisis communication strategies employed, we have adopted Lukaszewski’s (2001) seven-step approach to crisis communication management to unfold the tendency and use of accommodative and justification strategies, the two response strategies that researchers have suggested are most effective for crises with different levels of corporate responsibility, predictability, and controllability (Coombs, 1998; Jin, 2010; Jin et al., 2014; Lee, 2004; Lyon & Cameron, 2004). This seven-step approach includes candor (acknowledging or apologizing for the problem), explanation (providing a prompt and brief reason for the problem), declaration (committing to taking steps to resolve the situation and discussing those steps), contrition (taking responsibility by showing regret, empathy, and sympathy), consultation (involving stakeholders when offering a solution), commitment (making a promise), and restitution (making prompt and unconditional restoration). The candor, declaration, contrition, consultation, commitment, and restitution approaches are accommodative strategies whereas the explanation approach is a justification strategy.

Our next two research questions focus on the publics’ acceptance of the crisis communication strategies that the corporation adopted. This acceptance can be revealed by (a) the change in frequency and volume and (b) the tonality of the publics’ responses toward these crisis communication strategies. Corporate manifestation on social media can allay publics’ panic and speculation and, as a result, prevent crisis escalation (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013). And, as Fearn-Banks (2002, p. 2) remarked, the objectives of crisis communication are to influence “public perception” and restore corporations’ “normalcy,” image, and reputation. The change in frequency and volume of the publics’ responses to the corporation’s crisis communication strategies could explain if the crisis is prevented from escalating and whether “normalcy” will be restored. This study therefore examines the effectiveness of the specific crisis communication strategies adopted in a real crisis situation involving communication with Chinese stakeholders on a leading social media platform.

In examining the publics’ acceptance of the adopted crisis communication strategies, we wanted to see whether the tonality of the publics’ responses complemented their response frequency and volume. Both Coombs (1998) and Lyon and Cameron (2004) showed that an apologetic and accommodative response is preferred in a crisis of internal origin. And a high level of public acceptance is expected when a corporation adopts accommodative responses in a crisis of internal origin (Jin et al., 2014). On the other hand, Jin (2010) found that publics tended to accept the corporation’s use of a justification strategy in a crisis of low predictability and low controllability. Therefore, we posed the following research questions:

Research Question 2: How did the publics’ acceptance of the crisis communication strategies relate to the frequency and volume of their responses?

Research Question 3: What was the tonality of the publics’ responses to each specific crisis communication strategy on Sina Weibo?

We also wanted to determine how the negative emotions that the publics expressed in their responses on Sina Weibo during the crisis related to the crisis communication strategies that the corporation adopted. Previous research has identified a direct relationship between corporate crisis responsibility and six predominant negative public emotions—anger, sadness, anxiety, fright, contempt, and disappointment—in that these specific emotions could cause undesirable crisis outcomes (Choi & Lin, 2009; Jin, 2010; Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2007; Jin et al., 2014; Lazarus, 1991; McDonald, Sparks, & Glendon, 2010). For instance, anger and fear may instigate negative word of mouth (Coombs, 2007; McDonald et al., 2010). Further, in a study of a crisis with low predictability and low controllability, fright was the primary emotion observed (Jin, 2010).

Research also indicates that high crisis responsibility often correlates with negative public emotions (Choi & Lin, 2009; McDonald et al., 2010), especially in an internally generated crisis like the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, in which the publics tend to be more negative and less sympathetic (Jin et al., 2014). Therefore, we posed the following two research questions:

Research Question 4: What negative emotions did the publics express on Sina Weibo?

Research Question 5: How did negative emotions that the publics expressed differ in relation to the communication strategies adopted by the corporation?

Finally, we wanted to examine the strategies that the publics used to cope with their emotions in a crisis situation. An understanding of such strategies could help corporations to “customize messages for publics in crisis” (Jin, 2010, p. 529) and determine whether action is required and, if so, what kind of action to take (Jin et al., 2007; Lazarus, 1991). For example, in crisis situations with low organization engagement, publics are expected to adopt cognitive coping (rational and positive thinking) in order to cope with emotions of fright and sadness (Jin et al., 2012). In such cases, the organization needs to inform the “people affected by the crisis how they should physically react to the crisis” (Sturges, 1994, p. 308).

Drawing on Duhachek’s (2005) study, Jin (2010) proposed a framework for a three-dimensional coping strategy: cognitive coping (rational thinking, positive thinking, avoidance and denial), conative coping (action and instrumental support), and emotional coping (emotional support and venting). In this framework, each dimension enacts a diverse set of strategies for coping with different types of crises. Other research suggests that coping strategies are driven by two determinants: the certainty and controllability of the situation (Slovic, 1987). For instance, the emotional coping strategy is preferred when emotions of fear are triggered in a low certainty and control crisis situation (Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, & Fischhoff, 2003) whereas the conative coping strategy is preferred when anger—another predominant type of negative emotion—is provoked in a high certainty and control crisis situation (Lerner & Keltner, 2000, 2001). Thus, the emotions displayed in the publics’ responses could reveal their coping strategies. For instance, rational and positive responses could indicate that the publics employed the cognitive coping strategy whereas emotional responses could indicate that the publics’ employed the emotional coping strategy.

Regarding the publics’ preference for a particular coping strategy in a crisis situation of low predictability and controllability, such as that surrounding the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, Jin’s (2010) earlier study confirmed that the emotional coping strategy, including the use of emotional venting and support, is most preferred by the publics to manage their crisis-induced negative emotions. Therefore, our last research question investigates how the coping strategies that the publics adopted relate to the emotions identified in their responses on Sina Weibo:

Research Question 6: What coping strategies were revealed in the Chinese publics’ emotional responses to the crisis situation?

Method

In this study, we analyzed all the posts and responses concerning the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 that we found on the Asiana Airlines’ corporate Sina Weibo site. In total, we found 38 posts by Asiana Airlines and 8,530 Chinese responses. Because of the large number of public responses to this crisis on Sina Weibo (compared with 566 and 53 responses on Facebook and Twitter, respectively), we adopted simple random sampling, selecting for coding the first 5 responses per hour that were posted by Chinese publics from July 7 to July 23, 2013. In total, we selected all 38 corporate posts and 1,725 responses from the Chinese publics. Using the Sample Size Calculator built and supported by the National Statistical Service (n.d.) at the Australia Bureau of Statistics, we found that the minimum sample size for 8,350 responses is 615 (standard error at .01941) when the confidence level is set at 99%, proportion at .5, and confidence interval at .05. Thus, the 1,725 responses that we selected by using the simple random sampling of 5 responses per hour reached a confidence level of 99%, with a confidence interval of .02763 and standard error of .01073.

To code our data, we enlisted a trained coder, who followed a codebook with our coding guidelines for each research question (Huang, 2006). We used content analysis to determine what crisis communication strategies the airlines employed (Research Question 1). Each sentence in all 38 corporate posts were coded using Lukaszewski’s (2001) seven-step approach to crisis management in order to determine the use of crisis response strategies (Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Huang, 2006), especially the accommodative and justification strategies for postcrisis reputation building. The seven steps in this approach are candor, explanation, declaration, contrition, consultation, commitment, and restitution. Table 1 provides examples of sentences in our study that were coded with this seven-step approach.

Table 1.

Examples of Coded Sentences for Each Step in the Seven-Step Approach.

Approach	Example (Sentence)
Candor	此次事故航班為OZ214航班，於韓國時間7月6日16時35分先韓國仁川機場出發前往美國舊金山機場，客機於韓國時間7月7日淩晨03時27分 (美國當地時間7月6日11時27分)在舊金山機場28號跑道著陸時發生事故。 (Extract of Post 7 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: The flight of this accident is OZ214. It departed from Korea Incheon International Airport to the U.S. San Francisco International Airport at 16:35 on 6 July (Korean Time). The accident happened when the aircraft was landing on 28 runways in San Francisco International Airport.
Explanation	目前對事故發生的原因正在確認中。此飛機在著陸過程中機尾部分觸碰了跑道而發生了事故，造成了起火。具體跑道的使用方面，是在接到塔台許可後實施的著陸。 (Extract of Post 10 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: The reasons for the cause of the accident are pending for confirmation in the meantime. The tail of the flight touched the runway. Then, the accident happened and caused the outbreak of fire. The use of the runway is permitted by the tower.
Declaration	最新更新: 因中國家屬之前未持有護照，所以在市政府和其他相關部門的幫助下昨晚新拿到護照，韓亞航空協助辦理家屬的美國簽證，預計今早會出簽證，一切如果順利的話，今天可以安排家屬赴美。 (Extract of Post 14 on July 8, 2013) Literal translation: The latest update: Since the Chinese family members of the passengers did not have valid passports, the city government and related departments decided to help them to get the passport last night. Asiana Airlines (AA) will assist the family members to acquire their U.S. visa this morning. If things go well, AA would be able to fly the families to the U.S. today.
Contrition	韓亞航空全體員工向此次事故中的遇難者表示深深的哀悼，向遇難者家屬表達最深切的慰問，全力幫助此次事故中受傷的中國乘客早康復。 (Extract of Post 29 on July 12, 2013) Literal translation: All staff of Asiana Airlines expressed their deepest condolences to the victims and sincere regards to victims’ families. We will do our best to help the injured passengers in this accident to recover as soon as possible.
Consultation	同時，(社長)將會見美國政府機關相關人員及中國駐舊金山總領事館相關人員等，繼續開展事故處理和調查工作。 (Extract of Post 25 on July 9, 2013) Literal translation: At the same time, the CEO will meet the officers of the U.S. government and the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco to manage and investigate the accident.
Commitment	為了針對此次事故作出補救，韓亞航空將會在全公司投入全力致力於安全飛行。 (Extract of Post 10 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: To remedy this incident and prevent similar incidents from happening again, Asiana Airlines will devote itself to air safety.
Restitution	我們在醫院安排了協助專員，以便向傷者及家屬提供更便利的就醫治療環境，同時也提供接送服務。 (Extract of Post 34 on July 16, 2013) Literal translation: We have assigned assistants in the hospitals to provide a better environment for the injured customers and family members to recover. At the same time, we also provide transportation services.

We scrutinized the 38 corporate posts and all 8,530 responses from the Chinese publics to determine how the publics’ acceptance of the crisis communication strategies related to the frequency and volume (number) of responses generated (Research Question 2). Then, we coded the selected 1,725 public responses to uncover the dominant tonality (negative, neutral, or positive) of these responses (Research Question 3). Table 2 shows examples of the coded responses for each tone type.

Table 2.

Examples of Coded Responses for Each Tone Type.

Tonality	Example
Negative	不用道歉，永遠不坐貴公司的飛機。 (Public response to Post 15 on July 8, 2013) Literal translation: No need to say sorry. I will never ever fly with Asiana Airlines.
Neutral	這對韓亞影響應該比較大吧 … 好好處理 (Public response to Post 1 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: It does affect Asiana.… Handle with care.
Positive	佩服。。責任感和勇氣 (Public response to Post 25 on July 9, 2013) Literal translation: Admirable … for being responsible and brave.

To reveal the negative emotions expressed in the Chinese publics’ responses to the corporate crisis response strategies (Research Questions 4 and 5), the 1,725 public responses were coded for their expression of six predominant negative emotions—anger, sadness, anxiety, fright, contempt, and disappointment (Jin, 2010; Jin et al., 2007). Table 3 lists examples of the coded responses expressing these negative emotions.

Table 3.

Examples of the Coded Responses Expressing Six Negative Emotions.

Negative Emotion	Example
Anger	… 垃圾 (Public response to Post 2 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: … Rubbish
Sadness	不知道說甚麼，每次看到這種新聞心情總是會跟著一起難受!希望天堂一切安好! (Public response to Post 1 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: Don’t know what to say. Whenever I heard this kind of news, I feel sad. Hope that the victims will rest in peace!
Anxiety	希望盡快調查出事故原因。每個月都得坐你們的飛機出差。 (Public response to Post 12 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: Hope you will find the cause of accident as soon as possible as I need to travel on your flights for business trips every month.
Fright	真嚇人啊!過幾天還要坐飛機回家呢 … 還是不敢坐飛機，竟然又出現空難了 … 今年再讓我丟個大件兒也沒關係，讓我破財免災恩恩∼∼∼ (Public response to Post 1 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: It is really scary! I have to take a flight to go home in the next few days.… I do not dare to fly. The crash happened again. It is totally fine for me to lose something valuable to escape from the bad luck.
Contempt	那不叫援助好吧!而是你們的責任，不要說的跟得到你們甚麼好處似的。 (Public response to Post 11 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: That is not “help.” It is your responsibility. Don’t make it sound like we have gained benefits from you.
Disappointment	如果是飛行員的問題我就對韓亞徹底失望了 (Public response to Post 7 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: If it is the problem of the pilot, I am totally disappointed in Asiana.

To identify the coping strategies that the Chinese publics employed (Research Question 6), the selected 1,725 public responses were coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very emotional, 2 = rather emotional, 3 = partly emotional and partly rational, 4 = rather rational, 5 = very rational) to describe the level of the dominant emotion that the response evoked. Table 4 gives examples of coded responses for each of the five levels of emotions.

Table 4.

Examples of Coded Responses for the Five Levels of Emotions.

Emotion	Example
5 Very rational	好好善後!安撫乘客，高層道歉取得原諒為止。該賠償的一定要賠償。不要拖延和錯誤信息，有哪裡出問題，哪裡即使補正。事故誰都不想的，第一時間出事故報告，甚麼原因導致飛機失事的?才不會影響貴公司股價和聲譽。 (Public response to Post 1 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: Handling the accident properly! Pacify the passengers. The senior management needs to apologize until the victims forgive them. Compensate when needed. Do not drag on and release wrong information. If there are problems, resolve them immediately. No one wishes for the accident. Release the accident investigation report promptly to avoid damage to your reputation and minimize the impact on your stock price.
4 Rather rational	這對韓亞航空影響比較大吧………好好處理 (Public response to Post 1 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: It does affect Asiana.… Handle with care.
3 Partly rational and partly emotional	“該航班飛行員有豐富的飛行經驗，機組人員都嚴格按照規定執飛。飛機未發現機械和技術缺憾。”韓亞航空想表達的是，這就是命對嗎? (Public response to Post 1 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: The pilot of that flight has extensive experience in flying. The crew operated the flight based on strict guidance. The aircraft does not have any mechanical and technical defects. So what does Asiana Airlines wish to express? This is destiny?
2 Rather emotional	兩個年輕的生命，就這樣…… (Public response to Post 1 on July 7, 2013) Literal translation: It is a pity that two young girls …
1 Very emotional	777都能飛到墜機，棒子那滿口蹩腳英語，以前沒出事，只是運氣而己，這次典型的人為事故，搭上卻是無辜乘客的性命，堅決抵制棒子航空!!! (Public response to Post 1 on July 8, 2013) Literal translation: The pilot could even crash Boeing 777. It is just pure luck that no accident has happened before. Bangzi’s (a deprecatory ethnic slur for Koreans) English is awful. This is a typical man-induced accident and it costs innocent passengers’ lives. I insist on boycotting Bangzi’s Airlines!!!

For a pilot run, one of us and the trained coder each coded the July 7 posts and responses in order to ensure that the trained coder had a thorough understanding of the codebook. When disagreements arose in the coding of this pilot run, the researcher discussed them with the coder and refined the codebook to explain how to code discrepant items (Huang, 2006). Then both coders double coded 10% of the corporate posts collected (i.e., 4 corporate posts and their 117 corresponding responses), including the first post on July 7 and the related responses that occurred on July 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 for interrater checking (Kolbe & Burnett, 1991; Neuendorf, 2002). Using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (Bakeman, 2000; Dewey, 1983), we arrived at a Cohen’s κ of .937 agreement (n = 604).

Findings

In the following subsections, we discuss how our findings answered each of our six research questions.

The Crisis Communication Strategies Employed by Asiana Airlines on Sina Weibo

To answer Research Question 1, we examined the crisis communication strategies employed by Asiana Airlines after the crash of its Flight 214. We found that of the 38 corporate posts, 12 (32%) offered a full apology and employed the justification strategy. Using the seven-step approach to crisis communication management to study the corporate posts about the crash that appeared on Sina Weibo from July 7 to July 23, 2013, we found that the corporation adopted all seven steps in the July 7 and July 8 posts, five steps in the July 9 post, four steps in the July 12 and July 16 posts, three steps in the July 10 and July 13 posts, and only two steps in the July 23 post. Thus, we found a gradual decrease in the number of steps taken in the period studied (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The use of the seven-step approach in corporate crisis communication posts on Sina Weibo.

Of the seven steps, explanation, with 88 sentences identified (41.1% of the codable sentences),¹ was the most commonly adopted step in the corporate crisis communication on Sina Weibo followed by declaration (n = 46, 21.5%) and contrition (n = 22, 10.3%). Explanation was also the most used step in the July 7 (n = 24, 30.4%), July 8 (n = 29, 52.7%), July 9 (n = 6, 33.3%), July 10 (n = 14, 73.7%), July 13 (n = 3, 60%), and July 23 (n = 6, 85.7%) posts. The proportion of declaration sentences on a single day peaked on July 16 (n = 10, 45.5%) whereas the proportion of contrition sentences peaked on July 12 (n = 5, 55.5%). Given the accommodative nature of the candor, declaration, contrition, consultation, commitment, and restitution steps, the percentage of the accommodative-oriented approaches that these steps encompassed reached 58.9% whereas the justification strategy that the explanation step encompassed accounted for the other 41.1%. This integrated use of accommodative- and justification-oriented approaches shows that Asiana Airlines used a blend of strategies in its crisis communication concerning the Flight 214 crash.

The airline’s blended use of accommodative and justification strategies might have resulted from the high corporate responsibility and the low predictability and controllability nature of the crash. In fact, the airlines seemed to favor the full-apology (accommodative) strategy in this internally originated crisis with low predictability and low controllability. Table 5 shows excerpts from the corporate posts that adopted a full-apology approach. These posts included apologies made by the CEO of Asiana Airlines to the victims and their families and an apology from Asiana Airlines to the Chinese publics.

Table 5.

Excerpts From Corporate Posts Adopting the Full-Apology Strategy.

Date and Time	Post Number	Full-Apology Strategy Embodied in the Contrition Step
July 8, 2013 9:43 a.m.	15	韓亞航空社長向中國人民的致歉信: 對於此次事故給所有乘客和家屬及中國人民帶來的極大悲傷和憂慮，我們深感愧疚，並對所有中國人民表達最深刻的歉意。… 再一次向全體中國人民表達最深刻的歉意。 Literal translation: The Apology Letter to Chinese Citizens From Asiana Airlines’ CEO We feel deep regret that the accident has caused tremendous sorrow and anxiety to Chinese citizens. We would like to express our sincere apology to all Chinese citizens.… Once again, we would like to express our sincere apology to all Chinese citizens.
July 9, 2013 2:16 p.m.	25	尹永斗社長向遇難者家屬鞠躬致歉 7月8日晚，韓亞航空尹永斗社長在仁川機場轉機登機口向因此次飛機失事遇難的中國少女家屬鞠躬並連聲道歉:”非常抱歉，非常抱歉。”表示道歉和哀悼。尹永斗社長還稱: “非常抱歉，我們會徹底查清此次事故原因，給遇難者家屬一個交代並盡快確定解決對策。”…… 到達目的地後，尹永斗社長第一時間去慰問受傷乘客並表達歉意。 Literal translation: CEO, Young-Doo Yoon Bowed to Apologize to the Victims’ Family Members Asiana Airlines’ CEO Young-Doo Yoon bowed to apologize to the family members of the dead girls of this air accident at the boarding gate of connecting flights. “I am really sorry. I am really sorry,” said Asiana Airlines’ CEO Young-Doo Yoon to express apology and regret. “I am really sorry. We will definitely find out the actual reasons behind this accident and come up with an appropriate strategy to solve the problems as soon as possible for the victims’ family members,” continued CEO Young-Doo Yoon.… After arrival, CEO Young-Doo Yoon went to visit the injured passengers immediately and apologized to them.
July 12, 2013 8:32 a.m.	29	韓亞航空向中國人民致歉韓亞航空對此次事故給中國人民及政府造成的傷痛和憂慮深感愧疚，向因此次事故沉浸在悲痛中的乘客家屬、親人、傷者及所有乘客深深鞠躬，致以我們最深刻的歉意。…… 最後，再次對乘客及家屬、所有中國人民鞠躬，致以最深刻的歉意。 Literal translation: Asiana Airlines Apologizes to Chinese Citizens Asiana Airlines feels deep regret that this accident has caused Chinese citizens and government tremendous pain and anxiety. We would like to bow to express our deepest apology to the family members of the victims, the injured passengers and all passengers.… Lastly, we would like to bow again to express our deepest apology to the passengers, family members and all Chinese citizens.
July 13, 2013 9:13 a.m.	30	韓亞航空社長尹永斗致歉: “向遇難者及其家屬表示深深的哀悼，向因此次事故造成的傷痛和憂慮深感愧疚。” Literal translation: “I would like to express my sorrow to the victims and their family members. I feel deep regret about the pain and anxiety caused by this accident,” apologized Asiana Airlines’ CEO Young-Doo Yoon.

The Chinese Publics’ Acceptance of the Corporate Crisis Communication Strategies

Research Question 2 examined how the publics’ acceptance of the crisis communication strategies related to the frequency and volume of their responses.

To answer Research Question 2, we first mapped the frequency and volume of the corporate posts and the Chinese publics’ responses from July 7 to July 23, 2013 (see Figure 2). Despite the relatively large number of responses from the publics, the publics’ responses were synonymous with the corporate posts in their gradual decline in volume from July 7 to July 13. The number of public responses reduced drastically when Asiana Airlines adopted the accommodative strategy, particularly on July 7 and July 8, when it held press conferences about the crash. The airline decided to synchronize its messages on both traditional and new media platforms by rendering similar messages at its July 7 and July 8 press conferences and on Sina Weibo. Using Weibo not only allowed the airline to provide up-to-date information about the incident and extend apologies to Chinese stakeholders; it encouraged timely two-way communication between the airline and the publics. After the airline’s release of 13 and 11 posts on July 7 and 8, respectively, the number of responses that the publics made dropped sharply from 4,626 on July 7 and 3,114 on July 8 to 400 on July 9 and only 49 on July 10. On July 23, the last day of corporate-initiated communication in this time period, only 82 fan responses were recorded. Our findings suggest, then, that Asiana Airlines’ crisis communication strategies effectively prevented crisis escalation (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013) in the initial stage of postcrisis communication.

Figure 2.

Corporate crisis communication posts and the publics’ responses (by date) on Sina Weibo.

Taking the 14-day precrisis (June 23 to July 7, 2013) and 14-day postcrisis (July 24 to August 6, 2013) responses on Asiana Airlines’ Sina Weibo site into account, we found an average of 13 responses before and 17 responses after the Flight 214 crash, which suggests that the publics’ communication with the corporation in relation to response frequency and volume was restored to “normalcy” (Fearn-Banks, 2002, p. 2).

Research Question 3 addressed the tonality of the publics’ responses to the specific crisis communication strategies. Negativity has commonly been noted in public responses when a crisis has an internal origin (Jin et al., 2014) and a corporation has high crisis responsibility (Choi & Lin, 2009; McDonald et al., 2010). We found that of the 1,725 public responses collected in our study from July 7 to July 23, negatively toned responses (n = 854, 49.5%) predominated over neutral (n = 704, 40.8%) and positive (n = 167, 9.7%) responses (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Tonality of the publics’ responses (by date) on Sina Weibo.

But we found an overall growth in the proportion of responses that were positive or neutral toned from July 9 to July 13. This trend may be attributed to the airline’s adoption of the full-apology strategy in its corporate posts July 8, 9, 12, and 13 (see Tables 5 and 6). Table 6 displays selected quotations from the publics’ positive responses to corporate posts adopting an apology strategy.

Table 6.

Excerpts From the Publics’ Positive Responses to Corporate Posts Adopting the Full-Apology Strategy.

Date/Post Number	Positively Toned Response
July 8/15	8:25 p.m. on July 9 及時道歉，很好! Literal translation: Apologize at the right time. Very good!
July 8/16	2:35 p.m. on July 9 處理得不錯 Literal translation: The crisis is handled in a nice way.
July 9/25	2:23 p.m. on July 9 佩服。。責任感和勇氣 Literal translation: I admire Asiana Airlines’ sense of responsibility and bravery.
July 9/26	9:03 p.m. on July 9 希望能面試上韓亞，加油 Literal translation: I hope that I could become a member of the staff of Asiana Airlines. Cheer up, Asiana!
July 12/29	10:07 a.m. on July 12 態度值得肯定!有錯就認!比國內航空公司好多了!以後還是會選擇韓亞! Literal translation: The attitude is good! Being able to admit the wrongs is a lot better than the airlines in China! Asiana will still be my choice!
July 13/30	5:15 p.m. on 15 July 韓亞很棒，這次意外讓人很心痛，這種事情能發生在韓亞上也很驚訝∼這樣韓亞甚麼時候才能招乘務員呢? Literal translation: Asiana is great. The accident is painful and I am surprised that Asiana had this kind of accident. In this case, when can Asiana recruit new flight attendants?

The ascending number of negatively toned responses after July 13 suggests a change in the publics’ perceptions toward Asiana Airlines. As Table 7 shows, the number of responses expressing anger rose again when Asiana Airlines tried to explain and justify its pilot selection and aircraft maintenance (Posts 10, 18, 22, and 27) and praised its staff for their contributions during the crisis (Post 20).

Table 7.

Six Negative Emotions Expressed in the Publics’ Responses to the Crisis Communication Strategies in Corporate Posts.

Post Number	Anger (n)	Sadness (n)	Anxiety (n)	Fright (N)	Contempt (n)	Disappointment (n)	Total (n)
1	8	12	1	5	9	0	35
2	11	0	1	0	1	0	13
3	4	0	0	0	0	0	4
4	1	0	0	0	1	1	3
5	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
6	6	3	0	0	0	0	9
7^a	3	1	0	1	2	1	8
8	3	0	1	0	1	0	5
9	3	27	0	0	0	0	30
10^ab	5	1	0	0	0	0	6
11	31	54	0	4	2	1	92
12	4	0	1	0	1	0	6
13	26	7	1	0	2	0	36
14	13	0	1	1	3	0	18
15^a	108	13	3	1	19	9	153
16^a	10	0	0	0	2	1	13
17	1	0	0	0	1	0	2
18^b	34	1	1	0	8	4	48
19	7	0	0	0	1	0	8
20	13	0	0	0	2	0	15
21	1	0	0	0	3	1	5
22^b	10	2	0	0	1	1	14
23	4	0	0	0	0	0	4
24	35	5	6	3	4	2	55
25^a	53	10	0	1	13	5	82
26^a	13	0	2	0	1	0	16
27^b	15	0	0	0	2	0	17
28	6	0	0	0	2	0	8
29^a	30	0	1	0	1	2	34
30^a	5	2	0	0	4	0	11
32	1	0	0	0	4	0	5
34^a	6	0	1	0	1	1	9
37	25	0	0	1	11	1	38
38	38	0	1	1	10	1	51
Total	534	138	21	18	112	31	854

^aPost adopting apology strategy. ^bPost adopting justification strategy.

Negative Emotions Expressed by Chinese Publics on Sina Weibo

In answer to Research Question 4, which explored the different types of negative emotions that the Chinese publics expressed on Sina Weibo during the crisis, we found that 854 (49.5%) of the 1,725 responses in our study had a negative tone. As Figure 3 shows, most of these negative responses occurred on July 7 (n = 248) and July 8 (n = 335). We further subcategorized the negative emotions in these 854 responses into anger, sadness, anxiety, fright, contempt, and disappointment, the six commonly found negative emotions in crisis communication (Jin, 2010; Jin et al., 2007). As Table 7 shows, anger (n = 534, 63%) was the predominant negative emotion expressed followed by sadness (n = 138, 16%), contempt (n = 112, 13%), disappointment (n = 31, 4%), anxiety (n = 21, 2%), and fright (n = 18, 2%).

Research Question 5 examined how the negative emotions that the public expressed varied in relation to the crisis communication strategies (i.e., the apology and justification strategies) that the corporation adopted. Despite the corporation’s integrated use of strategies in its crisis communication after the crash, anger was the most dominant negative emotion that the publics expressed. Table 8 lists the six negative emotions expressed in the publics’ responses according to the full-apology and justification strategies employed in the corporate posts.

Table 8.

Variations in the Six Negative Emotions Expressed in the Publics’ Responses According to the Crisis Communication Strategies (Apology or Justification) Employed in the Corporate Posts.

Post Number (Strategy)	Anger, n (%)	Sadness, n (%)	Anxiety, n (%)	Fright, n (%)	Contempt, n (%)	Disappointment, n (%)
7 (apology)	3 (37.5%)	1 (12.5%)	0 (0%)	1 (12.5%)	2 (25%)	1 (12.5%)
10 (apology and justification)	5 (83.3%)	1 (16.7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
15 (apology)	108 (70.6%)	13 (8.5%)	3 (2.0%)	1 (0.7%)	19 (12.4%)	9 (5.9%)
16 (apology)	10 (76.9%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (15.4%)	1 (7.7%)
18 (justification)	34 (70.8%)	1 (2.1%)	1 (2.1%)	0 (0%)	8 (16.7%)	4 (8.3%)
22 (justification)	10 (71.4%)	2 (14.3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (7.1%)	1 (7.1%)
25 (apology)	53 (64.6%)	10 (12.2%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.2%)	13 (15.9%)	5 (6.1%)
26 (apology)	13 (81.3%)	0 (0%)	2 (12.5%)	0 (0%)	1 (6.3%)	0 (0%)
27 (justification)	15 (88.2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (11.8%)	0 (0%)
29 (apology)	30 (88.2%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.9%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.9%)	2 (5.9%)
30 (apology)	5 (45.5%)	2 (18.2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (36.4%)	0 (0%)
34 (apology)	6 (66.7%)	0 (0%)	1 (11.1%)	0 (0%)	1 (11.1%)	1 (11.1%)

The expression of anger in the Chinese publics’ responses was mainly associated with their perception of how Asiana Airlines had handled the crisis. The corporation’s use of an apology strategy in its postcrisis communication managed to slightly lessen the percentage of angry responses (Posts 15 and 25). But the percentage of those expressing anger sometimes increased when Asiana Airlines tried to justify their pilot selection and aircraft maintenance (Posts 10 and 27) and praised its staff for their contributions during the crisis (Post 20, see Table 7). With the number of crash-caused deaths rising and the repetitive use of the apology strategy, this accommodative strategy seemed to lose its appeal and impact on the publics’ anger management (Posts 26, 29, and 34). The Chinese publics expressed contempt in Posts 29, 30, and 34 even when the corporation had apologized again on Sina Weibo.

Figure 4 shows the percentage of the responses to each corporate post (i.e., corporate posts using apology and justification strategies) in which the publics expressed one of the three predominant negative emotions—anger, sadness, and contempt. Sadness in the responses was linked to the report of the death of the Chinese students. Of the responses to Posts 9 and 11, in which Asiana Airlines provided updated information of the number of deaths and injuries, 90% and 59%, respectively, expressed sadness. Expressions of contempt seem to be associated with the corporation’s explanation for the crash, which led to public responses that the corporation was responsible for the air crash because it had hired inexperienced pilots and did not adequately compensate them (Posts 17 and 21).

Figure 4.

Percentage of responses to each corporate post in which the publics expressed one of three predominant negative emotions (anger, sadness, and contempt).

Coping Strategies That the Chinese Publics Used to Deal With the Crisis

Research Question 6 examined the coping strategies that the Chinese publics used to manage their negative emotions in responses to the crisis situation. Of the 1,725 public responses in our sample, 76% were either very emotional (VE), rather emotional (RE), or partly rational or emotional (PRE), reflecting the use of the affective coping strategy.

We coded the emotionality of the 1,725 public responses in our sample by using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1, very rational, to 5, very emotional. Figure 5 displays the result of our coding, the mean coding for these responses was 2.89, indicating that the publics were likely to give a partly rational and partly emotional response (n = 879, 51%). But a degree of rather emotional and very emotional responses occurred on July 8 (RE: n = 122, 22%; VE: n = 68, 12%), July 12 (RE: n = 18, 32%; VE: n = 2, 3%), and July 23 (RE: n = 21, 33%; VE: n = 2, 3%).

Figure 5.

Emotionality of public responses (by date) on Sina Weibo to the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214.

As we discussed earlier, the publics’ coping strategies can be uncovered based on the level of emotions expressed in their responses. For instance, responses that demonstrate a rational level of emotions are associated with the cognitive coping strategy whereas more emotional responses coincide with the affective coping strategy. In our findings, the relatively high proportion of emotional responses (RE: n = 293, 17%; VE: n = 120, 7%) reflects the strong use of affective coping strategies, such as emotional venting and emotional support. The emotional venting coping strategy refers to “attempts to recognize and express one’s emotions” (Duhachek, 2005, p. 46) whereas the emotional support coping strategy refers to an “attempt to marshal social resources to improve one’s emotional and/or mental state” (p. 44).

The publics used an affective coping strategy in their responses to corporate posts employing the apology and justification strategies. Table 9 provides excerpts illustrating a strong use of emotional venting and support coping strategies in the publics’ responses to the corporate posts of July 8 and 12 that include apology and justification strategies. The publics used both emotional venting and support coping strategies in responding to corporate posts that adopted the apology strategy whereas they usually used the emotional venting coping strategy in responding to corporate posts that adopted the justification strategy.

Table 9.

Excerpts From the Publics’ Responses That Exhibited a High Level of Emotional Venting and Support Coping Strategies.

Date/Post Number	Crisis Communication Strategy Adopted by AA	Coping Strategy Adopted by the Chinese Publics	Excerpt Quotations From the Publics’ Responses
July 8/15	Apology	Venting	不用道歉，永遠不坐貴公司的飛機。 Literal translation: You do not have to say sorry. I will never ever choose Asiana Airlines when traveling.
July 8/15	Apology	Support	希望孩紙們能安息!也希望你們別出類似的事件啦，損害顧客的生命安全，也損害你們的名聲 Literal translation: I hope that the children will rest in peace! Also, I hope that you would not have this kind of accident again since it is about the safety of passengers and the reputation of Asiana.
July 8/16	Apology	Venting	逝者已矣道歉有何用? 痛定思痛有何用? 那兩個家庭的痛苦是無法彌補的 Literal translation: The girls are dead. What is the point of apologizing? What is the point of correcting the wrongs? You cannot make compensation to the two families since the pain of them is tremendous.
July 8/16	Apology	Support	希望傷者們早日康復，不要發生更多的傷亡者 Literal translation: I hope that the injured will recover soon and there are no more injuries and deaths.
July 8/18	Justification	Venting	飛行時間管甚麼用，我騎了七年的自行車，你一下子讓我開汽車，這能行嗎? Literal translation: What is the point of the flying time? I have ridden a bicycle for seven years. Suddenly, you ask me to drive a car. Would it be alright?
July 8/22	Justification	Venting	飛機也沒有問題，連副駕駛都是飛行時間超過一萬小時，為甚麼還會發生空難，你還是客觀面對錯誤，找出缺點，一味的回應質疑，不作出檢討，是五星級航空公司應有的回應嗎? 公關也真是LOU到爆! Literal translation: There was no problem with the plane. The flying time of the copilot is also over 10 thousand hours. How can this kind of accident happen then? You should face the truth and find the reasons behind this accident instead of responding to the queries. Is it the right attitude of the five-star airlines? The PR of your company sucks!
July 12/29	Apology	Venting	不要光口頭道歉，做點實事……不要光表面做文章好嘛 Literal translation: Don’t just say sorry. Do something practical. It is not about how good your explanation is.
July 12/29	Apology	Support	先查清事故原因吧。空姐的職業精神還是值得贊揚的。為死者哀悼……希望所有傷者盡快康復。 Literal translation: You should look into the reasons behind the accident first. The attitude of flight attendants is good. Mourn over the girls’ death.… I hope that all the injured passengers will recover soon.

Note. AA = Asiana Airlines.

Discussion

Our study suggests that in crisis situations of high corporate responsibility, low predictability, and low controllability, corporations should adopt an integrated use of accommodative and justification strategies on social media.

An Integrated Use of the Apology and Justification Strategies in Corporate Crisis Communication on Sina Weibo

Which crisis communication strategies should be adopted in times of crisis has long been debated. Most of the crisis communication studies (Coombs, 1998; Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Jin, 2010; Jin et al., 2014; Lee, 2004; Lyon & Cameron, 2004) favor the accommodative strategy (apology, commitment), particularly in a crisis of high corporate responsibility, high predictability, and low controllability. Research has also shown that the justification strategy is preferred by the publics in crises of low predictability and low controllability (Jin, 2010). Lukaszeski suggested that the impact of the crisis and the publics’ negative view of the organization will be greatly reduced if the corporation promptly executes appropriate approaches and strategies for crisis communication management (2001) and for postcrisis reputation building (Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Huang, 2006). Asiana Airlines adopted an integrated use of both the apology and explanation strategies to communicate with the Chinese publics on Sina Weibo from July 7 to July 23, 2013. Throughout the period of our study, we observed on Sina Weibo multiple accommodative approaches (candor, declaration, contrition, consultation, commitment, and restitution) to crisis communication whereas we found that the use of explanation peaked at an early post crisis stage. The decline in the number of responses (see Figure 2) and the decrease in the negative tonality of the responses (see Figure 3) indicate the effectiveness of such multiple approaches.

A Decline in the Volume and Negative Tonality of Responses Suggests a High Level of Public Acceptance

A high level of public acceptance is expected when a corporation adopts the accommodative strategy in a crisis of internal origin (Jin et al., 2014). Public acceptance is more likely to occur when corporations use the accommodative strategy in crises of high corporate responsibility, high predictability, and low controllability (Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Jin et al., 2014) whereas public acceptance is more likely to occur when corporations use the justification strategy in crises of low predictability and low controllability (Jin, 2010). Thus, we would expect a gradual decline in the number and negative tone of the responses as an indication of a high level of public acceptance after Asiana Airlines adopted both the accommodative and justification strategies.

Although there were a huge number of responses from the publics on Sina Weibo, we found that the publics’ responses gradually declined in volume from July 7 to July 13, which indicates that Asiana Airlines’ crisis communication strategies effectively averted the escalation (Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013) of the crisis on Sina Weibo in the early stages of postcrisis communication. The frequency and volume of responses recorded after July 23 also suggest that the communication between the corporation and its stakeholders had been restored to “normalcy,” a key objective of effective crisis communication (Fearn-Banks, 2002, p. 2).

Apart from the decline in the volume of responses, we noted a growth in the proportion of positive and neutral-toned responses and a decline in the proportion of negative-toned responses from July 9 to July 16 (see Figure 3), which might be caused by the corporation’s adoption of the full-apology strategy in its posts on July 8, 9, 12, and 13 (see Tables 5 and 6). These findings agree with an earlier study that found a higher level of acceptance in the publics’ responses when a corporation uses the accommodative strategy after a crisis of internal origin (Jin et al., 2014).

This shift in the tonality of the publics’ responses—from negative to more neutral and even positive—suggests that there may have been changes in the publics’ perception of the corporation as a result of the specific crisis communication strategies that it adopted. Thus, this change in the publics’ perception reflects the effectiveness of the accommodative and justification strategies (Fearn-Banks, 2002).

The Dominance of Anger Resulting From the Corporation’s High Crisis Responsibility and the Development of Apology Resistance

Our study is congruent with previous studies (Choi & Lin, 2009; Jin et al., 2014; McDonald et al., 2010) that have found that the negative emotions aroused in crisis communication relate closely to the publics’ perception of the origin of the crisis and the corporation’s responsibility for the crisis. But our findings depart from previous research findings in which fright was the primary emotion and justification was the preferred strategy in a crisis of low predictability and controllability (Jin, 2010); that is, we found that anger was the predominant negative emotion aroused in the publics’ response and that Asiana Airlines used both accommodative and justification strategies in its crisis communication after the crash. Furthermore, we observed that the negative emotions expressed in this crisis situation may not have a direct relationship with the corporate crisis communication strategies adopted and the predictability and controllability of the crisis.

The predominance of anger in the negative responses is mainly associated with how the Chinese publics view Asiana Airlines’ responsibility for the crisis. The corporation’s use of an apology strategy in its postcrisis communication tended to slightly reduce the anger provoked (see Table 7). Nonetheless, the increase in negative-toned responses after July 16 suggested a change in the publics’ perception of Asiana Airlines that could have resulted from a loss of trust caused by its repetitive use of the accommodative strategy and the publics’ exposure to negative reports from traditional media, which directly transmitted crisis information to social media followers (Austin et al., 2012).

The increasing percentage of negative-toned messages after July 16 (see Figure 3) suggests that the Chinese publics developed resistance to the corporation’s apology strategy. With the number of deaths escalating and the corporation’s repetitive use of the apology strategy, the accommodative strategy seemed to lose its appeal and impact on the publics’ anger management. The publics began to develop an apology resistance, an effect closely associated with “apology fatigue,” as suggested by Michael Green in referring to the Japanese’s frustration in their attempt to apologize for wars (Hanami, 2010, p. 5; Miller, 2005/2006, p. 41; Nagashima, 2006, p. 117). That is, Japanese reached “apology fatigue” when they tried to apologize for their war actions for years and “nothing good has come of it” (Hanami, 2010, p. 5). But Green’s observation was based mainly on the “fatigue” experienced by the sender. In our study, we have observed a resistance effect experienced by the receivers stemming from the sender’s overuse of the apology strategy. The Chinese publics developed an apology resistance because they received repeated apologies from the corporate senior management, including the CEO, rather than a commitment to resolve the situation and restitution from the corporation.

Thus, our findings suggest that employing a crisis communication approach that includes a commitment to taking actions to resolve the situation and restitution coupled with the apology and justification strategies via a social media platform such as Weibo is critical in corporate crisis communication management. Repetitive use of the apology strategy may help pacify the publics in the short term but lead to apology resistance over time.

The Use of Apology and Justification Strategies Is Likely to Trigger a High Level of Emotional Venting in the Collectivistic and High-Context Culture of China

Our findings resonate with a previous study on the publics’ use of the affective coping strategy in a crisis of low predictability and controllability (Jin, 2010). Most of the publics’ responses (75%) in this study were emotionally embedded. The publics’ responses posted on July 8 (RE: n = 122, 22%; VE: n = 68, 12%) are typical examples illustrating the use of this affective communication style. Despite Asiana Airlines’ effort to explain the causes of the crisis and its position from a rational perspective, the publics’ response was rather emotional, with many questioning the deployment of an inexperienced pilot and indicating their refusal to travel on Asiana Airlines in the future. In venting their anger and sadness at the airline, the publics responded using words such as “痛心” (distressed), “惡心” (disgust), “鄙視” (despise), and “垃圾” (rubbish), and phrases such as “去死” (go to hell). But their responses also included words of support for the victims of and those affected by the Flight 214 crash, such as “加油” (shoulder on), “挺” (hold up), “支持” (support), “辛苦了” (thanks for your hard work), “祈福” (bless you), and “堅強” (be strong). Thus, the Chinese publics used these emotional venting and support coping strategies to manage their negative emotions provoked by this crisis, especially when the airline adopted the apology and justification crisis communication strategies.

The Chinese publics’ reliance on emotional venting and support coping strategies in their responses to the corporate posts could be attributed to the affective communication style of the Chinese that has been noted in previous studies (Becker, 1986; Neuliep, 2012). Domino and Hannah’s (1987) study supports the notion that Chinese narratives tend to demonstrate more expressions of sorrow. These studies conclude that emotional and affective styles of communication are expected in highly collectivistic societies such as in China. In our study, the publics’ perception that the airline was highly responsible for the crisis triggered their negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1984), and the publics’ resistance to the airline’s apology strategy developed and escalated in the rapid process of mass communication on Sina Weibo, resulting in a high level of emotional venting in their responses.

The affective communication style of the Chinese publics has also been revealed in their responses on Weibo to similar crisis situations. For instance, the use of the affective communication style was observed in the Chinese publics’ responses on Sina Weibo to the crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17). The 10 corporate posts that were published from July 18 to July 28, 2014, concerning the crash generated 1,062 responses. In these responses, the Chinese publics were emotional in expressing their thoughts about the crash even though there were no casualties from the Chinese community. They used key words and phrases that were identical to those found in the publics’ responses in this study, such as “痛心” (distressed), “惡心” (disgust), “鄙視” (despise), “垃圾” (rubbish), “去死” (go to hell), “加油” (shoulder on), “挺” (hold up), “支持” (support), “辛苦了” (thanks for your hard work), “祈福” (bless you), and “堅強” (be strong). These responses demonstrated both their emotional venting toward Malaysian Airlines and their support for the crash victims and their families.

Limitations and Further Study

Although we investigated a huge number of responses, one limitation of this study is that our analysis of effective crisis communication strategies and the Chinese publics’ emotional responses on Sina Weibo only focused on the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash. Further analysis could compare these findings with crisis communication strategies and publics’ responses on Weibo for other flight crashes.

Another limitation pertains to our analysis of a solitary type of media content (i.e., Sina Weibo posts). Additional analyses of traditional news media content could provide a more in-depth study of how this crisis was framed and sensationalized by reporters, combining content from both traditional media and social media to reflect the views of both the corporation and the publics.

Further research could compare the role of the news media and other forms of social media platforms in different cultural contexts (e.g., Weibo and its users in the Chinese culture vs. Twitter and its users in the Western culture). Such studies might examine how the media systems function in different social and situational contexts of the crisis communication process.

Implications

One implication of our study for communication management practitioners is that the integrated use of the apology and justification strategies followed by communication indicating corporate commitment and restitution is highly preferred in a crisis situation of low predictability and controllability and in a collectivistic and high context culture such as in China. Perhaps an even more important implication is that the overuse of the apology strategy may lead to apology resistance in that the publics may change their perception of the corporation’s repetitive apology, even if the apology comes from the CEO or top management.

In conclusion, this study sheds light on how crisis managers should effectively connect with the publics in order to resolve a crisis situation with a more mindful consideration of the publics’ emotions. An array of factors, such as crisis origin, corporate responsibility and engagement, crisis certainty and controllability, and the publics’ cultural values, must be weighed so that a corporation can strategically position itself in a crisis situation and effectively manage its crisis communication strategies.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank David Russell, Charles Kostelnick, Lori Peterson, and two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions on the manuscript submitted.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study is funded by Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies (G-UC65).

Note

References

Associate Press. (2013, 7 9). NTSB: Pilots of Asiana 214 relied on automatic speed control, as plane flew too slow, too low. Retrieved from http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/NTSB-Pilots-relied-on-automatic-speed-control-before-SF-crash-214852241.html/

Austin

Liu

B. F.

Jin

(2012). How audiences seek out crisis information: Exploring the social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 188–207.

Bakeman

(2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In Reis

H. T.

Judge

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 138–159). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Becker

C. B.

(1986). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 75–92.

Benoit

W. L.

Pang

(2008). Crisis communication and image repair discourse. In Hansen-Horn

Neff

(Eds.), Public relations: From theory to practice (pp. 244–261). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Bonsón

Flores

(2011). Social media and corporate dialogue: The response of global financial institutions. Online Information Review, 35, 34–49.

Chen

(2013). How publics in the United States and China respond to crisis communication strategies via social media: A cross-cultural comparative study. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.

Choi

Lin

Y. H.

(2009). Consumer responses to Mattel product recalls posted on online bulletin boards: Exploring two types of emotion. Journal Public Relations Research, 21, 198–207.

Coombs

W. T.

(1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 177–191.

10.

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.

11.

Coombs

W. T.

Holladay

S. J.

(2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 165–186.

12.

Correa

Hinsley

A. W.

Gil de Zúñiga

(2010). Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 247–253.

13.

Dewey

M. E.

(1983). Coefficients of agreement. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 487–489.

14.

Domino

Hannah

M. T.

(1987). A comparative analysis of social values of Chinese and American children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 58–77.

15.

Duhachek

(2005). Coping: A multidimensional, hierarchical framework of responses of stressful consumption episodes. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 41–53.

16.

Fearn-Banks

(2002). Crisis communications: A casebook approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Fischer

Reuber

A. R.

(2010). Social interaction via new social media: (How) can interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behavior? Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 1–18.

18.

Freberg

(2012). Intention to comply with crisis messages communicated via social media. Public Relations Review, 38, 416–421.

19.

Fullwood

Orchard

L. J.

Floyd

S. A.

(2012). Emoticon convergence in Internet chat rooms. Social Semiotics, 23, 648–662.

20.

González-Herrero

Pratt

C. B.

(1996). An integrated symmetrical model for crisis-communications management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, 79–105.

21.

Hanami

A. K.

(2010). The U.S., Japan, and Asia in international politics. San Diego, CA: Cognella.

22.

Hanna

Rohm

Crittenden

V. L.

(2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54, 265–273.

23.

Heath

R. L.

Coombs

W. T.

(2006). Today’s public relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Henderson

J. C.

(2003). Communicating in a crisis: Flight SQ 006. Tourism Management, 24, 279–287.

25.

Huang

Y. H.

(2006). Crisis situations, communication strategies, and media coverage: A multicase study revisiting the communicative response model. Communication Research, 33, 180–205.

26.

Jin

(2010). Making sense sensibly in crisis communication: How publics’ crisis appraisals influence their negative emotions, coping strategy preferences, and crisis response acceptance. Communication Research, 37, 522–552.

27.

Jin

Liu

B. F.

Austin

L. L.

(2014). Examining the role of social media in effective crisis management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, and source on publics’ crisis responses. Communication Research, 41, 74–94.

28.

Jin

Pang

Cameron

G. T.

(2007). Integrated crisis mapping: Towards a publics-based, emotion-driven conceptualization in crisis communication. Sphera Publica, 7, 81–96.

29.

Jin

Pang

Cameron

G. T.

(2012). Toward a publics-driven, emotion- based conceptualization in crisis communication: Unearthing dominant emotions in multi-stages testing of the integrated crisis mapping (ICM) model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24, 266–298.

30.

Kaplan

A. M.

Haenlein

(2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.

31.

Kietzmann

J. H.

Hermkens

McCarthy

I. P.

Silvestre

B. S.

(2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241–251.

32.

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, 826–855.

33.

Kolbe

R. H.

Burnett

M. S.

(1991). Content-analysis research: An examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 243–250.

34.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

35.

Lee

B. T.

(2004). Audience-oriented approach to crisis communication: A study of Hong Kong consumers’ evaluation of an organizational crisis. Communication Research, 31, 600–618.

36.

Lerner

J. S.

Gonzalez

R. M.

Small

D. A.

Fischhoff

(2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144–150.

37.

Lerner

J. S.

Keltner

(2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 473–493.

38.

Lerner

J. S.

Keltner

(2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.

39.

Liang

(2012, 10). Government crisis communication on the microblog: A theory framework and the case of Shanghai Metro rear-end collision. In Gil-Garcia

J. R.

Helbig

Ojo

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (pp. 248–257). Albany, NY: ACM.

40.

Lukaszewski

J. E.

(2001). Crisis communication management: Protecting and enhancing corporate reputation and identity. In Kitchen

P. J.

Schultz

D. E.

(Eds.), Raising the corporate umbrella: Corporate communications in the twenty-first century (pp. 199–243). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

Lyon

Cameron

G. T.

(2004). A relational approach examining the interplay of prior reputation and immediate response to a crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 213–241.

42.

McDonald

L. M.

Sparks

Glendon

A. I.

(2010). Stakeholder reactions to company crisis communication and causes. Public Relations Review, 26, 263–271.

43.

Miller

J. H.

(2005/2006). Will the real Japan please stand up. World Policy Journal, 22, 36–45.

44.

Nagashima

(2006). Japan’s militarist past: Reconciliation in East Asia? Yale Journal of International Affairs, 2, 112–120.

45.

Nah

Saxton

G. D.

(2012). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organizations. New Media & Society, 15, 294–313.

46.

National Statistical Service. (n.d.). Sample size calculator. Retrieved from http://www.nss.gov.au/nss/home.nsf/pages/Sample+size+calculator

47.

Neuendorf

K. A.

(2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Neuliep

J. W.

(2012). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

49.

Ngai

C. S. B.

P. P. K.

(2013). Transforming into the new era: Public relations industry in Hong Kong and China. Public Relations Review, 39, 575–577.

50.

Piekkari

Welch

D. E.

Welch

L. S.

Peltonen

Vesa

(2013). Translation behavior: An exploratory study within a service multinational. International Business Review, 22, 771–783.

51.

Procopio

C. H.

Procopio

S. T.

(2007). Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans? Internet communication, geographic community, and social capital in crisis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 67–87.

52.

Rawlins

B. L.

(2006). Prioritizing stakeholders for public relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2006_Stakeholders_1.pdf

53.

Schultz

Utz

Goritz

(2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via Twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37, 20–27.

54.

Slovic

(1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.

55.

Sturges

D. L.

(1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy for organizational survival. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 297–316.

56.

Taylor

Perry

D. C.

(2005). Diffusion of traditional and new media tactics in crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 31, 209–217.

57.

Ulmer

R. R.

Sellnow

T. L.

Seeger

M. W.

(2007). Effective crisis communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

58.

Van der Meer

T. G. L. A.

Verhoeven

(2013). Public framing organizational crisis situations: Social media versus news media. Public Relations Review, 39, 229–231.

59.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

(1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience negative aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.

60.

Yuan

E. J.

Feng

Danowski

(2013). ‘“Privacy” in semantic networks on Chinese social media: The case of Sina Weibo. Journal of Communication, 63, 1011–1031.

61.

Zhao

(2012). The role of microblogs in crisis communication: A content analysis of the Red Cross Society’s credibility crisis in Mainland China. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

62.

Zhao

(2013). Chinese government, Sina Weibo, crisis management. Unpublished master’s thesis, Scripps College of Communication, Ohio University, Athens.