CorporateReputationintheVolkswagen
EmissionsScandal
TheRoleofInvolvement,Emotions,ResponsibilityandPerson-CompanyFit
MasterThesis
MasterMediaStudies–MediaandBusiness
ErasmusSchoolofHistory,CultureandCommunication
ErasmusUniversityRotterdam
StudentName:
StudentNumber:
LouisaWanjek
437075
Supervisor: Dr.YijingWang
June20,2016
CorporateReputationintheVolkswagenEmissionsScandal
TheRoleofInvolvement,Emotions,ResponsibilityandPerson-CompanyFit
Abstract
Whilesomescholarsarguethatastrongreputationcanprotectanorganizationfrom
reputationallossduringacrisis,othersbelievethatahighreputationleadstohigher
expectationsamongthepublic,whichareviolatedduringacrisisandmaketheorganization
suffer.Astheroleofcorporatereputationinthecrisiscontextisstillinconclusiveinliterature,it
isthusofinteresttoinvestigatetowhatextentitaffectstheoutcomesofaglobalcrisisfora
corporation.Inthisstudy,theemissionsscandalofthehighlyreputedcorporationthe
VolkswagenGroup(VW)wasinvestigated.Thefocusisonwhetherthecrisisresultedin
reputationallossofandanincreasednegativeword-of-mouthintentiontowardstheVWGroup
amongtheGermanpublic.TheSituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory(SCCT)isemployedto
conceptualizethecrisiscontext.Inadditiontocrisisresponsibilityandanger,whichhavebeen
identifiedaskeypredictorsofcrisisoutcomesintheSCCT,thisstudyalsoexaminestwo
potentialpredictors:Thenewlyintroducedconceptcrisisinvolvement,andthepositivethusless
regardedemotion-sympathy.Moreover,theimpactoftheperson-companyfitisinvestigatedin
thiscrisiscontext.
Usingaquantitativeonlinesurvey,thisstudyinvestigatesthemechanismthroughwhich
theemissionsscandalinfluencedtheVolkswagenGroup’sreputationandthenegativeword-ofmouthintentionamongtheGermanpublic.Theseoutcomesarecomparedbetweentheaffected
andnon-affectedGermanpublic.Thedataconsistsof1475Germanrespondentsintotalandthe
dataanalysiswasconductedbyemployingthestructuralequationmodelingmethod.Theresults
suggestthattheGermanrespondentsevaluatethepost-crisisreputationoftheVWGrouponly
onamodestlevel,though,theirintentiontoexpressnegativeword-of-mouthisratherlow.Both
emotions-angerandsympathy-amongtheGermanpublicmediatetheimpactofperceived
crisisresponsibilityandcrisisinvolvementonpost-crisisreputationandnegativeword-ofmouthintention.However,theimpactofcrisisresponsibilityonangerandthatofangeronboth
crisisoutcomesisstrongeramongtheaffectedGermanpublicthanthenon-affectedGerman
public,whilenodifferenceisobservedwithrespecttosympathy.Nexttothis,person-company
fitisidentifiedasmoderatorintherelationships.Itweakenstheimpactsofcrisisresponsibility
andcrisisinvolvementonanger,aswellstrengthenstheimpactofcrisisresponsibilityon
sympathy.
I
TheresultsofthisstudyimplyanextensionoftheSCCTframeworkthroughidentifying
theroleofcrisisinvolvementandperson-companyfitinthecrisiscontext.Managerial
implicationsareprovidedwithregardtocorporatecrisiscommunication.Corporationsshould
considerthatnotonlyangermightinfluencethepost-crisisreputationandnegativeword-ofmouthintentionbutalsosympathy.Thisimpliesthatcorporationsshouldontheonehand
mitigateangerandontheotherhandreinforcesympathyinordertosavethemselvesfrom
negativecrisisoutcomes.Toachievethis,oneoptionsistocarryoutlowperceivedcrisis
responsibilityandcrisisinvolvement.Further,asperson-companyfitmayvarythenegative
crisisoutcomesforbothaffectedandnon-affectedgeneralpublic,itisimportantfor
corporationstobuildastrongrelationshipwithcurrentandpotentialcustomers.
Keywords:CrisisCommunication,CorporateReputation,NegativeWord-of-Mouth,Crisis
Responsibility,CrisisInvolvement,Emotion,Anger,Sympathy,Person-CompanyFit,SCCT
II
Abbreviations
AT
-
AttributionTheory
DV
-
DependentVariable
Engl. -
English
EV
-
ExpectancyViolation
IV
-
IndependentVariable
KMO -
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
MI
-
ModificationIndex/ModificationIndices
NWOM
-
NegativeWordofMouth
SCCT -
SituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory
SE
-
StandardError
SEM -
StructuralEquationModeling
SIT
-
SocialIdentityTheory
VW
-
Volkswagen
VWGroup
-
VolkswagenGroup
WOM -
WordofMouth
III
TableofContents
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................................................I
ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................................................................III
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1
2. THEORETICALFRAMEWORKANDLITERATUREREVIEW.......................................................6
2.1. CORPORATEREPUTATIONINCRISISCOMMUNICATION.................................................................................6
2.1.1. TheSituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory..................................................................................9
2.2. POST-CRISISREPUTATION..................................................................................................................................11
2.3. NEGATIVEWORD-OF-MOUTH...........................................................................................................................13
2.4. IMPACTOFPERSONALPERSPECTIVESINCRISISCOMMUNICATION...........................................................15
2.4.1. Crisis-Emotions.............................................................................................................................................15
2.4.2. CrisisResponsibility....................................................................................................................................18
2.4.3. CrisisInvolvement.......................................................................................................................................20
2.4.4. Person-CompanyFit...................................................................................................................................23
2.5. CONCEPTUALMODEL..........................................................................................................................................26
3. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................27
3.1. CHOICEOFMETHOD............................................................................................................................................27
3.2. SAMPLEANDSAMPLINGMETHOD....................................................................................................................28
3.3. DATAANALYSIS....................................................................................................................................................29
3.3.1. Pre-Test,DataCleaningandPreparationfortheDataAnalysis............................................30
3.4. RESPONDENTS......................................................................................................................................................32
3.5. OPERATIONALIZATIONANDMEASUREMENTS................................................................................................32
3.5.1. Post-crisisreputation.................................................................................................................................33
3.5.2. NegativeWordofMouthIntention(NWOM)..................................................................................35
3.5.3. CrisisResponsibility....................................................................................................................................36
3.5.4. CrisisInvolvement.......................................................................................................................................37
3.5.5. Mediators:AngerandSympathy..........................................................................................................38
3.5.6. Anger.................................................................................................................................................................38
3.5.7. Sympathy.........................................................................................................................................................39
3.5.8. Moderator:Person-CompanyFit..........................................................................................................40
4. RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................43
4.1. TESTINGOFMEDIATIONEFFECTS....................................................................................................................48
4.2. HYPOTHESES9THROUGH12–MODERATIONEFFECTS..............................................................................49
4.3. COMPARISONOFAFFECTEDANDNON-AFFECTEDPUBLICS........................................................................50
IV
4.4. FURTHERFINDINGS.............................................................................................................................................52
5. DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSION......................................................................................................53
5.1. INTERPRETATIONOFRESULTS..........................................................................................................................53
5.2. MANAGERIALIMPLICATIONS.............................................................................................................................59
5.3. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................................60
5.4. STRENGTHSANDLIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................61
5.5. FUTURERESEARCH..............................................................................................................................................63
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................65
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................................76
APPENDIXA-QUESTIONNAIRES...................................................................................................................................76
AppendixA1-QuestionnaireGerman.................................................................................................................76
AppendixA2-QuestionnaireEnglish..................................................................................................................81
APPENDIXB–OVERVIEWOFITEMS.............................................................................................................................86
APPENDIXC–FURTHERTABLES..................................................................................................................................88
V
ListofFiguresandTables
FIGURE1:CRISISSITUATIONMODELOFSCCT(BASEDONCOOMBS,2007A)...........................9
FIGURE2:CONCEPTUALMODEL............................................................................................................26
FIGURE3:MEASUREMENTMODELFORPOST-CRISISREPUTATION.........................................34
FIGURE4:MEASUREMENTMODELFORNWOMINTENTION........................................................35
FIGURE5:MEASUREMENTMODELFORCRISISRESPONSIBILITY..............................................36
FIGURE6:MEASUREMENTMODELFORCRISISINVOLVEMENT..................................................38
FIGURE7:MEASUREMENTMODELFORANGER................................................................................39
FIGURE8:MEASUREMENTMODELFORSYMPATHY.......................................................................40
FIGURE9:MEASUREMENTMODELFORPERSON-COMPANYFIT................................................41
FIGURE10:STRUCTURALMODEL…...............…...…..............................................................................44
TABLE1:SUMMARYOFRESULTS..........................................................................................................45
TABLE2:BOOTSTRAPPINGRESULTSFORMEDIATIONEFFECTS...............................................49
TABLE3:MULTIGROUPANALYSIS-AFFECTEDPUBLICVS.NON-AFFECTEDPUBLIC..........51
TABLEB1:CORRELATIONMATRIXPOST-CRISISREPUTATION..................................................88
TABLEB2:CORRELATIONMATRIXNWOM........................................................................................88
TABLEB3:CORRELATIONMATRIXANGER........................................................................................88
TABLEB4:CORRELATIONMATRIXSYMPATHY................................................................................88
TABLEB5:CORRELATIONMATRIXINVOLVEMENT........................................................................89
TABLEB6:CORRELATIONMATRIXCRISISRESPONSIBILITY.......................................................89
TABLEB7:CORRELATIONMATRIXPCFIT.........................................................................................89
TABLEB8:EXPLORATORYFACTORANALYSISPOST-CRISISREPUTATION............................90
TABLEB9:EXPLORATORYFACTORNWOM.......................................................................................90
TABLEB10:EXPLORATORYFACTORANALYSISCRISISRESPONSIBILITY...............................91
TABLEB11:EXPLORATORYFACTORANALYSISCRISISINVOLVEMENT...................................92
TABLEB12:EXPLORATORYFACTORANALYSISANGER................................................................92
TABLEB13:EXPLORATORYFACTORANALYSISSYMPATHY........................................................93
TABLEB14:EXPLORATORYFACTORANALYSISPERSON-COMPANYFIT.................................93
VI
1. Introduction
Itisacasethatdominatedthenewsformonths–notonlyinGermanybutalsoalloverthe
world:theVolkswagenemissionsscandal(VolkswagenfurtherstatedasVW).Germany,beinga
countryinwhich“oneinsevenpeopleearntheirliving,directlyorindirectly,fromautomaking“
(Bender,2015,para.3)andwhereVWcarsarethe“mostfamousexport“(Bender,2015,para4),
wasshocked.Whatfollowedthescandal’sdisclosurewasalargeproductrecallthatis
comparabletothatoftheToyotarecallin2010-andfromthis,theToyotabrandhasnot
completelyrevived,yet(Murphy,2015;Vizard,2015).
TheVolkswagenGroup(furtherstatedasVWGroup)isaGermanautomobile
manufacturer.Entailingtwelvebrands,suchasVolkswagen,Audi,Seat,Skoda,Porscheand
Lamborghini,itis“thelargestcarmakerinEurope”(“TheGroup”,2014).OnSeptember18,
2015,thecorporationwasaccusedofintentionallymanipulatingVWandAudicarswith
sophisticatedsoftwaretobypassCleanAirActstandards–thisincidentbecameknownasthe
VWemissionsscandal.Thesoftwarewasinstalledinmillionsofdieselcarsandenabledthecars
toproduceupto40timesmoreemissionthanpermitted(Geier,2015;Kollewe,2015;
Woodyard,2015).Thisisespeciallysignificant,astheVWGroupsolditscarswiththepromise
ofhavinglowemission(Vizard,2015).SincethentheVWemissionsscandalhasspreadtoother
countriesincludingtheUnitedKingdom,GermanyandAustralia(Kollewe,2015),having
affectedmorethan11millioncarsofthebrandsVW,Audi,Seat,SkodaandPorscheworldwide
(Kollewe,2015),ofwhich2.4millionaloneinGermany(heiseonline,2016).Sincetheemissions
scandalhasledtoseveralissuesforthecorporation,suchasfallingshares(Geier,2015)and
decreasingsales(“VWglobalsalesfell“,2016),itcanberegardedasacrisisforthecarmaker.
Productrecallsconstituteasevereandoften-facedproblemintheautomotiveindustry(Birchall
&Milne,2009)andalthoughcommunicationinproductrecallcrisesissignificant,itisnotwell
researcheduntilnow(Laufer&Jung,2010).Moreover,as“Volkswagenexecutivessetoutto
deliberatelyandcriminallybreakthelaw”(Vizard,2015,para.7),theVWemissionsscandalis
anespeciallyseverecrisis.Lastly,researchoutsideNorthAmericaisscarce(Lee,2004)anda
greaterunderstandingofinternationalcrisesisneeded(Coombs,2014).Thus,analyzingtheVW
emissionsscandalwouldaddvaluetothefieldofcrisiscommunicationresearchandwould
providecorporationswithvaluableknowledgeabouthowcrisiscommunicationcanbeapplied
inordertosaveanorganization’sreputationfromacrisis(Coombs,2007a).
TheVWGrouphadbeenknownforitssolidityandreliability(Griffin,2015)andhadhad
astrongreputationforyears(Fombrun,2015).Notonlywasthecorporationrankedamongthe
1
first15companiesintheGlobalRepTrak1001inthepastthreeyears(ReputationInstitute,
2013,2014,2015),italsohad,accordingtothereputationmonitoroftheeconomicresearch
instituteDr.Doebler,thehighestreputationofallDAX30companiesin2015withintheGerman
population(Reidel,2015).Areputationiswidelyacceptedasanintangibleassetforan
organization(Coombs,2007a;Coombs&Holladay,2006)andafavorablereputationcan
provideseveraladvantages,suchascredibilityamongcustomers,commitmentofemployees
andabetterfinancialperformance(Fombrun&vanRiel,2004).Acrisis,suchastheVW
emissionsscandal,canhoweverleadtonegativeoutcomesforanorganization(Coombs,2007a).
Itcan,forexample,harmacorporatereputation(Coombs,2007a;Coombs&Holladay,2008)
andcausepeopletousenegativeword-of-mouth(NWOM),meaningtomakenegative
statementsabouttheorganization(Schultz,Utz&Göritz,2011).Itisthusofinterestofthisstudy
whethertheVWemissionsscandalaffectedthecorporation’sreputationandwhetherithas
causedpeopletoexpressNWOMabouttheVWGroup.
Despitethelargeextentoftheemissionsscandal,themajorityoftheGermanpopulation
remainedfaithfultotheVWGroupafterthescandalhadbecomepublic.Accordingtoasurvey
thatwasconductedtwoweeksafterthebreakoutofthescandalbythemanagementconsultancy
Prophet,twothirdsoftherespondentsstatedthattheystilltrustedVW.75percentsaidthat
theywouldcontinuetobuyVWcars“iftheylikedthevehicleandtheprice“(Prophet,2015,as
citedinLöhr,2015)and63percenthadtheopinionthatthescandalwouldbeforgottenwithina
year(Prophet,2015,ascitedinLöhr,2015).TakingintothefactthattheVWGrouphadhada
favorablereputationforyears,thisstudyaimstoexaminehowtheGermanpublicassesspostcrisisreputationofthecorporationandwhattheirevaluationsreplyon.Severalscholarshave
addressedtheroleofafavorablepre-crisisreputationinpreviousstudies.Ontheonehand,they
claimthatastrongreputationcanprotectanorganizationfromreputationallossduringacrisis
(e.g.Coombs&Holladay,2006).Ontheotherhand,scholarsarguethatahighreputationleads
tohigherexpectationsamongthepublic,whichareviolatedduringacrisisandresultinthe
sufferingoftheorganization(e.g.Rhee&Haunschild,2006).Thus,theVWGroup’spost-crisis
reputationisexploredinthisstudy.
AccordingtoLee(2004),researchoncrisiscommunicationhasbeenconductedontwo
stages.Firstly,responsestrategiesinspecificcriseshavebeenassessedandsecondly,the
characteristicsofcrisesthatforecastthechoiceofsuitableresponsestrategieswereidentified.
However,mostexistingresearchwasnotaudience-oriented(Lee,2004)andlittleresearchhas
1TheRepTrakPulseisameasurementforthepublicopinionofcompaniesdetectedbyanannually
conductedglobalsurveybytheReputationInstitute.Therating„describeshowmuchconsumerstrust,
likeandadmireacompany“(Fombrun,2015)andcanthereforebeevaluatedasausefulindicatorfora
company’sreputation.
2
includedconsumervariables,suchasemotionsorinvolvement(Choi&Lin,2009a).Thisis
crucial,though,inordertoassesshowindividualsbothunderstandandreacttoacrisis(Lee,
2004)andthuswhicheffectsthecrisishasfortheorganization.Hence,anincreasingnumberof
authors(e.g.Coombs&Holladay,2002;Dawar&Pillutla,2000)havecalledforresearchonthe
publicopinionofsuchevent(Choi&Lin,2009b).Moreover,severalscholarshavesuggested
includingindividualvariablesincrisiscommunicationresearch(Coombs&Holladay,2014;Lee,
2004).Thepresentstudyrespondstothisperceivedbiasinresearch(Coombs,2014)and
focusesontheroleofindividualvariablesthatarepossiblycausingdifferentcrisisreactions.By
includingsuchindividualperspectives,knowledgeaboutindividuals’perceptionsofand
reactionstothecrisiscanbegained.Basedonthisknowledge,managerialimplicationscanbe
madeonhowcorporationscanreactproperlytoacrisis.
AsCoombsandHolladay(2014)pointout,crisisexperthaveaninterestinthe
knowledgeaboutcrisisreactionsofimportantpublics.Thereby,importantpublicsare
customersbutnotonlycustomers(Coombs,2007a)andthusalsonon-stakeholdersandnonaffectedpeople.Oftheexistingstudiesincrisiscommunicationresearch,manyfocusedonthe
reactionsofstakeholderstocrises,though(e.g.Coombs&Holladay,2014;Choi&Lin,2009b;
Kiambi&Shafer,2015).BynotonlyincludingaffectedpeopleorstakeholdersoftheVWGroup,
thisstudyprovidesinsightsofhowalsolessinvolvedpeopleperceiveandreacttoacrisis.This
enablesthecomparisonofperceptionsandcrisisoutcomesbetweenaffectedandnon-affected
publics,whichmakesthisstudyevenmoreworthwhile.
Crisisresponsibilityhasbeenfoundtoplayakeyroleintheperceptionofacrisis
(Coombs,2007a;Coombs&Holladay,2005;Kiambi&Shafer,2015).Responsibilityrelatesto
whetherpeoplebelievethatthecompanycanbeblamedforthecrisis(Coombs,1995).
Dependingontheperceivedresponsibility,peoplethenexperiencedifferentemotions.Anger
andsympathyhavebeenidentifiedasmainemotionsinthecontextofacrisis(Coombs&
Holladay,2005)andareassumedtocausebehavioralresponses(Coombs,2007a).Beinga
product-recallcrisis,theVWemissionsscandalcanbecategorizedasapreventablecrisis
(Coombs,2007a;Choi&Chung,2013)andisthusprobabletobeattributedwithahighlevelof
responsibility.Ahighlevelofresponsibilityhasbeenfoundtoleadtomoreanger(Choi&Lin,
2009b)andlesssympathy(Coombs&Holladay,2005;Jin,2014).Emotionsinturncanhavean
impactonpeoples’evaluationofanorganization’spost-crisisreputationandcaninfluence
behavioralintentions,suchastheintentiontoexpressNWOM(Coombs,2007a).
Nexttothis,theconceptofinvolvementhasbecomeofinterestincrisiscommunication.
Theconceptreferstoaperson’ssubjectiverelevanceaboutatopic(McDonald&Härtel,2010)
andahigherlevelofinvolvementinacrisiswasfoundtocausemoreangerandlesssympathy
3
(McDonald,Sparks&Glendon,2010).However,crisisinvolvementisnotmuchresearched,yet
(Choi&Lin,2009a).Furthermore,companiestodayaimtohaveastrongrelationshipwithits
customersbecauseitprovidesseveraladvantages,suchasloyalty(Bhattacharya&Sen,2003).
Thecustomer-companyrelationshiphasbeenarguedbyBhattacharyaandSen(2003)byusing
socialidentitytheory.Thetheoryreferstothefeelingofgroupaffiliationandisrelatedtovalues
andemotions.Consumerswhoidentifystronglywithacompanyactinasupportivemanner
(Chu&Li,2012).ThepresentstudytransfersthisconcepttotheGermanpublicasthepersoncompanyfit.ItisarguedthatGermanshaveanoverallhighidentificationwiththeVWGroupdue
tothecorporation’shighreputationandtherelevanceofthecarmakerforGermans.Itis
exploredwhethertheperson-companyfithasanimpactontherelationshipofinvolvementand
responsibilitywithemotionsintheVWcrisis.
Thepresentstudyexaminestheabove-mentionedtheoreticalconceptsbyusingthe
SituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory(SCCT)(Coombs2007a)asgroundwork.SCCTisa
usefultheoryforunderstandingcomponentsofacrisisinordertoapplypropercrisis
communicationandthustoprotectanorganizationfromreputationaldamage(Coombs,2007a).
However,notalloftherelevantconceptsandposedlinksbetweenconceptsareincludedin
Coomb’sSCCT.Thus,theexistingframeworkisnotonlytestedonarealcrisisbutalsoextended
byaddingtheconceptsofinvolvementandperson-companyfitaswellasthelinkbetween
emotionsandreputationtotheframework.
Concluding,thisthesisaimstoresearchtheoutcomesoftheVWemissionsscandaland
therolethattheVWGroup’sreputationplayedinthecrisis.Itfurtherexaminestheimpactof
individualperspectivesonsuchcrisisoutcomes.Thefollowingresearchquestionsarehence
introduced:
RQ1:HowdoGermansperceivetheVWGroup’sreputationandtowhatextentdotheyhave
theintentiontoexpressnegativeword-of-mouthabouttheVWGroupaftertheoccurrence
oftheemissionsscandal?
RQ2:Towhatextentdocrisisinvolvement,crisisresponsibilityandemotions(i.e.anger
andsympathy)influencetheVWGroup’spost-crisisreputationandpeople’snegativewordof-mouthintention?AndwhetherandhowdotheimpactsvarybetweenaffectedandnonaffectedGermanpublic?
RQ3:Whetherandhowdoesperson-companyfitaffectthecrisisoutcomesinthiscontext?
4
Afterhavingintroducedthetopicofthisthesisandtheresearchquestions,thesecond
chapterpresentsthetheoreticalframeworkunderlyingthisstudyaswellasresultsofprevious
research.Accordingtothetheoreticalconstructsthatarerelevantforthisstudy,thechapterwill
bestructuredintosub-sectionsthatwillconcludewithoneormorehypotheses.Followingthis,
thethirdchapterwillgiveanoverviewoftheresearchdesignaswellastheoperationalizationof
thetheoreticalconstructsandthemeasurementmodelsoftheperformedstructuralequation
modeling.Inthefourthchapter,theresultsofthedataanalysisarepresented.Thesefindings
willbefurtherdiscussedinchapterfiveofthisthesisbeforemanagerialimplicationswillbe
given,limitationsprovidedandrecommendationsforfutureresearchgiven.
5
2. TheoreticalFrameworkandLiteratureReview
Inthischapter,therelevanttheoreticalconceptswillbereviewedaswellaspriorresearch
findingspresented.Attheendofeachsub-chapter,thetheoreticalknowledgeisappliedtothe
VWemissionsscandal,whichwillthenleadtothehypothesesofthisstudy.Inorderto
summarizeandvisualizethetheoreticalframework,aconceptualmodelwillbeprovidedatthe
endofthischapter.
2.1.
CorporateReputationinCrisisCommunication
Businessscandalsofthepastyearshaveindicatedhowimportanttheestablishing,maintaining
andprotectionofreputationisfororganizationsofallkinds(Doorley&Garcia,2007).Inorder
tounderstandthecompletesignificanceofreputation,though,itiscrucialtofirstdefinethe
concept.Untilnow,severaldifferentviewsonreputationcanberecognized(Love&Kraatz,
2009)andmanydifferentdefinitionsofreputationexist(vanRiel&Fombrun,2007).Forthis
study,thedefinitionofCoombsandHolladay(2006)isused.Accordingtotheresearchers“[a]
reputationisanevaluationstakeholdersmakeaboutanorganization”(Coombs&Holladay,
2006,p.123).Thereby,stakeholdersareindividuals,groupsororganizationsthathave”interest
orconcerninanorganization”andcaninfluenceorbeinfluencedbyit(“Stakeholder”,n.d.).
Someexamplesforstakeholdersarecustomers,employeesandshareholders(“Stakeholder”,
n.d.).
Areputationisdependentonanorganization’spastactions(Kiambi&Shafer,2015;van
Riel&Fombrun,2007)andisgeneratedfromcognitiveassociations,whicharederivedfrom
informationthatstakeholdersreceiveaboutanorganizationovertime(Fombrun&vanRiel,
2004;Rhee&Haunschild,2006;vanRiel&Fombrun,2007;Turketal.,2012).Thisinformation
canbegainedthroughpersonalexperiencewiththecompany,secondhandinformationofother
personssuchasfriendsorcolleaguesandthemassmedia(Bromley,2000;Coombs,2007a;
Fombrun&vanRiel,2004;vanRiel&Fombrun,2007;Turketal.,2012).Thereby,direct
personalexperiencehasthegreatestimpactonreputation,whereasmostoftheinformation
stemsfromthemassmedia(Coombs,2007a;vanRiel&Fombrun,2007).Stakeholderscompare
theirinformationaboutanorganizationinordertoevaluatewhetheritmeetstheirexpectations
oftheorganization’sactions(Fombrun&vanRiel,2004).Incaseofanexpectationgap,meaning
thattherespondents’expectationsarenotmetbytheorganization,issuesfortheorganization
canemerge(Coombs,2007a;Reichart,2003).
Asevaluations,reputationscanbefavorableandunfavorable(Coombs,2007a)orin
otherwordspositiveornegative(Walker,2010).Favorablereputationsareacceptedas
6
intangibleassetsthathavebeenrelatedtopositiveoutcomesforanorganization(Coombs,
2007a;Coombs&Holladay,2006;Rhee&Haunschild,2006),orasFombrunandvanRiel(2004)
putit:“Agoodreputationislikeamagnet:Itattractsustothosewhohaveit”(p.3).Such
benefitscanbebothtangibleandintangible(Doorley&Garcia,2011).Intangiblepositive
outcomesincludeforinstancetheperceptionofacompany’sproductsasmoreattractive,a
highercredibilityamongcustomersandahighercommitmentofemployees(Fombrun&van
Riel,2004).Thiscanpotentiallybetranslatedintotangiblepositiveoutcomes,suchasthe
advantageofpayinglessforsuppliers(Davies,Chun,daSilva&Roper,2003;Doorley&Garcia,
2011)oranimprovedfinancialperformanceofanorganization(Fombrun&vanRiel,2004;
Turketal.2012).Thisisforinstancebecauseagoodreputationcanaffectthereceivingof
positivefeedbackfromfinancialanalystsandgainingmoreandalsomorefavorablemedia
coverage(Daviesetal.,2003;Fombrun&vanRiel,2004).Companieswithabadreputationon
theotherhandcanhavemoredifficultiesindrawingattentionofinvestorsandreceivingfunding
(Aula&Mantere,2008,ascitedinKiambi&Shafer,2015)aswellascanreceivemorenegative
mediacoverage(Daviesetal.,2003).CorporateReputationhasadditionallybeendemonstrated
toinfluencestakeholder’sresponsestoproduct-harmcrises(Laufer&Coombs,2006),suchas
emotionsandbehavioralintentions(Coombs,2014).Concluding,apositivereputationisof
importanceforanorganizationandcanevenbeseenas„thesinglemostvaluedorganizational
asset“(Gibsonetal.,2006,p.15).
Basesontheseadvantages,FombrunandvanRiel(2004)arguethat"reputations[…]
mustbenurturedandprotected"(p.7).Thisisespeciallythecaseintimesofcrisis.Accordingto
Coombs(2007a),acrisiscanbedefinedas“asuddenandunexpectedeventthatthreatensto
disruptanorganization’soperationsandposesbothafinancialandareputationalthreat.Crises
canharmstakeholdersphysically,emotionallyand/orfinancially“(p.164).Acrisiscanoccur
whenstakeholdersperceiveviolationsoftheirexpectationsofanorganization(Coombs,2014).
Manydifferenttypesofstakeholders,includingemployees,suppliers,customersand
stockholders,canbenegativelyaffectedbyacrisis(Coombs,2007a).Thus,crisescancreate
victims,meaningpeoplewhoareactuallyharmedbyit,andpotentialvictims,referringtothose
whocouldbeaffectedbytheincident.Inadditiontothis,acrisiscangeneratewitnesses,
meaningpeoplewhogaininformationaboutandrespondtoacrisis(Bies,1987,ascitedin
Coombs&Holladay,2007,p.300).Thereby,mostofthestakeholdersarenotdirectlyaffected
(Coombs&Holladay,2005)butallofthesethreetypesofpersonsmightfeelsomesortof
”emotionalinvolvementinthecrisis“(Bies,1987,ascitedinCoombs&Holladay,2007,p.300)
andareconnectedtotheorganizationduetotheincident(Coombs&Holladay,2007).Thus,the
presentstudyisinterestedinthereactionsofnotonlyvictimsbutalsonon-victimsand
thereforeconsidersthereactionsofthegeneralGermanpublic.
7
Asmentionedabove,crisesusuallycausenegativepublicity(Daviesetal.,2003;Dean,
2004).Asmoststakeholdersgaintheirinformationaboutacrisisfromnewsmediaandthe
Internet,badpublicitycanresultinpeoplethinkingbadlyofanorganization,whichmaydamage
theorganization’sreputation.This,inturn,maychangethewaystakeholdersperceiveand
interactwiththeorganizationandmaythenleadtoalossoftheabove-mentionedbenefitsthata
favorablereputationprovides(Coombs,2007a;Coombs,2014).Inaddition,acrisiscanresultin
stakeholdersquestioninganorganization’scredibility(Arpan,2002),endingtheirrelationswith
anorganizationand/orsayingnegativethingsaboutit(Coombs,2007a).
Ascrisescanhavesuchnegativeeffectsforacompany,thesignificanceofcorrectly
managingtheeventshouldnotbeunderestimated(Laufer&Coombs,2006)andtimely
decisionsaboutthecrisisresponseshouldbemade(Doory&Garcia,2007;McDonaldetal.,
2010).Whenacrisishasoccurred,organizationshavetocommunicatewithstakeholdersfor
severalreasons.Firstofall,theyprovideinformationonhowtoshieldthemselvesfromthe
crisis(instructinginformation)andinformationthatsupportsthemwithpsychologically
managingtheincident(adjustinginformation).Onlythenextstepistoaddressthereputational
threatbyusingseveralreputation-buildingstrategies(Coombs,2007a;Coombs&Holladay,
2005,2009).Thereby,anadequatecrisisresponsecanfunctionasabenefitandmighteven
increasetheorganization’sreputation.Aninadequatecrisisresponseontheotherhandcan
damageanorganization’sactions,itsreputationandthreatenitsexistence(Doorley&Garcia,
2007).
Crisiscommunicationgenerallyrefersto„thecollection,processing,anddissemination
ofinformationrequiredtoaddressacrisissituation“(Coombs,2010,p.20).Asespecially
avoidablecrisescanendangeranorganization’sreputation,themaingoalofcrisis
communicationistorebuildboththeorganization’sreputationandthestakeholder’strust(Utz,
Schultz&Glocka,2013).Thus,crisismanagement,includingcrisiscommunication,and
reputationmanagementarehighlyintertwined(Carroll,2009).Crisiscommunicationis
furthermoreaprocessthatcanbedividedintothethreephasespre-crisiscommunication,crisis
communicationandpost-crisiscommunication(Coombs,2010).Pre-crisiscommunication
addressesthepreparationforpossiblethreats,crisiscommunicationregardsthedecisions
duringthecrisisaswellastheprovidingofinformationtothepeopleandpost-crisis
communicationincludestheanalysisofpreviouscommunicationandthepossibleprovisionof
“follow-upcrisismessages“(Coombs,2010,p.21).Especiallyinthecontextofproductrecalls,
effectivecommunicationisessentialbecauseitpotentiallyreducesdamage(Desai,2014).Asthe
VWemissionsscandalhasalreadygonepublicoversixmonthsago,theVWGroupiscurrently
situatedinthepost-crisiscommunicationphase.Ithastobekeptinmind,though,thatnew
detailsaboutthecrisisarestillbeingrevealed.
8
2.1.1. TheSituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory
Inordertobuildandtesttheory,onelineofresearchinthefieldofcrisiscommunicationhas
begantodeveloptheSituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory(SCCT)(Coombs,2004,2007a;
Coombs&Holladay,2002;Kim&Cameron,2011).TheSCCTmodel(seefigure1)hasbeen
developedsince2002(Coombs&Holladay,2002)andprovidesastructureforthe
comprehensionof“howcrisiscommunicationcanbeusedtoprotectreputationalassetsduring
acrisis“(Coombs,2007a,p.163).Itcanbeappliedtodifferenttypesoforganizations(Coombs,
2007a)andtakesanaudience-centeredapproach,whichdeterminestheimpactofimportant
aspectsofthecrisissituationonthestakeholders’perceivedreputation(Coombs,1998;Coombs,
2007a).Knowledgeabouthowstakeholdersreacttoacrisiscanthenagaininfluencea
company’spost-crisiscommunication(Coombs,2007a).EmpiricalresearchbasedonSCCT
offersdirectionsforcrisismanagersonhowresponsestrategiescanbeusedinordertosavea
reputationfromacrisis(Coombs,2007a).Thismakestheframeworkespeciallyvaluable.
Previousresearch(e.g.Choi&Chung,2013;Coombs&Holladay,1996;Dean,2004)has
confirmedsuchbenefitoftheusageoftherightcrisisresponsestrategy(Coombs&Holladay,
2008).
Figure1:CrisisSituationmodelofSCCT(basedonCoombs,2007a)
9
SCCToriginatedfromAttributionTheory(AT)(Weiner,1985)(Coombs,1995;2007a),
whichisa“theoryofmotivationandemotion”(Weiner,1985,p.548)thatsuggeststhat
individualsseekforunderlyingcausesofeventsthathappenaroundthem(Weiner,1985).
Peopleconstantlyask‘why’becausetheyhavetheneedtocomprehendandcontroltheir
environment(Weiner,1985).AccordingtoFolkes(1988),studiesaboutATinthecontextof
consumerbehaviorfoundthatconsumersmakeattributionsforinstanceforwhytheyhave
boughtaproductortofindthereasonforwhyaservicefailed.ThetwokeyaspectsofATare
unexpectancyandnegativitybecausetheyinduceaperson’sneedtolookforthereasonofan
incident(Weiner,1985,1986;Coombs,2007b).Sincecrisesareperceivedasunpredictable,
negativeevents,stakeholdersassociateblametotheinvolvedactorsinacrisis(Coombs,2007a,
2015;Dean,2004;Laufer&Coombs,2006).
Inordertoreactproperlytoacrisis,thepotentialcrisisthreatforanorganization’s
reputationneedstobeassessed.AsCoombs(2007a)explains,“threatistheamountofdamagea
crisiscouldinflictontheorganization’sreputationifnoactionistaken”(p.137).Thereby,the
reputationalthreatisdeterminedbythethreedeterminantsinitialcrisisresponsibility,crisis
historyandpriorreputation(Coombs,2007a).Usingatwo-stepprocess,crisismanagers
estimatethethreattoareputation.First,theyevaluatetheinitialcrisisresponsibility,whichis
basedonthetypeofthecrisis.AccordingtotheSCCT,crisescanbedividedintothreetypes,also
knownasframes,whicheachpresentaspecificaspectoftheparticularcrisis:victimcrisis,
accidentalcrisisandlastlythepreventableorintentionalcrisis(e.g.human-errorproductharm
ororganizationalmisdeed).Eachcrisistypedefineshowmuchresponsibilitythestakeholders
attributetotheorganization.Ofthethreetypes,theintentionalcrisishasthestrongest
attributionofcrisisresponsibilityandposesaseverereputationalthreat(Coombs&Holladay,
2002;Coombs,2007a).AccordingtoClaeys,CaubergheandVyncke(2010),inthecaseof
preventablecrises,evenallresponsibilityisassignedtotheorganization.Basedonthecrisistype,theSCCTthenproposesdifferentstrategiestorespondtothecrisis(Coombs,2007a).The
dieselenginemanipulations,whichresultedintheVWemissionsscandal,wereperformedby
employeesoftheVWGroup.Moreover,severalmanagersofthecorporationknewaboutthese
illegalactions(Neate,2016,para.1,10).Aspreventablecrisesinvolve,forexample,
managementmisbehavior,whichintentionallyendangersstakeholdersand/orbreakslaws
(Coombs,2004;2007a),theemissionsscandalandrecallofVWcarsclearlyfallsintothe
preventablecrisiscluster.Asthisisthemostseverecrisistype,itmakestheexaminationofits
consequencesespeciallysignificant.
Inthesecondstageoftheassessmentofthereputationalthreat,theintensifyingfactors
crisishistory,referringtowhethertheorganizationhashadalikelyeventbefore,andpre-crisis
reputation,meaningthereputationbeforethecrisis,areexamined(Coombs,2007a).The
10
existenceofacrisishistoryoranegativepre-crisisreputationwillreinforcethereputational
threatofanorganization(Coombs,2007a).However,crisishistorywasfoundnottobeas
importantasthepre-crisisreputationofacompany(Coombs&Holladay,2001).Thus,prior
reputationisconsideredtobemoreimportantandwillthereforebeofinterestthisstudy.
2.2.
Post-crisisreputation
Asexplainedinthepreviouschapter,onenegativeoutcomefororganizationsinacrisisisthe
lossofreputation(Coombs,2007a;Coombs&Holladay,2008;Dutta&Pullig,2011;Kiambi&
Shafer,2015).Inthiscontext,itisassumedthatthepublic’sevaluationofacompany’s
reputationbeforethecrisisinfluencesthecompany’srecovery(Turketal.,2012).Thereby,
differentpointsofviewexist.
Ontheonehand,itcansimplybesupposedthatafavorablepriorreputationoperatesas
abankaccountthatconsistsofreputationalcapital(Alsop,2004,ascitedinCoombs&Holladay,
2006).Reputationalcapitalreferstoanorganization’s“stockofperceptualassetsandsocial
assets”(Fombrun&vanRiel,2004,p.32).Ahigherreputationalcapitalcouldresultinmore
supportiveactionsbystakeholders(Fombrun&vanRiel,2004).Asacrisiswillcausesomeharm
toanorganization’sreputation,italsoleadstoalossofreputationalcapital(Coombs,2007a).If
anorganizationhasafavorablepre-crisisreputation,thusmeaningthatithasplentyof
reputationalcapital,itcanallowitselftospendorlosesomecapitalinacrisis.Inthatcase,it
sustainsastrong,favorablereputationafterthecrisis(Alsop,2004,ascitedinCoombs&
Holladay,2006;Coombs,2007a;Dowling,2001).Thisindicatesthatorganizationswitha
favorablereputationcansufferasmuchasthosewithanunfavorablereputationbutwillstill
maintainabetterreputationaftersuchanevent(Claeys&Cauberghe,2015).Thus,agoodprecrisisreputationindicatesthatanorganizationisharmedlessandrecoversmorerapidly
(Coombs,2007a).
Anothermorecomplexexplanationisthatafavorablepriorreputationcanfunctionasa
shield(Claeys&Cauberghe,2015)orhalo(Coombs&Holladay,2006)thatprotectsan
organizationfromthelossofreputation(Coombs&Holladay,2006;Ulmer,2001).Thetheories
underlyingthisassumptionareexpectancyconfirmationtheoryandcognitivedissonance
(Claeys&Cauberghe,2015;Coombs&Holladay,2006).Itisassumedthatindividualshave
expectationsaboutsocialissuesandthattheytrytoavoidexperiencingcognitivedissonance.
Thismeansthatindividualstrytoobtaininformationthatcorrespondswiththeirprioropinions
ofanissue.Becausepeopletrytodiminishcognitivedissonance,conflictinginformationis
interpretedinawaythatiscoherentwiththeindividuals’previousbeliefs(Claeys&Cauberghe,
2015;Coombs&Holladay,2006;Edwards&Smith,1996;Perloff,2010).Likewise,ifpeople
11
receivecrisisinformationaboutafavoredorganization,theymightfacecognitivedissonance
(Perloff,2010,ascitedinClaeys&Cauberghe,2015,p.65).Consumerswithapositiveattitude
maytendtopaymoreattentiontopositiveinformationandavoidnegativeaspectsaboutthe
organization(Coombs&Holladay,2006;Claeys&Cauberghe,2015).Thisformofinformation
processingcouldthenresultintheavoidanceofreputationalloss.Additionally,stakeholders
couldtoacertainextentrejectthefactthatthecrisisoccurredandthusholdontotheir
favorableopinionaboutit.Hence,thecrisiswillnothavealargeeffectontherelationship
betweenstakeholdersandorganizations (Coombs&Holladay,2001,2006).Consequently,an
organizationwithafavorablepre-crisisreputationwouldsufferlessreputationallossthanan
organizationwithanunfavorablepre-crisisreputation.GrunwaldandHempelmann(2011)even
assumethatthecognitivedissonancemechanismonlytakesplaceforwell-knownandwellreputedorganizations.AstheVWGroupdidhaveafavorablepre-crisisreputation,itisassumed
thatthisprocessisapplicable.
Severalscholarshaveinvestigatedtheroleofagoodpre-crisisreputationandare
positiveaboutitsbenefitsforanorganizationduringacrisisbyhelpingtoprotectacompany’s
reputationalassetsaswellasbeinganaidtoitsrepair(Coombs&Holladay,2006).Studies
foundforinstancethatagoodpriorreputationinfluencedthepublic’sopinionandbehavioral
intentionstowardstheorganization(e.g.Carroll,2009;Lyon&Cameron,2004),resultedina
betterevaluationof(e.g.Kiambi&Shafer,2015)andledtoamorepositiveattitudetowardsthe
organization(e.g.Turketal.,2012).KiambiandShafer(2015)thusevaluateagoodreputation
ascriticalforanorganizationandemphasizethenecessitytoestablishafavorablepre-crisis
reputation.However,sincemostexistingresearch“isopinionbasedratherthanwell
researched”(Dowling,2001,p.252),thereisashortageofempiricalevidenceforthis
assumption(Coombs&Holladay,2006).Thus,moreempiricalproofisneededinorderto
provideadviceontheprotectionofanorganization’sreputationfromacrisis(Coombs,2007a;
Rousseau,2006;Kiambi&Shafer,2015).Moreover,theshieldingfunctionofagoodreputation
hasnotoftenbeenconfirmedinpreviousstudies(Claeys&Cauberghe,2015).Coombsand
Holladay(2006)onlyfoundevidencefortheoccurrenceofahaloeffectcouldfororganizations
withanextremelyfavorablepre-crisisreputation(Coombs&Holladay,2006).However,Claeys
andCauberghe(2015)wereabletovalidatetheshieldingeffectandfoundevidenceforthe
consumers’endeavortoavertcognitivedissonanceregardingtheirpre-crisisattitudetowards
anorganization.Theconsumerswerenotonlytoassociatelowercrisis-responsibilitytothe
organizationbutalsodisregardednegativepublicity.Thus,consumerswereaversetoaltertheir
originalattitudetowardsanorganization(Claeys&Cauberghe,2015).
Despitetheabove-describedrelevanceofagoodpre-crisisreputationfororganizations,
someresearchers(e.g.Dean,2004;Grunwald&Hempelmann,2011;Rhee&Haunschild,2006)
12
arguethatafavorablereputationcanalsoleadtonegativeconsequencesforanorganizationina
crisis,beingconcerned“aboutthepossibilitythatagoodreputationwillbackfireandinflicteven
moreseveredamagetofirms”(Sohn&Lariscy,2015,p.238).Comparedtoaloworaneutral
reputation,afavorablereputationcouldleadtohigherexpectationsofanorganizationamong
stakeholders(Rhee&Haunshild,2006;Sohn&Lariscy,2015).Iftheseareviolatedinacrisis,
well-reputedorganizationswillbepunishedmoresternly(Sohn&Lariscy,2015),forinstance,
bycausingtheorganizationstopayhigherrestitutionsinordertoresolvetheincident
(Grunwald&Hempelmann,2011).SohnandLariscy(2015)callthisthe‘boomerangeffect’ofa
favorablereputationandjustifythisphenomenonwiththeexpectancyviolations(EV)theory.
Contradictingtocognitivedissonance-basedviews(Sohn&Lariscy,2015),thistheorysuggests
thatinsteadoffullyignoringordenyingcontradictinginformation,peopletendtocomparetheir
pre-interactionexpectationswiththetargetobject’sbehaviors(Burgoon&LePoire,1993).The
violationofaperson’sexpectancyratheroperatesasatriggerforcognitiveprocessing,hence
affectingthetarget’spost-interactionjudgmentinasensethat“positiveandnegativeviolations
(disconfirmation)leadtomorepositiveandnegativeinteractionoutcomesrespectivelythan
doesconformitytoexpectations”(Burgoon&LePoire,1993,p.69).Initially,theEVtheorywas
developedfortheclarificationofinternalcommunication(Sohn&Lariscy,2015).Aspeopleare
likelytohumanizeorganizations(Daviesetal.,2003;Love&Kraatz,2009)andstakeholders
considerthemasexchangepartnerswithcharacteristicssuchasreliability,whichtheyare
evaluatedon(Fombrun,1996;Love&Kraatz,2009;Sohn&Lariscy,2015),thistheoryisalso
suitabletotheinteractionofstakeholdersandorganizations(Sohn&Laricsy,2015).
Althoughmostresearchershaveaddressedtheadvantagesofagoodreputationduringa
crisis,otherscholarsargueforamorepessimisticview.Asabove-described,opponentempirical
findingsexist,whereastheoptimisticviewisleading(Sohn&Lariscy,2015).Givensuchan
ongoingdebate,thestudyathandexploresthepost-crisisreputationoftheVWGroupafterthe
emissionsscandalhasoccurred.
2.3.
NegativeWord-of-Mouth
Besidesthepotentiallynegativeeffectonreputation,crisescanalsoinfluenceanindividual’s
behaviorintentions,suchasNWOMintention(Coombs,2010;Coombs&Holladay,2008).Wordof-mouth(WOM)cangenerallybedefinedasinformal,non-commercialperson-to-person
communicationamongcommunicatorsaboutbrands,products,servicesororganizations
(Anderson,1998;Harrison-Walker,2001;Richins,1984;Goyette,Ricard,Bergeron&
Marticottte,2010).Inthecontextofthisthesis,WOMrelatestostatementsthatstakeholders
makeaboutacorporation(Schultzetal.,2011),namelytheVWGroup.WOMcantakeplaceface
13
toface,byphone,emailoranyothercommunicationchannels(Silverman,2001).WOMcan
furtherbeofpersonalorigin,forinstancefromfriendsorfamily,andofimpersonalorigin,such
asjournalists(Goyetteetal.,2010).WOMhaslongbeenacceptedasadominantpowerin
buildingconsumers’opinionsandbehaviors(Brown&Reingen,1987;Herr,Kardes&Kim,
1991)andisevenreferredtoas„themostpowerfulforceinthemarketplace“(Silvermann,
2001,p.47).ThisismainlybecauseWOMisnormallygeneratedbycrediblesourcesandisthus
believedtohaveastrongerimpactconsumers’judgmentsthaninformationobtainedthrough
commercialprintsources,likeadvertising(Silvermann,2001;Herretal.1991),becausetheyare
more“accessible”and“diagnostic”(Herretal.,1991,p.459).Inaddition,WOMcaneasilyreach
alargeamountofpeopleduetoitsabilitytospreadquickly(Silvermann,2001),especially
throughnewchannels,suchasonlineforums(Hennig-Thurau,Gwinner,Walsh&Gremler,
2004).
WOMcanbepositive,neutralornegative(Anderson,1998).NWOM„denigratesthe
objectofthecommunication“andrefersto„aconsumerresponsetodissatisfaction“(Richins,
1984,p.697).Asitisdamagingtoacompany’ssuccess(Richins,1984),NWOMcanbeseenasa
threattoorganizations(Coombs,Fediuk&Holladay,2007).PositiveWOMontheotherhandis
anadvantagefororganizations(Coombs,Fediuk&Holladay,2007).Moreover,itwasfoundthat
NWOMhasamoreintensiveinfluenceoncustomerevaluationsthanpositiveWOM(Herretal.,
1991;Laczniak,DeCarlo&Ramaswami,2001;Mizerski,1982).Moreprecisely,itsignificantly
influencestheevaluationofbrands(Laczniaketal.,2001),products(Rea,Wang&Stoner,2014)
andorganizations(Kiambi&Shafer,2015).Additionally,itisconsideredtobeanantecedentfor
consumerbehavior,forinstance,itmaychangeaperson’spresentandfuturepurchasedecisions
(Chu&Li,2012;Coombs&Holladay,2007;Schultzetal.,2011).
NWOMisconsideredtobeparticularlypowerfulandproblematicbecauseitcanreach
manyreceivers,includingpeoplewhodidnotknowabouttheincidentbefore.Itcanalsopersist
(online)evenafteracrisisandevenafterpeoplehavealreadyforgottenabouttheincident.
Therefore,itisathreattoorganizations(Coombs,2007a,2010,2014;Coombs&Holladay,
2007)andasmanagersaimtopreventthepossiblenegativeoutcomesofNWOM(Coombs,
2007b,2007a)theythustrytoavoidNWOM.
ScholarshavearguedthatstakeholdershaveatendencytouseNWOMinacrisis(e.g.
Coombs&Holladay,2007;Coombsetal.,2007;Kiambi&Shafer,2015).Thisrelationshiphas
beeninvestigatedinseveralstudies.Utzetal.(2013),forinstance,foundintheirresearchabout
theFukushimaDaiichinucleardisasterthatrespondentsusedmoresecondarycrisis
communication,suchasNWOM,inthecaseofanintentionalcrisis.Furthermore,Kiambiand
Shafer’s(2015)studyrevealedthatanorganizationwithabadpre-crisisreputationtendsto
14
undergomoreintentionsofNWOMthanthosewithagoodreputation.However,moreempirical
researchonNWOMincrisiscommunicationisneeded(Kiambi&Shafer,2015).
DuetopossiblenegativebehaviorsfollowingNWOM,theconceptisofhighimportance
forcorporations.AstheintentiontouseNWOMcanbeevokedinacrisis,thepresentstudy
examinestheoccurrenceofNWOMintheVWemissionsscandal.SincetheVWemissions
scandalcanbecategorizedasanintentionalcrisis,theNWOMintentionoftheGermanpublicis
expectedtoberatherhighafterthecrisis.Onthecontrary,theVWGrouphadhadavery
favorablereputationpriortotheemissionsscandal,whichiswhytheNWOMintentioncouldbe
potentiallylow,aswell.ThepresentstudythusfurtherinvestigatestheGermanpublic’s
intentiontoexpressNWOMabouttheVWGroup.
2.4.
ImpactofPersonalPerspectivesinCrisisCommunication
Studiesinthefieldofcrisiscommunicationhavemainlyappliedtwotheoriesinordertoexplore
publics’responsestoorganizations’usageofcrisiscommunicationstrategies(Coombs&
Holladay,2014),namelycontingencytheory(e.g.Jin&Cameron,2007)andSCCT(e.g.Coombs,
2007;CoombsandHolladay,2007).Thereby,researchoftentimesfocusedonfictitious
companiesandcrisissituations(e.g.Dean,2004;Claeys&Cauberghe,2015).Thismadeit
difficulttoincludeindividuals’attitudestowardsacompanyintheanalysis(Dean,2004).
Severalresearchers,however,suggesttheincorporationofindividualvariables,suchas
involvementoremotionswhenanalyzingtheimpactofcrisesoncorporatereputation(e.g.Choi
&Lin,2009a;Choi&Lin,2009b;Claeys&Cauberghe,2015;Dean,2004).AccordingtoChoiand
Lin(2009b),notmuchisknown“abouthowapotentiallyaffectedpublicwillrespondtoacrisis
andhowtheirresponsesshouldbeincorporatedintoSCCTwhentestingthatmodel“(p.199).
However,thereissignificanceinthecomprehensionofstakeholderreactionstocrises(Härtel,
McColl-Kennedy&McDonald,1998;Kim&Cameron,2011)becauseitcanbeusefulknowledge
fortheorganization’spost-crisiscommunication(Coombs,2007a).Thus,theaimofthepresent
studyistoexaminetheimpactofpersonalperspectivesontheabove-explainedpossible
outcomesofacrisis.Throughthis,thestudywilldrawaconnectionbetweentheindividualand
corporateleveloftheVWemissionsscandal.
2.4.1. Crisis-Emotions
Asnotmuchresearchhasaddressedemotionsincrisissofar(McDonaldetal.,2010),scholars
havebeguntoinvestigatetheroleofemotionalresponsesinthecontextofsucheventsinrecent
years(e.g.Choi&Lin,2009a,2009b,2009c;Coombsetal.,2007;Jin,2009,2010;Jin,Pang&
Cameron,2012,2014;Kim&Cameron,2011).Theemotionsfeltbystakeholderstowardsan
15
organizationcanhaveanimpactontheorganization’sdevelopmentandsurvival,makingthe
comprehensionofaffectsespeciallyessential(Coombs&Holladay,2005).AsCoombsand
Holladay(2005)furtherposit,crisiscommunicationcanmoreeffectivelyprotectan
organization’sreputationwhenitconsidersthestakeholder’saffectivereactions(Coombs&
Holladay,2005)becausecrisismanagerscanrespondmoreproperlytotheincident(Laufer&
Coombs,2006).
AsCoombs’SCCTframeworkusesanaudience-directedapproach,itcanbeappliedfor
thecomprehensionofstakeholders’reactionsincrises(Jin,2010).CoombsandHolladay(2005)
arguethatcriseswillnotonlytriggerattributionsbutalsocreateemotionalresponsesamong
individuals(Coombs&Holladay,2005).InaccordancewithAT,angerandsympathyhavebeen
statedtobethemainemotionsinthecontextofpost-crisiscommunication(Coombs&Holladay,
2005,2008).Althoughthesetwoemotionshavedifferentvalences,sympathyhasapositiveand
angerhasanegativevalence,theyarebothprobabletobefeltbynon-victimpublics(Jin,2014).
Transferredtothestudyathand,thiswouldsignifythatthegeneralGermanpubliccouldfeel
emotionsabouttheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal.
Angertowardsaneventismainlyfeltwhenpeopleattributeresponsibilitytocertain
agents,suchasorganizations,foraviolationorsorrow(Iyer&Oldmeadow,2006).Lindner
(2006)arguesthatindividualsfeelangerwhentheyfeelhurtandwhenevertheyaretreated
withdisrespect.Transferredtoanorganizationincrisis,itwouldmeanthatpersonswouldfeel
angertowardstheorganizationwhentheybelievethattheorganizationistobeblamedforthe
event(ascitedinJin,2010,p.527).Sympathyontheotherhandisevokedthroughthe
“awarenessofothers’suffering[…]especiallywhenthesufferingisseenasundeserved“
(Salovey&Rosenhan,1989;ascitedbyIyer&Oldmeadow,2006,p.637).Thiscanbeexplained
bythefactthatsympathyinvolvesasenseofcompassionthatiscausedbythedistressofthe
otherperson(Gruen&Mendelsohn,1986).IyerandOldmeadow(2006)indicate,though,that
notallpeoplewhoobserveotherssufferalsofeelsympathy.Theysuggestthatsympathyisnot
onlyevokedbythefeelingforsomeoneelsebutthatitalsorequiressomedistancefromwhatis
happening.Basedonthis,itisarguedthatmostprobablypeoplewhoperceiveacrisisbutare
notdirectlyaffectedbyitwouldtendtofeelsympathy(Jin,2014).Incaseofanorganization
experiencingacrisis,itcanbeassumedthatapersonwouldfeelsympathytowardsthe
organizationwhenevaluatingtheorganizationasvictimthatissufferingduetothehappening.
Inlinewiththis,severalstudiesfoundthatpersonsexperiencedifferentemotionsbasedonthe
crisistype(e.g.Jin,2009;Jinetal.,2012).
Beingonlyconfrontedwithstakeholderswhofeelangerorsympathytowardsan
organizationwouldnotbeverysignificantfororganizationsincrisis.However,Coombsand
16
Holladay(2005)arguethatemotionswillhaveanimpactonastakeholder’sfuture
organizationalinteractions,suchassupportingtheorganization(Coombs&Holladay,2005),
andarethereforecrucialtoconsider.Furthermore,Liu,AustinandJin(2011)explainthat
certainemotionshavebeenrelatedtoundesirablecrisisoutcomes.InthemostcurrentSCCT
model,emotionisincorporatedasapredictorforbehavioralintentionsbutnotforreputation
(seefigure1,arrowE)(Coombs,2007a;Choi&Lin,2009b).Jin,PangandCameron(2007)
argue,though,thatemotionsinacrisiscanhaveanimpactonpeople’sopinionaboutan
organization.ChoiandLin(2009b)thusproposedandtestedarevisedmodelthatcontained
suchadirectpathfromemotionstoreputation.Theyfoundthatangersignificantlypredictedthe
company’sperceivedreputation:Ahigherlevelofangerledtoaworsereputation.This
highlightsthesignificanceofemotionsinSCCTandtheneedtotakeemotionalreactionsinto
accountwhenaimingtoprotectanorganization’sreputation(Choi&Li,2009b).Basedontheir
findings,ChoiandLi(2009b)suggestarevisedSCCTmodelthatcontainsadirectlinkfrom
angertoreputation.
Onthecontrary,onlyfewstudiesincrisisresearchhavecenteredontheimpactof
positiveemotions,althoughthesignificanceofpositiveaffectsincommunicationhasbeen
apparent(Jin,2014).Forinstance,FolkmanandMoskowitz(2000)claimthatpositiveemotions
canemergetogetherwithdistressinastressfulsituation.Asfortherelationshipofsympathy
andpost-crisisreputation,itcanbeassumedthatpersonswhofeelsympatheticforan
organizationhaveapositiveattitudeandthusratetheorganization’sreputationbetterthan
thosewhodonotfeelsympathyfortheorganization.Basedonthisbackground,thefollowing
hypothesescanbeformulated:
H1:AngerhasanegativeimpactontheVWGroup’spost-crisisreputation.
H2:SympathyhasapositiveimpactontheVWGroup’spostcrisisreputation.
AlthoughbeingconsideredasapredictorforbehavioralintentionsinSCCT(Choi&Lin,
2009b;Coombs,2007a),potentialeffectsofcrisisemotionsonbehaviorhavenotmuchbeen
investigated,yet(Coombs&Holladay,2005).Suchresearchwouldhelp,though,“todevelop
effectivecrisismanagementstrategies”(McDonaldetal.,2011,p.333).Onepossiblenegative
behavioralintentionthatistriggeredbyemotionsisthatofNWOM(Coombs&Holladay,2007;
Coombs,2007a,2014).
AsLernerandTiedens(2006)explain,severalstudieshaveconfirmedthatangrypeople
believethattheyhavetheabilitytomakeanimpactonormanageacertainsituationandtrigger
abehavior.Inlinewiththis,angerhasbeenfoundtoleadtoNWOMintentionbecausepeople
wanttoexpresstheirfeelingsorwanttoavenge(Wetzer,Zeelenberg&Pieters,2007).Coombs
17
etal.(2007)positthatunhappycustomershaveahigherproclivitytotellclosepersonsabout
productsandservicesthanthosewhoarehappy.Theauthorsfurtherarguethatstakeholders
whoareangrybecauseofacrisisarelesslikelytousepositiveWOMbutmorelikelytouse
NWOMinstead.Theauthorscallthisthe“negativecommunicationdynamic”(Coombsetal.,
2007).However,intheirstudyabouttherelationshipbetweencrisisresponsibility,angerand
WOM,bothresponsibilityandangerwerefoundtoincreasepositiveWOMinsteadofNWOM.
Coombsetal.(2007)concludethatthemoderatelevelofangertowardsthecrisisintheirstudy
maynothavebeensufficienttodeveloptheirproposednegativecommunicationdynamic.They
suggestexaminingtheimpactofangerinfuturestudies.Otherstudies,though,havefound
evidencefortherelationshipbetweenangerandNWOM.Forinstance,Utzetal.’s(2013)study
revealedthatangerhadanimpactonsecondarycrisiscommunication,suchasNWOM.
Moreover,thehigherthelevelofnegativeemotions,theleastthepersonshadbehavioral
intentionsthatweresupportiveforanorganizationandthemoretheytendedtouseNWOM
(McDonaldetal.,2010).McDonaldetal.(2010)evenfoundthatangerwasoneofthestrongest
predictorsfortheintentiontouseNWOM.
Sympathy,ontheotherhand,couldnotplaysuchanimportantroleinacrisisbecauseits
positiveaffectmightnotinfluencestakeholderstoalargeextent(Coombs&Holladay,2005).
ResultsofastudybyStockmyer(1996)revealforinstancethatsympathytowardsanaffected
companydidnotinfluencepeopletopurchasefromitafterthecrisis.CoobsandHolladay(2005)
suppose,“customersaremorelikelytocomplainaboutabadexperiencewithaproductor
servicethanreportapositiveexperience“(p.275).Moreover,thescholarsarguethatsympathy
mightresultinsupportingactionsbystakeholders(Coombs&Holladay,2005).Furtherresearch
isnecessary,though,inordertoassesstheactualbenefitsofsympathyforcrisiscommunication
(Coombs&Holladay,2005).Thus,itcanbearguedthatsympathytowardsthecorporation
wouldnotleadtoNWOMandahigherlevelofsympathywoulddecreasetheNWOMintention.
Hence,thefollowingcanbehypothesized:
H3:Angerincreasestheintentionfornegativeword-of-mouthabouttheVWGroup.
H4:Sympathydecreasestheintentionfornegativeword-of-mouthabouttheVWGroup.
2.4.2. CrisisResponsibility
Inordertoshieldanorganizationfromacrisis,understandingabouthowtheincidentcauses
damagetotheorganizationisneeded(Coombs,2015).Previousresearchhasrecognizedfour
situationalfactorsthatsupportthecomprehensionoftheharmfulimpactofacrisis,oneofthem
crisisresponsibility(Coombs,2015).Sinceitisanessentialconceptforunderstanding
“stakeholders’reactionstocrisisresponses“(Browm&Ki,2013,p.2)andtakesonapivotalpart
18
inSCCT(Coombs,2004;2007a;2015),itisespeciallysignificantforthepresentstudy.
Crisisresponsibilityreferstotheamountofresponsibilityforacrisisthatstakeholders
attributetoanorganization(Coombs,1998,2004),alsocalledtheblameoftheorganization
(Coombs,1998).Asexplainedinchapter2.1.1,theconstructisderivatedfromAT(Coombs,
2015),inwhichcausalattributionsplayapivotalrole(Weiner,1985).Responsibilitycaneither
beattributedtothepersonororganizationembroiledinthecrisisevent(internal)or
circumstantial(external)factors(Coombs,2010).Theattributionofinternalorexternal
responsibilityisessentialininducingaffectivereactionsorbehaviorstotheactorsthatarepart
ofthecrisis(Weiner,1986).Inthecaseofahighdegreeofinternalresponsibility,behavioral
reactionsarenegative.Ontheotherhand,iftheexternalresponsibilityisperceivedtobehigh,
behavioralreactionsarepositive(Weiner,2006).Theprocessofblamingisbasedonthe
knowledgethatapersonpossessesaboutwhetheranorganizationisresponsibleforacrisisand
whetheritcouldhavecontrolledoravoidedthecrisis(Jin,2010).
Asexplainedinchapter2.1.1,basedonthecrisistype,managersareabletodetect
whetherstakeholderstendtoconsidertheorganizationasresponsibleforthecrisisornot
(Coombs,2015).TheVWemissionsscandalfallsintothecategoryofapreventablecrisis,thus,a
highattributionofcrisisresponsibilitytheVWGroupisexpected(Coombs,2007a).The
emphasizingofcertainaspectsofacrisis,thereforeframingitinacertainway,caninfluencea
person’sopinion(Coombs,2007a;Druckman,2001)andonhowstakeholdersevaluatethecrisis
(Coombs&Holladay,2002).Forinstance,existingresearchinthefieldofcrisiscommunication
hasfoundadirectlinkbetweencrisisresponsibilityandreputation(e.g.Coombs,2004,2007a,
2014,2015;Coombs&Holladay,1996;2002;Laczniaketal.,2001;Turketal.,2012)and
behavioralreactions(Coombs,2007a),suchaspurchaseintention(Laufer&Coombs,2006)and
NWOMintention(Coombs,2015).
Furthermore,aspeopleascriberesponsibilityforanevent,theywillexperiencevarious
commonemotions(Weiner,1985;Coombs,2007a).MainemotionsinATareangerand
sympathy(Coombs,2007a).InlinewithAT,CoombsandHolladay(2005)positthat“[c]risis
responsibilityshouldberelatedtotheaffectcreatedbyacrisis”(p.269).TheSCCTcontainsthe
so-called‘CrisisResponsibility–AffectProposition’(seefigure1,arrowC),whichindicatesthata
strongerassociationofcrisisresponsibilityhasapositiveimpactonthefeelingsofanger
whereasalowerassociationofcrisisresponsibilityithasapositiveimpactonsympathy
(Coombs,2007a;Coombs&Holladay,2005).Themoreresponsibilityastakeholderattributesto
anorganization,thegreatertheriskofthecrisis(Coombs,2014).
Previousstudieshavedemonstratedtheoccurrenceofcertainemotionsdueto
stakeholders’attributionsofcrisisresponsibility(Utzetal.,2013).Severalstudiesfoundthat
19
personsexperiencedifferentemotionsbasedonthecrisistype(e.g.Jin,2009;Jinetal.,2012).
Thereby,intentionalcrisescreatethestrongestangerduetothehighlevelofcrisis
responsibility(e.g.Coombs&Holladay,2005).Inaccordancewiththis,ChoiandLin(2009b,
2009c)foundthatangerwasthemostandsympathytheleastoccurringemotionafteraproduct
recallcrisis.ResultsofChoiandLin(2009b)furtherrevealedthatcrisisresponsibility
significantlypredictedemotionssuchasanger,surpriseorfear,whereasangerhadthestrongest
relationtoresponsibility.However,theycouldnotproveanassociationofresponsibilitywith
sympathy.Thisresultcouldbeduetothesmallsamplesizeofsympathy(n=2)inthecontent
analysis,though,whichmayhaveledtoinsignificantresults(Choi&Lin,2009b).Inlinewith
this,CoombsandHolladay(2005)foundthatcrisisresponsibilitywasstronglypositively
correlatedwithanger.Theauthorsalsofoundthough,thatcrisisresponsibilityisstrongly
negativelycorrelatedwithsympathy.Basedonthis,McDonaldetal.(2010)proposethata
strongercrisisresponsibilityprognosticatesstrongeremotions.Thus,whenapersonor
organizationisjudgedresponsible,angerisexperiencedandbehavioralactionsarenegative.On
theotherhand,whenapersonororganizationisnotjudgedasresponsible,sympathyisevoked
andactionsarepositive(Kiambi&Shafer,2015;Weiner,1985;Weiner,2006,ascitedin
Coombs,2007a).Basedontheseassumptionsandempiricalresults,thefollowingcanbe
hypothethized:
H5:AhigherlevelofperceivedcrisisresponsibilityleadstomoreangertowardstheVW
Group.
H6:AhigherlevelofperceivedcrisisresponsibilityleadstolesssympathytowardstheVW
Group.
2.4.3. CrisisInvolvement
Despitethecallforincludingtheconceptofstakeholderinvolvementintocrisiscommunication
research(e.g.Dean,2004;Coombs&Holladay,2005;McDonald&Härtel,2000)onlyfewstudies
haveinvestigatedthemeaningoftheconceptinthiscontext(Choi&Lin,2009a).Asaresultof
thenoveltyofinvolvementincrisiscommunication,studiesthatdidincorporatetheconceptdid
notconsideritinthesamemanner.Thismakesthecomparisonandgeneralizationofresults
difficult.Forinstance,whilesomescholarsincludedproductinvolvement(e.g.Choi&Lin,
2009a;Choi&Chung,2013),otherappliedcrisisinvolvement(e.g.McDonaldetal.,2010).Since
theemissionsscandalandnottheproductsoftheVWGroupareofinterestofthisstudy,the
involvementwiththecrisisanditsconsequencesareexamined.
Asmanyresearchersconsiderpersonalimportance(Petty&Cacioppo,1981)or
relevanceasthecrucialaspectofinvolvement(e.g.Celsi&Olson,1988;Zaichkowsky,1985),the
20
conceptcangenerallybedefinedas“aperson’sperceivedrelevanceoftheobjectbasedon
inherentneeds,valuesandinterests(Zaichkowsky,1985).Thus,thelevelofperceivedpersonal
relevancedefineshowmuchaconsumerisinvolved“withanobject,situationoraction”(Celsi&
Olson,1988,p.211).CelsiandOlson(1988)implythatsomethingisofpersonalrelevancewhen
consumersregarditasself-relatedorsomehowcrucialforaccomplishingindividualaimsand
values.Generally,theconceptofinvolvementisusedinthecontextofproductsorbrands(Peter
&Olson,1990,ascitedinMcDonald&Härtel,2000,p.801;Zaichkowsky,1985),however,
consumerscouldalsobeinvolvedwithvariousissues,suchasevents(Peter&Olson,1990,as
citedinMcDonald&Härtel,2000,p.801;Petty&Cacioppo,1986).
Inthecaseofanindividual’ssubjectivesenseofpersonalrelevance,itcanbereferredto
“feltinvolvement“(Celsi&Olson,1988).Itisaperceptionthatistiedtoanobjectoreventand
solelyexistsatparticulartimesandsituations,whichemphasizesthesituationalroleofthe
concept(Celsi&Olson,1988).AccordingtoCelsiandOlson(1988),feltinvolvementhas
motivationalcharacteristics,whichhaveanimpactoncognitiveprocesses,includingattention
andcomprehension,andonbehavior,suchasconsumptionbehavior.AsPettyandCacioppo
(1981,1986)argue,involvementhasaninfluenceonpeople’smotivationformessage
processingandthusontheirattitudechange.Whilehighlyinvolvedconsumerprocess
informationonthecentralroute,meaningtheypaymoreattentiontothequalityofthe
arguments,low-involvedconsumersprocessitontheperipheralrouteandwillratherpay
attentiontoaspectssuchasthesourcecredibilityofthemessage.Thus,thehigheraperson’s
involvement,themoredifficultitistochangetheirattitude.
Researchinthefieldofpublicrelations(Heath&Douglas,1990,1991,ascitedinChoi&
Chung,2013)hashighlightedthecrucialroleofinvolvementregardingaudience’sreceptivityto
informationandissues.Theconceptofinvolvementwasfirstappliedtothefieldofcrisis
communicationandtoorganizationalcrisesbyMcDonaldandHärtel(2000)(Choi&Lin,2009a)
becausetheyassumedthatpersonalrelevanceisimportantforthedeterminationofcrisis
outcomes(McDonald&Härtel,2000).Accordingtotheauthors(2000),mostoftheexisting
crisiscommunicationresearchappliesATinordertoproveconnectionsbetweenattributions
andangeraswellaspurchaseintention.AlthoughATviewstheevaluationofindividual
relevanceofaneventascritical,itdoesnotintegrateitintothemodel.Thus,thescholars
suggestconsideringAffectiveEventsTheory(AET)(Weiss&Cropanzano,1996)inorderto
examinetheroleofbothpersonalrelevanceaswellasemotionsincrisis.Moreprecisely,AET
suggeststhatthelevelofpersonalrelevancedefinestheintensityoffeltemotions(McDonald&
Härtel,2000).
21
Applyinginvolvementtocrisisevents,McDonaldandHärtel(2000)arguethatthe
conceptdefineswhetherapersonisawareofamessageandhowmuchattentionheorshepays
toit.Inthecaseofacompanycrisis,aperson’sintrinsicsourcesofpersonalrelevance,suchas
itsgoals,valuesorneeds,butalsochangeablesituationalsourcesofpersonalrelevanceinthe
consumer’senvironment,includingthemediacoverageofsuchevent,determinehisorher
motivationtodevoteherselforhimselftoamessage.Theleveloffeltinvolvementwouldthen
influencetheprocessesofattributionandemotion,whichwouldinturnhaveanimpacton
behaviorintentionsafteracrisis(McDonald&Härtel,2000;Choi&Lin,2009a).Accordingto
Weiner(1995),eventsthataremorepersonallyrelevantleadtostrongeremotions.Thus,
McDonaldandHärtel(2000)arguethatinvolvementisanimportantfactorindefiningthe
effectsofacompanycrisisbecauseitcaninfluencethelevelofpeople’sattentiontoamessage
andthustheefficiencyofcrisiscommunication.Moreprecisely,thescholarsproposethata
consumer’sinvolvementwithacompanycrisispredictsthelevelofemotions.Asfelt
involvementinfluencesconsumer’sanger,McDonaldandHärtel(2000)proposethatthelevelof
feltinvolvementdefinestheintensityofangertheyfeelinacompanycrisis.Furthermore,since
crisisvariablesareconsiderstobe„dynamicandchangeable“(McDonald&Härtel,2000,p.801),
feltinvolvementistemporary.Thus,asangerisassumedtoresultfromfeltinvolvement,itis
alsomomentary.Thisindicatesthatangerwilldisappearastimepasses,exceptforin„high
impactcrisesthatgenerateextremelyhighlevelsofanger“(Coombs&Holladay,2007,p.302).
Basedonthis,CoombsandHolladay(2005)supposethatconsumerinvolvementcouldincrease
theemotionsand/orcrisisresponsibilitythatwerecreatedinacrisis,whichcouldleadtoan
extensionofSCCT.
FollowingMcDonaldandHärtel’s(2000)introductionofinvolvementtothefieldofcrisis
communication,severalresearchers(e.g.Choi&Chung,2013;Choi&Lin,2009a;McDonaldet
al.,2010)haveappliedtheconceptofproductinvolvement,meaningaperson’sperceptionof
relevanceregardingaproduct(Choi&Chung,2013),tocrisiscommunication.ChoiandChung
(2013),forinstance,foundthatinvolvementhadasignificanteffectonreputation.Astudyon
crisisinvolvement,conductedbyMcDonaldetal.(2010),revealedthatinvolvementand
responsibilitycausedbothpositiveandnegativecrisisemotions.Thestrongesteffectswere
foundforanger,fearandsympathy.Incomparisonwithresponsibility,though,crisis
involvementwasonlyaweakpredictorforemotions(McDonaldetal.,2010).Inlinewiththis,
ChoiandLin(2009a)foundintheirstudythathighandlowinvolvedconsumersperceivea
crisisdifferentlyandfoundalinkbetweenproductinvolvementandangerfortheMattel
productcrisis.TheauthorsconcludethattheinclusionofconsumerinvolvementintotheSCCTis
a„logicalnextstepforfutureresearchincrisiscommunication“(p.21).
22
BasedonChoiandChung’s(2013)argumentationfortheToyotarecallcase,fortheVW
emissionsscandal,itcanbeassumedthattherearespecificgroupsofpeople(e.g.current
ownersofacaroftheVWGrouporownersofanaffectedcar)whoarelikelytoregardtheVW
emissionsscandalaspersonallyrelevant.Thus,itcanbeexpectedthattheyhaveahigherlevel
offeltinvolvementwiththeVWemissionsscandalthanthosewhoarenotownersofsuchcars.
Basedontheaboveexplainedtheoreticalassumptionsandempiricalfindings,itcanfurtherbe
assumedthatpeoplewithahigherlevelofcrisisinvolvementwillfeelmoreangerandsympathy
towardstheVWGroupafterthecrisis.Consequently,thefollowinghypothesiscanbeproposed:
H7:AhigherlevelofinvolvementwiththeVWemissionsscandalleadstoahigherlevelof
angerafterthecrisis.
H8:AhigherlevelofinvolvementwiththeVWemissionsscandalleadstoalowerlevelof
sympathyafterthecrisis.
2.4.4. Person-CompanyFit
AsBhattacharyaandSen(2003)state,anincreasingnumberofcompaniesseektoachieve
significantandenduringrelationshipswiththeircustomersbecausetheymaybringseveral
corporatebenefits.Suchbenefitsincludecustomerloyalty(Bhattacharya&Sen,2003;
Lichtenstein,Drumwright&Braig,2004),emotionallyattachedcustomers(Lichtensteinetal.,
2004),theusageofpositiveWOM(Bhattacharya&Sen,2003),betterevaluationsofand
attitudestowardsthecompany(Einwilleretal.,2006;Sen&Bhattacharya,2001)aswellas
commitmentwiththecompany(Kim,Lee,Lee&Kim,2010).Severalofthesestudieshave
appliedtheconceptofconsumer-companyidentificationtotherelationshipbetweenconsumers
andacompany(e.g.Lichtensteinetal.,2004;Bhattacharya&Sen,2003)becauseitisbeneficial
forexplainingpeople’scausesandmotivesforassociatingwithcompanies(Pérez,2009;Du,
Bhattacharya&Sen,2007;Marín&Ruiz,2007).Otherstudiesexaminedtherelationship
betweenemployeesandtheircompany,(e.g.Berger,Cunningham&Drumwright,2006;Kimet
al.,2010),customersandbrands(e.g.Underwood,Bond,&Baer,2001)oralumniandtheir
formercollege(e.g.Mael&Ashforth,1992).ManyofthesestudiesappliedSocialIdentityTheory
(SIT)toexplainsuchidentificationprocesses(e.g.Ashforth&Mael,1989;Bhattacharya&Sen,
2003;Dutton,Dukerich&Harquail,1994;Kimetal.,2010;Mael&Ashforth,1992;Pérez,2009)
aswellastheconceptoforganizationalidentification(Ashforth&Mael,1989;Bhattacharya&
Sen,2003).
SITreferstoasocial-psychologicaltheorythatwasmainlyestablishedbyTajfeland
Turner(e.g.Tajfel,1974;Tajfel&Tuner,1985)(Ashforth&Mael,1989).Thetheorypostulates
thatpeoplearelikelytocategorizethemselvesintosocialgroups,suchasgenderorreligious
23
groups(Ashforth&Mael.1989;Tajfel&Turner,1985)becauseitenablesthem„tosituate
themselvesintheirsocialenvironment“(Pérez,2009.p.179).Socialidentificationthereby
refersto„theperceptionofonenesswithorbelongingnesstoagroup,involvingdirector
vicariousexperienceofitssuccessesandfailures“(Ashforth&Mae,1989,p.34).
AshforthandMael(1989)transferredtheconceptofsocialidentificationtoan
organizationalcontextandarguethatorganizationalidentificationisaparticulartypeofsocial
identification.Theorganizationtherebyfunctionsasasocialcategorythatmight“fulfill[…]
motivesfortheindividual”(Ashforth&Mael,1989,p.22)andthattheindividualusestobuild
upself-confidence(Ashforth&Mael,1989).Duetal.(2007)arguethattheconsumer-company
identificationisapsychologicalattachmentwiththecompanythatdrivesbehaviors,whichare
favorabletothecompany(Duetal.,2007;Pérez,2009).SITpostulatesthatindividualswho
identifythemselveswithacompanyaremorelikelytojudgethecompanypositivelyinorderto
increaseandenhancetheirself-concept(Tajfel&Turner,1979;ascitedinPéres,2009).A
consumerthatidentifieshim-orherselfwithacompanyhasamentalconnectionwithit
(Duttonetal.,1994;Bhattacharya&Sen,2003)andwillthenadjusthisactionstothecompany’s
aimsandinterests(Mael&Ashforth,1992).Thus,AshforthandMael(1989)assumethata
higherlevelofidentificationincreases“supportforandcommitmentto“thecompanyaswellas
„loyaltyto,andpridein,the[company]anditsactivities“(p.26).Peoplewhohaveastrong
identificationwithanorganizationbehaveinawaythatiscoherentwiththeorganization’s
„values,beliefsandculture“(Xiao&Hwan(Mark)Lee,2014,p.1242).Moreover,theidentity
withacompanyisrelatedtovaluesoremotionsthattheindividualexperiencesforbeingpartof
agroup.Whentheindividualevaluateshisidentitytobeequaltothatofthegroup,hecaneasily
connecttoit,indicatingthatemotionalidentificationtendstobecreatedorimproved.If
consumersstronglyidentifythemselveswithacompany,theywillbecomesupportivetowards
theorganization.Theywillnotonlyshowloyaltytothecompanybutwillalsoshowenthusiasm
aboutcompanyactivities(Chu&Li,2012).
AccordingtoDuttonetal.(1994),organizationalidentificationtakesplacebasedonthe
individual’sperceptionoforganizationalattributesorperceivedidentity.Thereby,the
individual’sidentificationisdependentonhowattractiveheorsheevaluatestheorganization
(Duttonetal.,1994).Itisarguedthatcorporatereputationpositivelyinfluencestheemergence
ofcustomeridentificationbecauseacompanymaybeperceivedasmoreattractive
(Bhattacharya&Sen,2003;Duttonetal.,1994;Keh&Xie,2009).KehandXie(2009)givetwo
reasonsforthis:Firstly,well-reputedcompanieshaveatendencyfor“superiorfinancial
profitability,productsorservices,andfrequentmediacoverage,whichsubsequentlyenhance
theirrelativeadvantageanddistinctiveidentityinthemarketplace,whichinturncontributeto
theiridentityattractiveness“(Keh&Xie,2009).Secondly,agoodreputationstandsforhigh
24
prestige,meaningthattheorganizationisregardedinapositiveway(Bergami&Bagozzi,2000).
Intheirstudy,KehandXie(2009)foundthatcorporatereputationpositivelyinfluenced
customeridentification.Basedonpreviousdefinitions,organizationalidentificationisinthis
contextreferredtoasthedegreetowhichapersonfeelsconnectedtotheorganizationand
defineshim-/herselfwiththeorganization(Bhattacharya&Sen,2003;Ashforth&Mael,1989;
Xiao&Hwan(Mark)Lee,2014).
Socialidentification„withacollectivity“canevenemergeinthecasethatno
interpersonalconnectionorinteractionexistsandcanstillhaveastrongeffectonemotionand
behavior(Ashforth&Mael,1989,p.26).Basedonthis,itcanbearguedthatcustomersofcars
oftheVWGroupbutalsonon-customerscanfeelcertainidentificationwiththecorporation.
ThiswouldsignifythatGermansasawholecoulddevelopsomesortofidentificationwiththe
corporation.AccordingtoAshforthandMael(1989),theidentificationwithagroupcaneven
endurewhen“groupfailureislikely”(p.35).Transferredtoanorganization,afailurecouldbe
forinstanceacrisis.Therefore,itcanbeexpectedthatevenaftertheemissionsscandal,the
identificationwiththecorporationwouldremainhigh.However,Bergeretal.(2006)arguethat
changedbehaviorsofmembersofanorganizationcanresult in changed beliefs and
identification.
FortheGermanpopulation,whichevaluatedthereputationoftheVWGroupespecially
high,itcanbeassumedthattheidentificationwiththecorporationishigh.Asmentionedabove,
theidentificationwithabrandoranorganizationhasresultedinpositiveandmoresupportive
outcomes,includingpositiveemotionalresponses.Basedonthesefindings,itcanbeexpected
thatahigheridentificationwiththeVWGroupresultsinsuchpositiveoutcomes,meaningthat
theperson-companyfitinfluencesthewaypeoplefeelabouttheVWGroup.Duetothis
supportivemanner,itcanbeexpectedthatperson-companyfitweakenstherelationshipsof
involvementandresponsibilityandangeraswellasenhancestherelationshipsofinvolvement
andresponsibilitywithsympathy.Thiswouldforinstanceindicatethatpersonswhoperceivea
highresponsibilityforthecrisismaytendtoexpresslessangerwhentheirperson-companyfit
ishigh,comparedtothosewhoidentifywiththecompanyless.Thus,thefollowinghypothesis
canbestated:
H9:Ahigherperson-companyfitweakenstherelationshipbetweenperceivedcrisis
responsibilityandanger.
H10:Ahigherperson-companyfitintensifiestherelationshipbetweenperceivedcrisis
responsibilityandsympathy.
H11:Ahigherperson-companyfitweakenstherelationshipbetweencrisisinvolvementand
anger.
25
H12:Ahigherperson-companyfitintensifiestherelationshipbetweencrisisinvolvement
andsympathy.
2.5.
ConceptualModel
Insummary,inthischapter,twelvehypotheseswereformulatedbasedontheoreticaland
empiricalknowledge.Figuretwoillustratestheconceptualmodelofthepresentstudy,which
providesavisualoverviewofallhypotheses.Thereby,thetwoemotionsangerandsympathy
takeonamediatingroleintherelationshipbetweencrisisresponsibilityandcrisisinvolvement
withpost-crisisreputationandNWOM.Moreover,themoderatingfunctionofperson-company
fitintherelationshipsbetweencrisisresponsibilityandcrisisinvolvementwiththetwo
emotionsisportrayed.
Figure2:ConceptualModel
26
3. Methodology
Thethirdchapterstatesandexplainsthemethodologythatwasappliedinordertotestthe
above-explainedconceptualmodel.Itthusprovidestherationaleforthedecisionsmade
regardingtheresearchdesign,datacollection,samplingmethodaswellasthe
operationalizationofthetheoreticalconceptsthatarerelevantforthisstudy.
3.1.
ChoiceofMethod
Inordertoanswertheresearchquestionunderlyingthisstudy,thedecisionforaquantitative
methodologywastaken.AsBabbie(2011)pointsout,quantitativeresearchmethodsoftenusea
deductiveapproach,implyingthattheresearcherformulatesseveralexpectationsthatarebased
ontheory.Thesearethentestedinordertofindoutwhethertheyactuallyoccur(Babbie,2011;
Zhou&Sloan,2009).Besidestestingsuchhypotheses,quantitativeresearchmethodsenablethe
investigationofrelationsbetweenvariables(Punch,2014).Additionally,suchresearchmethods
permitnotonlygeneralizationsbutalsothepredictionofcertaineffects(Zhou&Sloan,2009).
Astheaimofthepresentstudyistotestrelationshipsbetweentheoreticalconcepts,a
quantitativemethodologywasthebestoptionforthisstudy.
Moreprecisely,aquantitativeonlinesurveywasconducted.Oneaimofquantitative
surveysistomakestatementsaboutspecificpersonsthatarerelevanttoaresearch(Brosius,
Haas&Koschel,2012).Furthermore,asurveyisoftenusedtoaskforthebehavior,attitudes,
expectationsandcharacteristicsofpeopleanditallowstheself-classificationoftheparticipants
(Neuman,2014).Asexplainedabove,thisstudyisinterestedinpersonalperspectives,whichare
alllatentvariables.AccordingtoTheo,TingTsai&Yang(2013),latentvariablesare
unobservableand“cannotbemeasureddirectly”(p.4).Thus,theymustbedefinedby
indicators,whichareforinstancemeasuredbyself-reportedresponsesonanattitudescale
(Byrne,2013).Hence,asurveyisanappropriateresearchmethodforthisstudy.
Anonlinesurveyisaspecialtypeofasurvey,whichhasseveraladvantagesthatare
relevantforthisstudy.Firstofall,themethodisinexpensive,fastandlocation-independent.
Furthermore,thedropoutrateandtheresponsetimearecaptured.Besides,thismethod
providesanonymityandissuitableforsensibletopics,suchaspersonality(Möhring&Schlütz,
2010).Anonlinesurveyalsoenablestherandomizationofitems,whichcanpreventthe
occurrenceofsequenceeffects(Scholl,2009).Lastly,77.6percentoftheGermanpopulationare
internetusers(Statista,2016),makingthismethodsuitableforreachingalargepartofGermans.
However,besidestheseadvantages,themethodalsohasseveraldisadvantagesthatneedtobe
considered.Themostimportantdisadvantageistheself-selectionoftherespondents,which
27
oftentimesleadstoalowresponserate(Möhring&Schlütz,2010).Therespondentsdecideon
theirownwhethertheywanttoparticipateinthesurveyornot.Thismakesthedrawingofa
randomandrepresentativesamplebarelypossible(Punch,2014;Scholl,2009).Nevertheless,
duetothemajorityofadvantages,theapplicationofthismethodissuitable.
Lastly,thechoiceforthisspecificmethodologycanbesupportedbythedemandfor
quantitativesurveymethodsincrisiscommunicationresearch.Overthepastyears,researchin
thefieldofcrisiscommunicationhasincreasedrapidly(Kim&Cameron,2011)butexisting
researchhasmostlyusedcasestudymethods(Coombs&Holladay,2008;Kiambi&Shafer,
2015).Althoughcasestudiesprovidevaluabledescriptivedata(Coombs&Holladay,2008),they
oftentimesofferlittletheoreticalunderstandingofcrisiscommunication(Dean,2004)andare
hardtogeneralize(Carroll,2009).AccordingtoRousseau(2006),achangetoevidence-based
managementincrisiscommunicationisnecessary,though,inordertobasemanagerialdecisions
onscientificevidence.Overthelastdecade,researchinthefieldhasstartedtoapply
experimentaldesignmethods(Kiambi&Shafer,2015),meetingthecallforquantitative
research(Dawar&Pillutla,2000;Dean,2004).However,mostexperimentsfocusedonfictitious
organizationsand/orcrises(e.g.Claeys&Cauberghe,2015;Dean,2004;Kiambi&Shafer,2015).
Thisleadsmayhaveleadtotheproblemofartificialitybycreatingafavorablereputation
throughonlyoneexposure(Lyon&Cameron,2004)andmayhavehadanimpactontheresults
ofsuchstudies(Kiambi&Shafer,2015).Intheirreviewofcrisiscommunicationresearch,
JohnsonAvery,WeaverLariscy,KimandHocke(2010)implytousesurveymethodsinorderto
improvethemethodologicaldiversityinthefield.Thepresentstudythuscontributestoexisting
researchbyapplyingaquantitativesurveymethodthatexaminesarealcrisisofanon-fictive
corporation.Byusingaquantitativesurveymethodandincludingindividualperspectives,it
furtherdrawsaconnectionbetweentheindividualandthecorporatelevelinacrisis.
3.2.
SampleandSamplingMethod
Asaforementioned,thisresearch’stargetpopulationcomprisestheGermanpublic.Asthis
populationisverylarge,itisexpensiveanddifficult“tocollectinformationfromeveryoneinthe
group”(deVaus,1996,p.60).Therefore,asampleofthepopulationwasobtained.
Asoneofthesamplingmethod,thepurposivesamplingwaschosen.Purposivesampling
isaformofnon-probabilitysamplinginwhichtheresearcherdecides,basedonselection
criteria,whichpersonissuitableforthesample(Babbie,2011;Walliman,2006).Althoughthis
samplingmethoddoesnotensurerepresentativeness,usefulinformationcanstillbesupplied
(deVaus,1996).Additionally,sinceaspecifictargetaudiencehasbeenidentifiedforthisstudy
(i.e.theGermanpublic),thissamplingmethodseemsplausible.Besides,thesnowballsampling
28
methodwasapplied.Snowballsamplingreferstoasamplingtechniquewherefurther
participantsarereachedthroughotherrespondents(Babbie,2011)byforwardingittotheir
relativesandfriends(Zhou&Sloan,2011).Althoughthissamplingmethodhasseveral
disadvantages,suchasnotenablingtogainarepresentativesampleandthusmaking
generalizationsimpossible(Brosiusetal.,2012),itissuitable.Thisismainlyforthereasonthat
itenablestoreachalargenumberofparticipantswithinashortamountoftime(Möhring&
Schlütz,2010).Lastly,theconveniencesamplingmethodwasapplied.Thissamplingmethod
referstousingthosepersonsasparticipantswhoareinstantlyaccessible(Walliman,2006).
Thus,itenablesthereachingofalargeamountofpeopleandisthusappropriateforthisstudy.
Duetotheonlinenatureofthesurvey,theparticipantswererecruitedonline.Firstofall,
emailsweresenttosecretariesofGermanuniversitiesaskingtoforwardthesurveytotheir
studentsthroughinternalmailinglists.Additionally,thelinkwaspostedinseveraldifferent
GermanFacebookgroups,suchas“DuitseenNederland–DeutscheinHolland”(engl.“Germans
intheNetherlands”),“VWAbgasSkandalMotorEA189”(engl.:“VWemissionsscandalengine
EA189”)or“IchhaltezuVolkswagen,egalwaspassiert”(engl.“IwillstandbyVolkswagen,no
matterwhathappens”).Lastly,thelinktothesurveywassharedontheresearcher’sown
FacebookwallandsenttoherownpersonalnetworkviaE-Mailandmessages.Allpotential
participantsreceivedthelinktogetherwithashorttextaskingfortheparticipationinthestudy
andarequesttoforwardthelinktothesurveytotheirpeergroup.Thisapproachallowedto
reachapopulationthatisbeyondtheresearcher’sownpersonalnetwork.
3.3.
DataAnalysis
InordertotestthehypothesesinChapter4,structuralequationmodeling(SEM)isapplied.For
thispurpose,thetwosoftwareIBMSPSSStatistics22andtheSPSSrelatedsoftwareAmosare
used.SEMreferstoacollectionofstatisticalanalysismethodologiesthatareusedtotest
hypothesesaboutthedirectandindirectrelationsbetweenvariables(Byrne,2013;Hoyle,1995,
ascitedinTheoetal.,2013;In’nami&Koizumi,2013;Raykov&Marcoulides,2000).The
hypothesizedmodelisbasedontheoryandistestedinonesimultaneousanalysiscontainingall
proposedvariables.Dependingonthefitofthemodel,theaprioripostulatedrelationships
amongthevariablescanbesupportedorrejected(Byrne,2013;Raykov&Marcoulides,2000).
ThevariablesintheSEMcanbebothobservedvariables,alsocalledindicators,aswellaslatent
variables(Theoetal.,2013).Incomparisontoothermultivariatetechniques,SEMhasseveral
advantages.First,duetoitsconfirmatoryapproach,itenablesthetestingofhypotheses.Second,
SEMtakesintoaccountspecificestimatesoferrorvarianceparametersandisthusmore
accuratethanothermethods.Third,SEMconsidersbothobservedandlatentvariables.It
29
investigatestherelationshipsbetweenthetwokindsofvariablesbutalsotherelationsamong
differentlatentvariables(Byrne,2013;In’nami&Koizumi,2013;Nachtigall,Kroehne,Funke&
Steyer,2003).Infact,SEMwasevendevelopedtoanalyzetherelationshipsbetweenlatent
variables(Nachtigalletal.,2003).Lastly,noeasilyapplicablealternativemethodsareexistent
thatposemultivariaterelationsorestimateindirecteffectsthroughamediatingvariable(Byrne,
2013;In’nami&Koizumi,2013;Nachtigalletal.,2003).
Basedonthesecharacteristics,itcanbearguedthatSEMisasuitablesetof
methodologiesforthisthesis.Firstofall,thisstudyaimstoanalyzetherelationshipsbetween
latentvariables,suchasinvolvement,angerorreputation,whichweremeasuredbyseveral
indicators(seechapter3.5).Inaddition,theconceptualmodelandthehypothesesthatare
underlyingthisresearchandwillbetested(seechapter2)arederivedfromtheory.Finally,SEM
enablestheestimationoftheindirecteffectsofthemediatingvariablesangerandsympathyin
theproposedconceptualmodel.
3.3.1. Pre-Test,DataCleaningandPreparationfortheDataAnalysis
TheonlinesurveyquestionnaireforthisresearchwasconductedusingQualtrics.Beforethe
actualsurveywasinitiated,thequalityandfunctionalityoftheresearchinstrumentwastested
inapretest(Möhring&Schlütz,2010;Zhou&Sloan,2009).Forthepurposeofthistest,three
personsreceivedthelinktothequestionnaireandthreepersonsreceiveditasadigitaltext
documentoraprintedquestionnaire.Throughthis,valuablefeedbackonthecomprehensionof
thequestionsandsuggestionsforimprovementweregained.Mostimportantly,questionswere
evenfurtheradjustedtotheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandalandsomeitemswere
eliminatedfromthequestionnaireoftheactualsurvey.
Thedatacollectiontookplacebetween3and19April2016.Inthistimeperiod,atotalof
2072peopleparticipatedinthesurvey.Oftheseparticipants,1510finishedthequestionnaire,
makingtheresponserate72.91percentandthusquitehigh.However,thissampleincluded30
respondentswhowerenotofGermannationality(e.g.Turkish,RussianorItalian)andthushad
tobeexcluded,astheydidnotfitintothetargetpopulation.Additionally,respondentsthatwere
identifiedtohavegivenwronganswers,suchasanageof“00”or“0”wereexcludedfromthe
sample.Lastly,onepersonwhoneededlessthantwominutestocompletethewholesurveywas
excludedbecauseitcanbeassumedthathe/shedidnotanswerthequestionsinanelaborate
way.Thisleadstoafinalsampleof1475cases,whichwereincludedintheanalysis.
Furthermore,aspartofthedatacleaningprocess,someitemsthatwerereverse-coded
hadtoberecoded.Throughthis,aneasierinterpretationofthedataanditsusageforthe
analysiswasenabled.Anexampleitemfromthereputationscale,whereahigheragreementof
30
anitemreferstoahigherreputation,is“TheVWGroupisbasicallydishonestconcerningthe
emissionsscandal”.Finally,openanswersforeducationandnationalitywereexaminedandif
necessaryaddedtotherightvariables.Thiswasforinstancethecaseforpersonswhoopenly
answeredthattheyhadobtainedahighschooldiploma.
InordertoapplySEMthedataneedstocomplywithseveralassumptions(Kline,1998).
Firstofall,thedatasetshouldnotcontainanymissingdata(Kline,1998).Asonlyrespondents
whofinishedthewholequestionnaireweremaintainedinthedataset,thiswasnotthecaseand
thefirstpremisemet.Second,nomulticollinearity,meaningnostrongintercorrelationsbetween
variables,shouldoccur(Kline,1998).Forthispurpose,correlationsbetweenall37variablesof
thisstudywerecalculated.Mostofthecorrelationsaresignificantbutweakormoderate.
However,alsosomesignificantstrongcorrelationscouldbedetected,especiallyamong
variablesoftheconceptsperson-companyfitandinvolvement.Allofthesevaluesarebelow.8,
though,andthecorrelationsareonlywithinconceptsandnotbetweendifferentconcepts.Thus,
allvariablesweremaintainedinthedatasetbutthestrongcorrelationswerekeptinmindfor
thedataanalysis(forallcorrelationmatrices,seeAppendixC).Accordingtothethirdpremise,
thedatashouldnotcontainanymultivariateoutliers.Thisassumptionisalsofulfilled,asoutliers
havealreadybeendeletedinthedatacleaningprocess.Next,thedatasetwasexaminedinterms
oflinearityandhomoscedasticitybutnodeviationsweredetectedandthispremiseisalso
accepted.Last,thedatawasinvestigatedregardingitsnormality.Despitethefactthat
“maximumlikelihoodmethodsarerobustagainstnon-normality,itisstillimportanttoassess
whetherthedatasatisfytheassumptionofnormality”(In’Nami&Koizumi,2013,p.34).Forthis
purpose,theskwenessandkurtosisofthedatacanbetested(In’Nami&Koizumi,2013).Ifthese
valuesarezero,“datanormalityisensured”(In’Nami&Koizumi,2013,p.34).Inliterature,there
isnoconsensusaboutwhichlevelofnon-normalityisacceptable(In’Nami&Koizumi,2013),
however,West,FinchandCurran(1995)suggestthatthevaluesforskwenessandkurtosis
shouldnotexceed2and7.Forthepresentstudy,theselimitvaluesareused.Thetestfor
skewnessandkurtosisrevealedthatnovariablesshowedanydeviationsfromthedesired
valuesexceptfortwovariablesoftheconceptperson-companyfit.Thereby,thetwovariables
“WhensomeonecriticizestheVWGroup,itfeelslikeapersonalinsult”and“Thesuccessesofthe
VWGrouparemysuccesses”showedabnormalitiesregardingtheirskewnessvalues
(skewnessinsult=2.138;skewnesssuccesses=2.016).Thus,thesetwovariablesareexcludedfromthe
datasetinordertoassumethepremiseofnormalityforallconcepts.
31
3.4.
Respondents
Ofthe1475respondentsthatwereincludedinthedataanalysis,44.9%arefemale(N=662)and
55.1%male(N=813).Further,therespondentsarebetween17and70yearsold.However,the
meanageis25.48(SD=7.09)andthemedianisonly24.Regardingtheeducationallevelofthe
participants,itcanbenoticedthattheyareratherhighlyeducated.Only.3%(N=5)donothave
anykindofhighschooldiploma,.5%(N=7)statedtohavegainedthelowesthighschool
diploma(“Hauptschulabschluss”)andfurther4.1%(N=60)haveobtainedthemiddleleveled
highschooldiploma(“Realschulabschluss”).Mostoftherespondents,however,claimedtohave
thehighesthighschooldiploma(“Abitur”/”(Fach-)Hochschulreife”)(60.3%,N=889)and
further34.1%havealreadyobtainedauniversitydegree(N=503).Inadditiontothis,threeof
therespondentshavealreadyfinishedtheirPhD.Lastly,sevenrespondents(.5%)madeanopen
answerfortheireducation,whichwasastatementabouttheircurrentoccupationandmadeit
impossibletoclearlyidentifytheirhighesteducationlevel.
Besidesthisdemographicinformation,thequestionnaireaskedwhethertherespondents
ownedatleastonecarofthebrandsVW,Audi,Seat,SkodaorPorsche,whichwereaffectedby
theemissionsscandal.50.8%(N=749)oftheparticipantsindicatedtocurrentlyownacarof
suchbrands.Ofthese749respondents,themajoritydoesnotownanaffectedcar(73.7%,
N=552)andonly21.8%statedtoownanaffectedcar(N=163).Further4.5%(N=34)claimedto
notknowwhethertheircarwasaffectedbytheemissionscandalornot.
3.5.
OperationalizationandMeasurements
Inthissub-chapter,theoperationalizationofthetheoreticalconceptswillbepresented.
Additionally,descriptivestatisticsofthetheoreticalconceptswillbeprovidedaswellas
measurementmodelsdeployedandtested.Inthecontextofasurvey,operationalizationrefers
tothetransformationoftheoverallresearchquestionintospecifictest-questionsthatcanbe
askedintheactualquestionnaire.Forthis,themeaningandthecontentoftherelevant
constructshavetobeexplored(Möhring&Schlütz,2010).Forthepurposeofthisstudy,already
existingandpreviouslytestedmeasurementswereusedandadjustedtothetopicathand,
meaningthattheywereadaptedtotheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal.Sincethesurvey
wasdirectedattheGermanpublic,thequestionnairewasgeneratedinGerman.Thus,measures
thatwereoriginallyconstructedinEnglishlanguageweretranslatedintoGerman.Forthis
process,existingGermantranslationswereusedaswellastheback-translationmethodapplied.
Inaddition,whenformulatingthequestionnaire,theusageoftheterm“crisis”wasavoided,asit
isnegativelyconnotated(Doorley&Garcia,2007).Instead,itwasreferredtothe“VWemissions
scandal”.ForthefullquestionnairesinEnglishandGerman,seeAppendixAandforthe
32
overviewofallitems,seeAppendixB.
3.5.1. Post-crisisreputation
Thedependentvariablepost-crisisreputationwasmeasuredusingthefive-itemversionofthe
ten-itemOrganizationalReputationScale(Coombs&Holladay,1996,2002;Coombs,2004).This
scalewasoriginallyadaptedfromMcCroskey’s(1966)Charactersubscaleformeasuringethos
(Coombs&Holladay,2002).Theshorterfive-itemscalehadahighCronbach’salphavalueof
α=.87(Coombs&Holladay,2002)andofα=.81(Coombs,2004)inpreviousstudiesandwasthus
appropriatetoapply.Inthepresentstudy,thescalewasmeasuredusingaseven-pointLikert
scalewithverbalizedendpoints(1=stronglydisagree,7=stronglyagree).
Beforethemeasurementmodelofthepost-crisisreputationwasdeployedandtested,an
exploratoryfactoranalysis(EFA)wasconductedinordertoexplore,whethertheconceptonly
consistsoftheproposedonedimension.AstheKaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO)measurehadavalue
of.706andtheBartlett’stestforSphericitywassignificant,itwasappropriatetoconductthe
factoranalysis.ToallEFA’sdeployedinthisstudy,themaximumlikelihoodfactoringwitha
Varimaxrotationwasapplied.ThisisfirstlybecausetheAmossoftwareusestheMaximum
Likelihoodestimationmethod(Theoetal.,2013)andsecondlybecausethisparticularmethodis
especiallysuitableforlargesamples(Weiber&Mühlhaus,2014),asitisthecaseinthisstudy.
AccordingtotheKaisercriterionoftheEFAofpost-crisisreputation,theextractionofonlyone
factorisproposed,confirmingthetheoreticalassumptionofonesinglereputationdimension.
Furthermore,allfiveitemshaveasufficientfactorloading(seeAppendixC).
Next,themeasurementmodelofthepost-crisisreputationistestedusingthe
ConfirmatoryFactorAnalysis(CFA)inAmos.Having5degreesoffreedom,themodelisoveridentifiedandcanthusbetested.However,thesignificantChi-Squaretestindicatestherejection
ofthemodel(χ2(5)=681.385;p=0.000).Ithastobenoted,though,thattheChi-Squaretest
becomeseasilysignificantforlargesamples(Theo,TingTsai&Yang,2013).Therefore,theChiSquarevalueshouldbeseeninrelationtothedegreesoffreedom,whichresultsinameasure
thatshouldnotexceedavalueof2,5(Weiber&Mühlhaus,2014).Inthepresentcase,thevalue
isexceededbyfar(χ2/df=136,277)andalsoothermodelfitindicesdonotofferanacceptable
modelfit2(GFI=.837;NFI=.738;CFI=.739;RMSEA=.303).Thus,amodificationofthe
measurementmodelwasimplied.Inordertogainabettermodelfit,co-variancesbetweenthe
errortermsoftheitemswithinthisconstructwereallowedandthemodelwiththebestfit
2FortheRMSEA,valuesof≤.08signifyanacceptableandvaluesof≤.05signifyagoodmodelfit(Browne
&Cudek,1993).FortheGFIandCFI,valuesof≥.90signifyanacceptableandvaluesof≥.95agoodmodel
fit(Weiber&Mühlhaus,2014).ThesameisthecaseforNFI(Bentler,1992).
33
indiceswasthenselected.Forthismodelmodification,theproposedmodificationindices(MI)
wereregardedandtheco-varianceswiththehighestmodificationindicesconsidered.Basedon
this,aco-variancebetweentheerrortermsoftheitemsreputation1andreputation5
(MI=422.22)wasaddedtothemodel.Astheoverallmodelfitwasstillnotsatisfactoryafterthis
modification,anotherco-variancewasaddedbetweentheerrortermsoftheitemsreputation1
andreputation4(MI=68.82),resultinginanalmostsufficientmodelfit(seefigure3).Although
themodelfitcouldnotbeconsideredasgood,thismeasurementmodelwasmaintaineddueto
tworeasons:First,theseco-variancesweretheoreticallyplausible:reputation1andreputation4
bothrefertotherespondent’sbeliefoftheVWGroup’sgoodintentionsregardingtheemissions
scandalandreputation1andreputation5bothrelatetothesamestatementthatisoncephrased
positively(reputation1)andoncephrasednegatively(reputation5).Moreover,addingothercovariancesdidnotleadtoabettermodelfit.3
Samplesize=1475;standardizedestimates
χ2(3)=13.386;p=0.004;χ2/df=4.462;GFI=.996;NFI=.995;CFI=.996;RMSEA=.048
Figure3:MeasurementModelforPost-CrisisReputation
Forthedescriptionofthepost-crisisreputation,anindexofthefivereputationitems
wasformed(N=1475),representingthemeanpost-crisisreputationoftheVWGroup.According
tothat,theaveragereputationoftheVWGroupaftertheemissionsscandalisM=3.7(SD=1.25;
Min=3.22;Max=4.4)onaseven-pointLikertscale.Thus,thepost-crisisreputationliesslightly
abovethescale’smiddleof3.5,indicatingamoderatepost-crisisreputation.Forthepresent
study,theinternalconsistencyfortheorganizationalreputationscalewasα=.795,whichimplies
analmostgoodreliability.
3Theprocessofallowingtheerrortermstocorrelatewithinamodelandselectingthemodelwiththe
bestfitwasalsoappliedtotheothermeasurementmodels(i.e.foreachconstruct)thathadfourormore
items.However,itcouldnotbeappliedfortheconstructofonlythreeitems.
34
3.5.2. NegativeWordofMouthIntention(NWOM)
InordertomeasuretheintentionforNWOM,threeitemsfrompreviousstudieswereapplied
(e.g.Coombs&Holladay,2008,2009;Kiambi&Shafer,2015).Inpriorstudies,thescalehada
reliabilitycoefficientofCronbach’sα=.76(Coombs&Holliday,2008)andα=.71(Coombs&
Holliday,2008;Kiambi&Shafer,2015).Asampleitemofthismeasurementis“Becauseofthe
emissionsscandal,IwouldsaynegativethingsabouttheVWGroupanditscarstootherpeople”.
Aspost-crisisreputation,thisconceptwasalsomeasuredusinga7-pointLikertscale
(1=stronglydisagree,7=stronglyagree).
Asforthepreviousconcept,anEFAusingmaximumlikelihoodfactoringwithaVarimax
rotationwasalsoappliedtoNWOM.HavingaKMOvalueof0.667andasignificantBartlett’stest
forSphericity,theperformanceofanEFAwasappropriate.Astheoreticallyassumed,the
extractionofonlyonefactorfortheconceptisproposedandallthreeitemshaveasufficient
factorloading(seeAppendixC).However,aCFOcouldnotbeperformedbecausethemodelhad
nodegreeoffreedomandwasthusunder-identified.
Inordertosolvethisissue,aconstraintwasimposed.Imposingaconstraintreferstothe
procedureoffreelyestimatingparametersthatwere“fixed-to-zero”before(Kline,1998,p.132).
AsthefirstandtheseconditemwithwhichtheNWOMintentionwasmeasuredarerelatively
similar,itcanbearguedthatthepathestimatesofbothconstructscanbesetto1.Asa
consequence,anadditionaldegreeoffreedomwasgainedandthusthemeasurementmodel
couldjustbeidentified.Althoughthefitofthismeasurementmodelwasnotideal,astheChiSquareandRMSEAvaluesweretoohigh,thismodelwasmaintainedbecausenobettermodelfit
couldbeachieved(seefigure4).
Samplesize=1475;standardizedestimates
χ2(1)=19.026;p=0.000;χ2/df=19.026;GFI=.992;NFI=.986;CFI=.987;RMSEA=.111
Figure4:MeasurementModelforNWOMintention
ForthedescriptionoftheNWOMintention,anindexofthethreemeasureditemswas
formed(N=1475).Accordingtothat,theaverageNWOMintentionoftherespondentsisquite
35
low(M=2.27;SD=1.43;Min=2.26;Max=3.29).TheCronbach’salphacoefficientofthisstudywas
α=.780,indicatinganacceptable,almostgood,reliability.
3.5.3. CrisisResponsibility
ToassesswhethertheVWGroupwasheldresponsibleforthecrisis,thenewlyinventedscaleby
BrownandKi(2013)wasusedandmeasuredona7-pointLikertscale(1=stronglydisagree,
7=stronglyagree).The12-itemsscaleconsistsofthethreedimensionsintentionality,locality
andaccountabilityandhadareliabilityofα=.95(Brown&Ki,2013).Asaresultofthepretestof
thepresentstudy,thescaleforcrisisresponsibilitywasreducedtoaneight-itemscale,makingit
shorterandlessrepetitive(seeAppendixA).
Inordertoexplorewhethertheconceptconsistsofoneoremoredimensions,anEFA
wasperformed.AstheKMOmeasurehadavalueof.704andtheBartlett’stestforSphericity
wassignificant,theEFAwasappropriatetoconduct.AccordingtotheKaisercriterion,the
extractionofthreefactorsissuggested,confirmingBrownandKi’s(2013)theoretical
assumptionofthethreedimensions“intentionality”,“accountability”and“locality”.Asthe
seconddimension(firstfactor)accountsformostoftheexplainedvariance(25.13%)and
consistsoffouroftheeightvariableswithacceptablefactorloadings,onlythisdimensionwas
usedforthefurtheranalysis(seeAppendixC).
Asanextstep,themeasurementmodelofthefourremainingitemsofthecrisis
responsibilitymeasurewastestedinaCFAinAmos.With2degreesoffreedom,themodelwas
justover-identifiedandcouldthusbetested.AsthelowChi-Squarevalueindicated,themodel
hadagoodfit(χ2(2)=2.685;p=0.261),whichwassupportedbyotherfitindices(GFI=.999;
NFI=.998;CFI=.999;RMSEA=.015).Hence,nomodelmodificationwasappliedandtheoriginal
modeloffouritemsmaintained(seefigure5).
Samplesize=1475;standardizedestimates
χ2(2)=2.685;p=0.261;χ2/df=1.342;GFI=.999;NFI=.998;CFI=.999;RMSEA=.015
Figure5:Measurementmodelforcrisisresponsibility
36
Theindexofthefourcrisisresponsibilityitems(N=1475),formedinordertodescribe
theconceptcrisisresponsibility,showsthattheparticipantsaveragelyassignedaquitehigh
crisisresponsibilitytotheVWGroup(M=5.91;SD=1.19;Min=5.63;Max=6.18).Theinternal
consistencyofthemeasurementwasα=.686,thusratherlowbutjustacceptable.
3.5.4. CrisisInvolvement
Thecrisisinvolvementoftheparticipantswasmeasuredbyusingthesix-item,7-pointbipolar
scalebyWigleyandPfau(2010).ThescaleisbasedontheinvolvementscalebyZaichkowski
(1985)andhadareliabilityofα=.95inapreviousstudy(Wigley&Pfau,2010).However,after
thepretest,thisscalewasreducedbytheitempairsignificant/insignificantbecausethe
distinctionfromotheritempairswasclearenough.Furthermore,therespondentswereasked
whethertheyhavebeenowningacarofthebrandsVW,Audi,Seat,SkodaorPorscheand,ifso,
whetherithadbeenaffectedbytheproductrecall,assumingthatthoseparticipantswhowere
affectedwouldperceivetheemissionsscandalasmorerelevant.
TheKMOmeasurehadavalueof.810andtheBartlett’stestforSphericitywas
significant,indicatingthatanEFAwasappropriatetoperform.TheEFAoftheinvolvement
conceptproposedaonefactorsolution,whichwasinlinewiththetheoreticalassumptionsof
onesingleinvolvementdimension.Allfiveitemshadasatisfactoryfactorloading(seeAppendix
C).Furthermore,themodelwasover-identifiedandcouldthusbetested(df=5).Aswiththe
conceptofpost-crisisreputation,thismeasurementmodelalsohadaveryhigh,significantChiSquarevalue(χ2(5)=490.858;p=0.000),implyingtherejectionofthemodel.Inlinewiththis,
othermodelfitindicesdidnotsuggestanacceptablemodelfit(GFI=.886;NFI=.882;CFI=.883;
RMSEA=.257),either.Sincethethirditemofthescale(meansnothing/meansalot)washighly
correlatedwiththefourthandfifthitems,itwasexcludedfromthemodel.Moreover,a
constraintwasimposedforthefirstandfifthitembecausetheirpathestimateswerethesame
(β=.88)andtheyweretheoreticallyverysimilar(unimportant/important,irrelevant/relevant).
Theimpliedmodificationofthemeasurementmodelthusledtoanadjustedmodeloffouritems
thathadagoodfit(seefigure6).
Aswiththepreviousvariables,ameanindexfromthefourremainingmeasureditems
wascreated(N=1475)inordertopresentthedescriptiveanalysisoftheconcept.Accordingto
theindex,theaveragecrisisinvolvementoftheparticipantswasM=4.27(SD=1.57;Min=3.41;
Max=4.57),whichindicatesthattherespondentswereinvolvedwiththeVWemissionsscandal
abovethescale’saverage.Theinternalconsistencyofthefour-itemcrisisinvolvementscalewas
α=.852,indicatingalmostanexcellentreliabilityofthescale.
37
Samplesize=1475;standardizedestimates
χ2(3)=8.383;p=0.039;χ2/df=2.794;GFI=.997;NFI=.997;CFI=.998;RMSEA=.035
Figure6:MeasurementModelforCrisisInvolvement
3.5.5. Mediators:AngerandSympathy
Theemotionsangerandsympathyfunctionasmediatorvariablesinthepresentstudy.A
mediatorvariableisathirdvariablethat“reflectsanintermediatelinkbetweenanindependent
anddependentvariable”(Pawar,2009,p.110).Appliedtothisstudy,thismeansthatthetwo
independentvariablescrisisinvolvementandcrisisresponsibilityaffectangerandsympathy
whichinturninfluencethedependentvariablespost-crisisreputationandtheintentionfor
NWOM.AsrecommendedbyZhao,Lynch&Chen(2010),thebootstrappingmethodwasapplied
inordertotestmediationeffects.Bootstrappingisamethodthatisusedfor“estimating
propertiesofestimatorsbasedonsamplesdrawnfromtheoriginalobservations”(Bollen,1990,
p.117).Itisausefulapproachforthisstudybecauseitenablestheestimationofdirect,indirect
andtotaleffectsandprovidesthe95%confidenceintervalsofeacheffect(Bollen,1990). Themediatorvariablesangerandsympathywereassessedusingtwofour-itemscales
fromMcDonaldetal.(2011).Theauthorscriticized“theabsenceofscalesusingwordsthat
incorporateconsumers’owncrisisemotionlexiconandwhicharepsychometricallyrobust“
(McDonaldetal.,2011,p.337).Thus,theydevelopedandtestedscalesspecificallyforcrisis
emotions(McDonaldet.al.,2011).Theangerscalecontainedtheitemsangry,disgusted,
annoyed,outragedandhadareliabilityofα=.91(McDonaldetal.,2011).Thesympathyscale
positedbyMcDonaldetal.(2011)consistedoftheitemssympathetic,sorry,compassion,
empathyandhadaninternalconsistencyofα=.83.Inthisstudy,bothconceptsweremeasured
usinga7-pointLikertscalewhereas1means“notatall”and7means“verymuch”.
3.5.6. Anger
TheKMOmeasurehadavalueof0.780andtheBartlett’stestforSphericitywassignificant,
indicatingthattheperformanceofanEFAwassuitable.Inlinewiththetheoreticalassumptions,
38
theKaiser’scriterionsuggestedtheextractionofonlyonefactorandallfactorloadingswere
sufficient(seeAppendixC).Havingtwodegreesoffreedom,thismeasurementmodelwasjust
over-identified,whichiswhyaCFAcouldbeperformed.However,thehighChi-Squarevalue
(χ2(2)=87.598;p=0.000)andthehighRMSEAvalue(RMSEA=0.170)indicatedtherejectionof
themodel.Onthecontrary,othermodelindicessuggestedanacceptablemodelfit(GFI=.974;
NFI=.968;CFI=.969).However,byapplyingtheabove-expainedadjustmentmethods,abetter
measurementmodelcouldbefound.Addingaconstrainttothepathestimatesofitem1(angry)
anditem2(annoyed)aswellasaddingaco-variancebetweentheerrortermsofitem2
(annoyed)anditem3(disgusted)(MI=45.47)werenotonlytheoreticallyreasonablebutalso
resultedinamodelwithanacceptablefit(seefigure7).Sinceotherco-varianceswithlower
modificationindicesdidnotincreasethemodelfit,onlythisco-variancewasadded.
Samplesize=1475;standardizedestimates
χ2(2)=20.272;p=0.000;χ2/df=10.136;GFI=.993;NFI=.993;CFI=.993;RMSEA=0.079
Figure7:Measurementmodelforanger
Asforthepreviousconcepts,ameanindexthatisrepresentingtheaveragelevelofpostcrisisangertowardstheVWGroupwascreated.Theindexofthefouritemsshowsthatthe
participants’angerafterthecrisiswasbelowaverage(M=3.32;SD=1.59;Min=2.56;Max=3.97).
Thereliabilityscoreforthisstudywasα=.855,implyingagoodinternalconsistencyofthe
measurement.
3.5.7. Sympathy
Inordertofindoutwhetherthefouritemsthatmeasuredsympathyrepresentonedimension,
anEFAshouldbeperformed.AccordingtotheKMOmeasureof0.720andthesignificant
Bartlett’stestforSphericity,suchananalysiswasappropriate.Confirmingthetheoretical
assumptionsofsuchuni-dimensionality,theEFAofferedonlyonefactorforsympathywith
sufficientfactorloadingsforeachitem(seeAppendixC).TherelationbetweentheChi-Square
valueandthedegreesoffreedomintheCFAwasnotacceptable(χ2(2)=179.480;p=0.000)and
39
alsotheRMSEAvalueindicatesapoorfitofthemeasurementmodel(RMSEA=.245).Other
modelfitindices,ontheotherhand,impliedanacceptablemodelfit(GFI=.942;NFI=.918;
CFI=.919).Nevertheless,asthemodificationindicessuggested,anadjustmentofthe
measurementmodelshouldbemade.Theproposedco-variancebetweentheerrortermsof
item1anditem4hadthehighestmodificationindex(MI=159,73),wastheoreticallyplausible
andresultedinamodelwithagoodfit.Thus,thismeasurementmodelwasselected(seefigure
8).
Samplesize=1475;standardizedestimates
χ2(1)=1.481;p=0.224;χ2/df=1.481;GFI=.999;NFI=.999;CFI=1.0;RMSEA=0.018
Figure8:Measurementmodelforsympathy
Forthedescriptiveanalysisofsympathy,anindexwascreatedthatconstitutesthe
averagelevelofsympathytowardstheVWGroupafterthecrisis.Astheindexindicates,
participantsdidonaveragenotfeelverysympatheticabouttheVWGroupaftertheemissions
scandal(M=2.14;SD=1.22;Min=1.84;Max=2.59).Thereliabilityscorefortheindexisα=.799,
indicatingagoodinternalconsistencyofthefour-itemmeasurement.
3.5.8. Moderator:Person-CompanyFit
Thefinalconceptthatisofinterestforthisstudy,person-companyfit,functionsasamoderator
variable.Amoderatorvariablecanbedefinedasavariablethatinfluences“thedirectionand/or
strengthoftherelationbetween”theindependentanddependentvariable(Baron&Kenny,
1986,p.1174).Inthecaseofthisstudy,thismeansthatthedegreeofperson-companyfitis
assumedtoinfluencetherelationshipsoftheindependentvariablescrisisinvolvementand
crisisresponsibilitywiththemediatorvariablesangerandsympathy.Itisexpectedthatthe
person-companyfitstrengthenstherelationshipofcrisisresponsibilityandinvolvementwith
sympathybutweakenstherelationshipofthetwoindependentvariableswithanger.
Themoderatorvariableperson-companyfitwasmeasuredusingeightitems.These
40
itemswerepreviouslydevelopedbyLin,Chen,ChiuandLee(2011)basedonscalesbyKehand
Xie(2009)andMaelandAshforth(1992)aswellasitemsofMaelandAshforth(1992)
themselves.Thescalewasmeasuredusinga7-pointLikertscale(1=stronglydisagree,
7=stronglyagree).
Astwoitemswereexcludedduetotheirhighskewnessvalues(seeChapter3.3.1),an
EFAwasperformedinordertoexaminewhetherthesixremainingitemsrepresentonesingle
dimension.AccordingtotheKMOmeasure(KMO=.831)andthesignificantBartlett’stestfor
Sphericity,anEFAwasapplicable.AstheperformedEFAsuggestsaone-factorsolution,the
theoreticalassumptionofonedimensionofperson-companyfitcanbeconfirmed.Supporting
this,allfactorloadingaresufficient(seeAppendixC).Havingninedegreesoffreedom,this
measurementmodelwasclearlyover-identifiedandaCFAcanbeperformed.However,thehigh
Chi-Squarevalue(χ2(9)=295.618;p=0.000)andthehighRMSEAvalue(RMSEA=0.147)indicated
therejectionofthemodel.Ontheotherhand,othermodelindicesalreadysuggestedan
acceptablemodelfit(GFI=.935;NFI=.916;CFI=.918).Nevertheless,amodelwithamuchbetter
fitcouldbefoundbyeliminatingitemtwoanditemeightoftheconcept(seefigure9).
Samplesize=1475;standardizedestimates
χ2(2)=5.149;p=0.076;χ2/df=2.574;RMSEA=0.033;GFI=.998;NFI=.998;CFI=.998
Figure9:Measurementmodelforperson-companyfit
Aswiththepreviousconcepts,ameanindexofthefourremainingitemswascreated
(N=1475)inordertopresentthedescriptivesoftheperson-companyfit.Accordingtotheindex,
therespondentshaveanaveragelylowperson-companyfit(M=2.73;SD=1.32;Min=1.98;
Max=2.07),whichindicatesthattherespondentsdonothighlyidentifythemselveswiththe
company.Theinternalconsistencyoftheperson-companyscaleisα=.802,indicatingagood
reliabilityofthescale.
Inordertotestthefourhypothesesofthemoderationeffects,twointeractionvariables
arecreated.Forthis,thescoresoftwolatentvariablesaremultipliedforeachmoderator
41
variable(Schumacker&Lomax,2004).Moreprecisely,forthefirstmoderator,thestandardized
meanindexofcrisisresponsibilityismultipliedbythestandardizedmeanindexofpersoncompanyfit.Inlinewiththis,forthesecondmoderator,thestandardizedmeanindexofcrisis
involvementismultipliedbythestandardizedmeanindexofperson-companyfit.Next,the
skwenessandkurtosisofthetwointeractionvariablesareexamined.Forthefirstmoderator,
bothvaluesexceedtherequiredvaluesof2forskewnessand7forkurtosis(skewnessmoderatorI=3.66;kurtosismoderatorI=21.11).However,asthismoderatorvariableiscentraltotestingthe
hypothesesofthisstudy,itismaintained.Thedeviationshavetoberememberedforthe
interpretationofthedata,though.Forthesecondmoderatorvariable,noproblematicvaluescan
bedetected.Thus,bothmoderatorvariablesareaddedtothemodelinordertotestthe
moderatingeffects.Nexttothis,correlationsbetweenthetwomoderatorvariables,thepersoncompanyfitindexandtheindependentvariablescrisisresponsibilityandcrisisinvolvementare
addedtothemodel.Sincethemoderatorvariablesaregeneratedfromtheseothertwovariables,
correlationsbetweenthemareexpectedtooccur.
42
4. Results
Afterthetheoreticalconceptshavebeentested,thischaptercontainsthetestingofthetwelve
hypotheses,includingthemediationandmoderationeffects.Theinterpretationanddiscussion
oftheresultswillfollowinchapterfive.
Inordertotestthehypotheses,allabove-describedmeasurementmodelsareincludedin
aFullLatentVariableModel,whichisbasedonthetheoreticallyderivedconceptualmodel(see
chapter2.5).ThisisbecausetheFullLatentVariableModelenables“thespecificationof
regressionstructureamongthelatentvariables”(Byrne,2001,p.6).Themodelconsistsofboth
theoverallmeasurementmodelandthestructuralmodel(Byrne,2001).Thereby,theformer
describestherelationshipsbetweeneachlatentconceptwiththeirobservedindicators(see
Chapter3)andthelatterdescribestherelationshipsbetweenthelatentvariables(Byrne,2001).
Thus,theimpliedcausalrelationshipsbetweenthelatentconcepts,asposedinthehypotheses
ofthisstudy,canbetestedbyusingthestructuralmodel(Caruana&Erwing,2010).Before
beingabletotestthehypotheses,themodelfitoftheFullLatentVariableModelhastobe
examined.Despitetheadjustmentsthatwereundertakenforeachmeasurementmodel(see
Chapter3),theoverallstructuralmodeldoesnothaveagoodmodelfit(χ2(12)=183.733;
p=0.000;RMSEA=0.099;GFI=.973;NFI=.964;CFI=.966)becausetheChi-Squarevalueisbyfar
toohighandtheRMSEAvalueisnotacceptableeither.AsthehighChi-Squarevaluecanbe
explainedbythelargesamplesizeandthevaluesoftheotherthreemodelfitindicesaregood,
themodeliskeptforthisanalysis,though.Figuretenshowsthestructuralmodelwithwhichthe
relationshipsbetweenthelatentvariablesaretestedandtableonegivesanoverviewofallpath
estimates4.
Hypothesis1
Thefirsthypothesisassumesthatangernegativelyinfluencesthepost-crisisreputationofthe
VWGroup.Itwasfoundthatangerhasahighlysignificantnegativeimpactonthepostcrisis
reputation.ThismeansthattheangriertherespondentsaretowardstheVWGroupinthe
contextoftheemissionsscandal,theworsetheyevaluatethepost-crisisreputationofthe
corporation.Moreprecisely,whenangergoesupby1,thepost-crisisreputationgoesdownby
.192.Thus,thefirsthypothesisissupported.
4Throughouttheresultsanddiscussionsections,thestandardizedbetaestimatesarepresented.
43
Figure10:StructuralModel
Note:***p≤.001,**p≤.01,*p≤.05
Samplesize=1475;Standardizedestimatesareportrayed
χ2(12)=183.733;p=0.000;χ2/df=15.311;RMSEA=0.099;GFI=.973;NFI=.964;CFI=.966
44
Table1:Summaryofresults
Paths
ModelSpecifications
Beta
SE
coefficient
Percentile
confidence
intervals
Lower
Upper
Directeffectsofmediators
AngeràReputation
-.436***
.018
-.470
-.397
onDV(bpaths)
SympathyàReputation
.505***
.018
.469
.540
AngeràNWOM
.644***
.016
.613
.676
SympathyàNWOM
-.255***
.017
-.288
-.220
IVtomediators(apaths)
ResponsibilityàAnger
.213***
.021
.170
.252
InvolvementàAnger
.587***
.018
.551
.621
ModeratorIàAnger
-.078***
.026
-.131
-.030
ModeratorIIàAnger
-.089***
.021
-.127
-.047
Person-CompanyFitàAnger
-.065**
.022
-.106
-.021
ResponsibilityàSympathy
-.220***
.024
-.267
-.173
InvolvementàSympathy
-.064***
.019
-.102
-.028
ModeratorIàSympathy
.050**
.030
-.002
.114
ModeratorIIàSympathy
-.027
.025
-.078
.022
Person-CompanyFità
.635***
.021
.590
.675
DirecteffectsofIVonDV(c ResponsibilityàReputation
-.344***
.025
-.391
-.294
paths)
InvolvementàReputation
-.272***
.025
-.320
-.223
ResponsibilityàNWOM
.209***
.022
.164
.249
InvolvementàNWOM
.381***
.022
.335
.422
DirecteffectsofIVonDV
ResponsibilityàReputation
-.060**
.023
-.105
-.014
whenmediatorsare
InvolvementàReputation
.032
.024
-.018
.078
included(c’paths)
ResponsibilityàNWOM
-.040*
.020
-.081
-.001
InvolvementàNWOM
-.0.042
.023
-.086
.004
Sympathy
Rsquared
Reputation
.548
NWOM
.556
Anger
.458
Sympathy
.550
Note:***p≤.001,**p≤.01,*p≤.05
Samplesize=1475;Standardizedestimatesareportrayed
Levelofconfidenceforconfidenceintervals=95%
Numberofbootstrapresamples=2,000
45
Hypothesis2
ThesecondhypothesispostulatesthatsympathypositivelyinfluencestheVWGroup’spost-crisis
reputation.Theanalysishasshownthatsympathyhasahighlysignificantpositiveeffectonthe
VWGroup’spost-crisisreputation.Aspeoplefeltmoresympathetictowardsthecorporationin
thecontextoftheemissionsscandal,theyratedtheVWGroup’spost-crisisreputationhigher.In
fact,whensympathyincreasesby1,theevaluationofthepost-crisisreputationincreasesby.272.
Comparedtotheimpactofangeronthepost-crisisreputation,theeffectofsympathyiseven
stronger.Hence,thesecondhypothesisissupported,aswell.Furthermore,bothpredictorsof
post-crisisreputationexplain54.8percentofthevarianceofpost-crisisreputation(R2=.548).This
meansthatthetwoemotionsdeterminethevarianceofpost-crisisreputationtoalargeextentbut
notcompletely.
Hypothesis3
Accordingtothethirdhypothesis,angerincreasestheintentionforNWOMabouttheVWGroup.
Astheanalysishasshown,angerhadahighlysignificantnegativeimpactontheparticipants’
NWOMintention.ThemoreangertherespondentsfelttowardstheVWGroupregardingthe
emissionsscandal,thehigherwastheirintentiontosaynegativethingsaboutthecorporation.
Whenangerincreasesby1,theNWOMintentionrisesby.500.Thisimpactwasevenstronger
thanthatofangeronpost-crisisreputationandthatofsympathyonpost-crisisreputation.
Concluding,thishypothesiscanalsobesupported.
Hypothesis4
HypothesisfourpostulatesthatsympathyhasanegativeimpactontheintentionforNWOMabout
theVWGroup.ItwasfoundthatsympathysignificantlydecreasedtheNWOMintentionofthe
respondents.Assympathygoesupby1,therespondents’NWOMintentiongoesdownby.242.In
comparisontoanger,sympathyhadaweakereffectontheNWOMintentionoftheparticipants,
though.Additionally,theimpactofsympathyontheNWOMintentionisweakerthanthatof
sympathyandangeronthepost-crisisreputation.Nevertheless,thefourthhypothesiscanbe
supported.Nexttothis,bothpredictorsofNWOMexplain55.6percentofthevarianceofthe
dependentvariable(R2=.556).Thus,thetwoemotionsdeterminemorethanhalfofthevarianceof
NWOM.
46
Hypothesis5
Thefifthhypothesisstatesthatthehigherthelevelofperceivedcrisisresponsibility,themore
angertherespondentsfeeltowardstheVWGroup.Theresultsofthedataanalysissupportthis
hypothesis.Whentheperceivedcrisisresponsibilityincreasesby1,thefeelingofangerraisesby
.293.Hence,respondentswhobelievedthattheVWGroupwasresponsiblefortheemissions
scandalexpressedmoreangertowardstheGroup.
Hypothesis6
Incontrarytohypothesisfive,hypothesissixpostulatesthatahigherlevelofperceivedcrisis
responsibilityleadstolesssympathytowardstheVWGroup.Asindicatedbythedataanalysis,the
morecrisisresponsibilitytherespondentsascribedtotheVWGroup,thelowerwastheirfeeling
ofsympathytowardsthecorporation.Whentheperceivedcrisisresponsibilitygoesupby1,the
feltsympathytowardstheVWGroupgoesdownby.247.Incomparisontotheimpactonanger,
crisisresponsibilityhasaminimalstrongereffectonsympathy.Concluding,thesixthhypothesis
canbesupported.
Hypothesis7
Hypothesissevenassumesthatinvolvementhasapositiveimpactonanger.Theresultsofthe
analysissupportthisassumption:ThemoreinvolvedtherespondentswerewiththeVW
emissionsscandal,theangriertheyweretowardstheVWGroup.Infact,whentheinvolvement
withtheVWemissionsscandalincreasesby1,theangerrisesby.576.Basedonthehighly
significantpositiveimpactofcrisisinvolvementonanger,thishypothesiscanbesupported.
Hypothesis8
Onthecontrarytohypothesisseven,hypothesiseightpostulatesthatahigherlevelofcrisis
involvementleadstoalowerlevelofsympathytowardstheVWGroup.Thedataanalysisrevealed
thatcrisisinvolvementhadasmallsignificantnegativeimpactonsympathy.Whenthe
involvementwiththeemissionsscandalincreasesby1,thesympathyfelttowardstheVWGroup
decreasesby.051.Comparingthebetavaluesoftherelationshipsbetweeninvolvementandthe
twoemotionsangerandsympathy,itbecomesclearthatinvolvementhasamuchstrongerimpact
onangerthanonsympathy.Nevertheless,hypothesiseightcanbesupported.Inaddition,45.8
percentofthevarianceofanger(R2=.458;)and55percentofsympathy(R2=.550)arepredictedby
crisisresponsibilityandcrisisinvolvement.Thismeansthatbothemotionscanbeexplainedby
thetwoindependentvariablestoalargeextentbutnotcompletely.
47
4.1.
TestingofMediationEffects
Next,itwastestedwhetherthetwoemotionsangerandsympathyfunctionasmediatorsthat
formanintermediatelinkbetweenthetwoindependentvariablescrisisinvolvementandcrisis
responsibilityandthetwodependentvariablespost-crisisreputationandNWOM.Accordingto
BaronandKennedy(1986),threerequirementsmustbefulfilledinordertoarguethatavariable
isamediator.First,theindependentvariablesignificantlypredictsthedependentvariable(c
path).Second,themediatorvariablesignificantlypredictsthedependentvariable(bpath)and
last,whenthemediatorisaddedtothemodel,therelationshipbetweentheindependentand
dependentvariables(cpath)isreduced(c’path)(Baron&Kennedy,1986;Little,Card,Bovaird,
Preacher&Crandall,2007).Asitisdisplayedintableone,thesethreeassumptionsaremetforthe
relationshipsbetweenthevariables-thusmediationeffectsoccur.Sincethedirecteffects
betweencrisisresponsibilityandbothcrisisoutcomes(i.e.post-crisisreputationandNWOM)
remainsignificantafterbothmediatorsareadded(c’paths),partialmediationsoccurinthese
relationships(Littleetal.,2007).Asfortherelationshipsbetweencrisisinvolvementandboth
crisisoutcomes,fullmediationsoccurbecausethedirecteffectisnotsignificantanymoreonce
bothmediatorsareaddedtothemodel(c’path)(Littleetal.,2007).
Tabletwoprovidesanoverviewofallmediationeffectsofthismodel,includingthe
bootstrappingresults.Itisshownthatallmediationeffectsarehighlysignificant,meaningthat
angerandsympathyfunctionasmediatorsforalleffectsbetweentheindependentanddependent
variables.Whilenegativemediationeffectsoccurintherelationshipsbetweencrisisresponsibility
andcrisisinvolvementwithpost-crisisreputation,positivemediationeffectsexistinthe
relationshipsofthetwoindependentvariableswithNWOMintention.Thereby,themediation
effectintherelationshipbetweencrisisinvolvementandNWOMintentionisthestrongest.
However,notonlythetotalmediationeffectsofbothemotionsineachrelationshipareofinterest
butalsotheirseparateeffects.Astabletwoshows,angerhasastrongermediatingeffectthan
sympathyinallrelationshipsexceptforthatofcrisisresponsibilityandcrisisreputation.Thereby
thestrongestmediationeffectofangeroccursintherelationshipbetweencrisisinvolvementand
NWOM.Whilebothemotionstakeonamediatingroleinthisstudy,theseresultsindicatethat
angerisamoreimportantmediatorintheVWemissionsscandalthansympathy.
48
Table2:BootstrappingResultsforMediationEffects
Indirect effects of IV on DV through
proposed mediators (ab paths)
DV=Post-CrisisReputation
IV=CrisisResponsibility
Total
Anger
Sympathy
IV:CrisisInvolvement
Total
Anger
Sympathy
DV=NWOM
IV=CrisisResponsibility
Total
Anger
Sympathy
IV:CrisisInvolvement
Total
Anger
Sympathy
Beta
-.204
-.093
-.112
-.288
-.258
-.032
.193
.138
.056
.394
.380
.016
SE
.015
.010
.013
.016
.013
.010
.015
.014
.007
.016
.016
.005
Percentileconfidence
intervals
Lower
-.233
-.113
-.139
-.318
-.285
-.051
.163
.110
.044
.364
.350
.007
Upper
-.174
-.073
-.087
-.256
-.231
-.014
.222
.165
.072
.427
.413
.026
Note:***p≤.001,**p≤.01,*p≤.05
Samplesize=1475
Levelofconfidenceforconfidenceintervals=95%
Numberofbootstrapresamples=2,000
4.2.
Hypotheses9through12–ModerationEffects
Thefollowingfourhypothesesaddressthemoderatingroleofperson-companyfitonthe
relationshipsofcrisisinvolvementandcrisisresponsibilitywiththetwoemotions.Hypothesis
nineassumesthatahigherperson-companyfitweakenstherelationshipbetweenperceivedcrisis
responsibilityandanger.Thissignifiesthatifpeoplehaveahighpersoncompanyfit,theywould
feellessangereveniftheyattributehighcrisisresponsibilitytotheVWGroup.Asthetestingof
themoderationeffectofthisrelationshipshows,theinteractioneffectbetweencrisis
responsibilityandperson-companyfithasasignificantweaknegativeeffectonanger.This
indicatesthatwithahigherperson-companyfit,theinfluenceofcrisisresponsibilityonanger
decreases,leadingtolessanger.Thus,thishypothesiscanbesupported:Person-companyfit
functionsasamoderatorinthisrelationship.
Hypothesistenpostulatesthatahigherperson-companyfitintensifiestherelationship
betweenperceivedcrisisresponsibilityandsympathy.Thismeansthatifpeoplehaveahigh
49
person-companyfit,theytendtofeelmoresympathytowardstheVWGroupdespiteaperceived
crisisresponsibility.Thiswouldindicatethatcrisisresponsibilitymatterslessifpeoplehavea
highperson-companyfit.Resultsofthedataanalysisrevealthattheinteractioneffectbetween
crisisresponsibilityandperson-companyfithasaweaksignificantpositiveimpactonsympathy.
Hence,thishypothesiscanbeaccepted,aswell:Person-companyfitmoderatestherelationship
betweencrisisresponsibilityandsympathy.
Hypothesiselevenassumesthatahigherperson-companyfitwillweakentherelationship
betweenfeltcrisisinvolvementandanger.Thissignifiesthatifpeoplehaveahighpersoncompanyfit,theywouldbelessangrywiththeVWGroupregardingtheemissionsscandaleven
thoughtheyarehighlyinvolvedwiththeemissionsscandalitself.Resultsindicatethataweak
significantnegativeeffectoccurredandthusthehypothesisforthisinteractioneffectcanbe
supported:Person-companyfitfunctionsasamoderatorinthisrelationship.
Lastly,hypothesistwelvepostulatesaninteractioneffectofperson-companyfitandcrisis
involvementonsympathy,indicatingthatahigherperson-companyfitwillintensifythe
relationshipbetweenfeltcrisisinvolvementandsympathy.Inthecaseofhighinvolvement,ahigh
person-companyfitwouldleadtomoresympathytowardstheVWGroupaswithlowpersoncompanyfit.Testingthisassumptionshowsaminimalnegativebutnotsignificanteffect.This
leadstotherejectionofthelasthypothesis:Person-companyfithasnomoderatingeffectonthe
relationshipbetweeninvolvementandsympathy.Summarized,elevenofthetwelvehypothesesof
thisstudycanbeaccepted.
4.3.
ComparisonofAffectedandNon-AffectedPublics
Inordertoexaminewhethertheabove-foundeffectsdifferforpeoplewhohavebeenaffectedby
theVWemissionsscandalcomparedtothosewhowerenotdirectlyaffectedbyit,amultigroup
analysiswasperformed.Asexplainedinthequestionnaire,affectedpeoplearethosewhoowna
carofthebrandsVW,Audi,Seat,SkodaorPorschebecausethesehavebeenaffectedbythe
emissionsscandal.Consequently,non-affectedpeoplearetheoneswhodonotownsuchcars.Itis
assumedthattheeffectsofresponsibilityandinvolvementonangeraswellasthatofangeron
post-crisisreputationandNWOMwouldbestrongeramongaffectedpeoplecomparedtothose
whowerenotaffected.Onthecontrary,theeffectsthatinvolvedsympathywouldbeweakerfor
theaffectedgroup.TheChi-Squaredifferencetestofthemultigroupanalysisrevealsthatthetwo
testedmodels(affectedvs.non-affected)aresignificantlydifferent.Whilethemodelofthe
affectedparticipantshasaChi-Squarevalueofχ2(12)=65.915(p=0.000),themodelofthenonaffectedparticipantshasaChi-Squarevalueofχ2(12)=148.345(p=0.000).Inordertofindout
whichspecificrelationshipsdifferthetwomodels,thesinglepathestimateswereregarded.For
50
this,singlepathswerecomparedbyfreelyestimatingthetwomodelsexceptforsinglepathsthat
wereconstrained(Byrne,2013).
Table3:MultigroupAnalysis-affectedpublicvs.non-affectedpublic
Paths
ModelSpecifications
Directeffectsof AngeràReputation
mediatorsonDV
Sympathyà
Reputation
AngeràNWOM
Affected
Non-affected
Beta
SE
Beta
SE
coefficient
coefficient
-.438***
.008
-.435***
.008
.550***
.010
.494***
.009
.672***
.014
.640***
.014
SympathyàNWOM
-.286***
.017
-.247***
.013
IVand
moderatorsto
mediators
Responsibilityà
Anger
InvolvementàAnger
.226***
.029
.204***
.026
.584***
.020
.583***
.020
ModeratorIàAnger
-.104***
.031
-.074***
.029
ModeratorIIàAnger
-.112***
.030
-.085***
.027
PersonCompanyFità
Anger
Responsibilityà
Sympathy
Involvementà
Sympathy
ModeratorIà
Sympathy
ModeratorIIà
Sympathy
PersonCompanyFità
Sympathy
Rsquared
Reputation
NWOM
Anger
Sympathy
-.076***
.022
-.069***
.022
-.218***
.022
-.217***
.023
-.056***
.014
-.062***
.014
.054*
.023
.042*
.023
-.034
.022
-.028
.020
.630***
.016
.634***
.015
.608
.623
.426
.521
.534
.554
.459
.551
Difference
Beta
coefficient
-.003
(p=.006)
.056
(p=.353)
.032
(p=.001)
-.039
(p=.756)
.022
(p=.026)
.001
(p=.150)
-.030
(p=.698)
-.027
(p=.352)
.007
(p=.845)
.001
(p=.211)
-.006
(p=.716)
.012
(p=.099)
-.006
(p=.556)
-.004
(p=.826)
Note:***p≤.001,**p≤.01,*p≤.05
Samplesizeaffected=163,Samplesizenon-affected=1312;
Chi-Squareaffected=χ2(12)=148.345(p=0.000);Chi-Squarenon-affected=χ2(12)=148.345(p=0.000)
Standardizedregressionweightsofstructuralweightsareportrayed
51
Tablethreeprovidesanoverviewofthepathestimatesofbothmodelsaswellasthe
differencesforeachpath.Itbecomesclearthatthedifferencesbetweenthepathestimatesare
verysmallandmostofthemarenotsignificant.Theonlysignificantdifferencebetweenthetwo
modelscouldbefoundintheeffectthatcrisisresponsibilityhasonangerandontheimpactthat
angerhasonbothcrisisoutcomes.Accordingtotheanalysis,responsibilityhadaslightlystronger
impactonangeramongtheaffectedpublic.Moreover,angerhadaminimalstrongernegative
impactonpost-crisisreputationandaminimalstrongerpositiveimpactonpeople’sNWOM
intentionamongthosewhowereaffected.Thissignifiesthatamongparticipantswhowere
affected,crisisresponsibilityresultedinmoreanger,whichinturnledtoaworseevaluationof
theVWGroup’spost-crisisreputationandastrongerintentiontoexpressNWOMcomparedtothe
notaffectedparticipants.Althoughthesedifferencesareminimal,thecrucialroleofangerinthis
studyisunderlined.
4.4.
FurtherFindings
Finally,thedataanalysisrevealedsomefurtherrelevantfindings.Forthetestingofthe
moderationeffects,theconceptperson-companyfitwasaddedtothemodel.Resultsofthe
analysisshowedthatperson-companyfitnotonlyhasamoderatingroleinthismodelbutalso
directlyaffectsonthetwoemotionsangerandsympathy.Moreprecisely,person-companyfithad
aweaksignificantnegativeimpactonanger(β=-.065;p=.002)andastronghighlysignificant
positiveimpactonsympathy(β=.635;p=.001).Whentheperson-companyfitincreasedbyone,
angerdecreasedby.067andsympathyincreasedby.542.Thismeansthatparticipantswho
identifiedthemselvesmorewiththeVWGroupfeltslightlylessangerandbyfarmoresympathy
towardsthecorporationcomparedtothosewhoidentifiedthemselveslesswiththeVWGroup.
Thereby,theeffectsizeperson-companyfithasonsympathyisstrongerthanalleffectsofthetwo
independentvariablesonthetwoemotions(seetable1).
52
5. DiscussionandConclusion
Inthischapter,theprecedingresultsofthedataanalysiswillbeinterpretedanddiscussedagainst
thebackgroundoftheabove-explainedtheory.Thereby,theresearchquestionswillbeanswered
aswellasmanagerialimplicationsgiven.Inaddition,conclusionsfromtheresultswillbedrawn,
strengthsandlimitationsofthepresentstudypresentedaswellasimplicationsforfuture
researchproposed.
5.1.
InterpretationofResults
OneofthemaininterestsofthisstudywastheexplorationoftheVWGroup’spost-crisis
reputationandtheNWOMintentionoftheGermanpublic.Inthiscontext,itwasarguedthatthe
corporation’sfavorablepre-crisisreputationcouldhavefunctionedasahalothatprotectedthe
VWGroupfromreputationlossandnegativebehaviorintentionsafterthecrisis.Ontheother
hand,thefavorablepriorreputationcouldhaveincreasedexpectationsofthecorporation,which
wereviolatedduetotheemissionsscandalandthusresultedinnegativecrisisoutcomes.Results
indicatethattherespondents’evaluationoftheGroup’spost-crisisreputationwasmodest
(M=3.7;SD=1.25)andtheirNWOMintentionwasverylow(M=2.27;SD=1.43).Withrespecttothe
post-crisisreputation,itwasassumedthattheVWGroup’sfavorablepriorreputationwouldsave
thecorporationreputationalloss.Duetothemoderatereputationafterthecrisis,theexistenceof
thehalo-effectcanbechallenged,though.However,notonlythepre-crisisreputationbutalso
otherfactorscanaffectanorganization’spost-crisisreputation(seechapter2.1.1)andthusneed
tobeconsideredwheninterpretingthisoutcome.Thehighlevelofcrisisresponsibilitythatis
attributedinanintentionalcrisisortheVWGroup’spriorcrisishistoryandcrisisresponsesneed
tobeconsidered.AsrespondentsattributedahighlevelofcrisisresponsibilitytotheVWGroup,
thiscouldhavehadastrongeffectonthecorporation’spost-crisisreputation.Infact,thepostcrisisreputationcouldhaveevenbeenlowerwithoutsuchafavorablepriorreputation.This
wouldthenbeanargumentfortheoccurrenceofthehaloeffect.
ThelowNWOMintentionoftheparticipantswasverysurprising,consideringthefactthat
theemissionsscandalwasanintentionalcrisisthatleadtotheascriptionofahighcrisis
responsibility.However,asKiambiandShafer(2015)found,peoplehavealowerintentionto
expressNWOMforahighreputedorganizationcomparedtoalowreputedorganization.Thus,the
favorablepre-crisisreputationcouldnotonlyhaveprotectedthecorporationfrommore
reputationallossduetotheemissionsscandalbutalsofromnegativebehaviorsandbehavioral
intentionsdirectedtotheVWGroup.Thiswouldmeanthatpeopledidnotwanttoengagein
NWOMaboutVWGroupduetotheirpositiveattitudeaboutthecorporationpriortothecrisis.
53
Thiswouldsuggesttheshieldingfunctionofafavorablepre-crisisreputationregardingnegative
behaviorintentionsandindicatethattheVWGroup’spriorreputationdidplayanimportantrole
inprotectingitfromNWOM.
Onefurtherexplanationfortheoccurrenceofamodestpost-crisisreputationandalow
NWOMintentionamongtheGermanpubliccouldbethecountry-of-origineffect.Previousstudies
haveimpliedthatconsumersapplyaproduct’scharacteristics,suchasthecountryoforigin,asan
evidenceforproductqualityinordertocompareaproduct’squalitytothatofothers.Thecountry
oforigintherebysignalsstereotypesofproducts(Lee,Yun&Lee,2005),forinstancethe“made
in”tag(Yun,Lee,andSego2002).Whileapositiveimageofanationresultsinapositive
assessmentofitsproducts,anegativeoneleadstoanegativeassessment(Zhukov,Bhuiyan&
Ullah,2015).Transferringthecountry-of-origineffecttoacorporatelevel,EtayankaraandBapuji
(2009)concludefromtheirliteraturereviewofproductrecallsthatthemagnitudeofcompany
lossesdependsnotonlyontheseverityofthecrisisorthecompany’sreputationbutalsoonthe
imageofthecountry.AstheVWGroupisaGermancorporationandthelabel“madeinGermany”
hasbeenassociatedwithahighproductquality(Haucap,Wey&Barmbold,1997),itcanbethus
assumedthatitpreventedthecorporationfrommorenegativecrisisoutcomes.
Moreoverthepresentstudyinvestigatedtherespondents’emotionalresponsestotheVW
emissionsscandal.Basedonthecrisistype,aratherhighlevelofangerandalowlevelof
sympathytowardstheVWGroupwereexpected.Despitetheseassumptions,therespondentshad
onlyamoderatedegreeofangertowardstheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal(M=3.32;
SD=1.59),thusnotconfirmingthepriorassumption.However,asthestandarddeviationwasquite
highforthisemotion,itcanbeconcludedthattheparticipantsdidhardlyagreeregardingtheir
levelofanger.TakingtheVWGroup’sfavorablepre-crisisreputationintoaccount,itcouldbe
assumedthatitprotectedtheGroupfrombeingfacedwithahighlevelofanger.Kiambiand
Shafer(2015)forinstancefoundintheirstudythatrespondentswerelessangrytowardsan
organizationwithafavorablepre-crisisreputationthantowardsanorganizationwithaprior
unfavorablereputation.Anotherexplanationforthismodestlevelofangercouldbethetime
betweentheoutbreakoftheemissionsscandalandthesurvey.AccordingtoCoombsandHolladay
(2007),emotionalresponsescandecreaseovertimebecausethestakeholdersforgetabouta
crisis.Asthisstudywasconductedaboutsixmonthsafterthefirstinformationontheemissions
scandalwaspublished,itcouldbethecasethattherespondentsweresimplynotangryanymore.
Onthecontrary,theassumedlowlevelofsympathyfeltbytherespondentswasconfirmed
bythisstudy(M=2.14;SD=1.22).Thisprovesthatalsopositiveemotionscanemergeinacrisis,as
FolkmanandMoskowitz(2000)hadproposed.CoombsandHolladay(2005)foundthatthemost
sympathywasfeltinthecaseofavictimcrisisinwhichlowresponsibilitywasattributedtothe
54
organization.Anintentionalcrisisontheotherhandresultedinalowlevelofsympathy.TheVW
emissionsscandalcannotonlytheoreticallybecategorizedasanintentionalcrisiswithahigh
crisisresponsibility,butalsotherespondentsofthisstudyattributedahighresponsibilitytothe
corporation.Therefore,itisinlinewithpreviousexpectationsthattheyfeltonlylittlesympathy
towardstheVWGroupaftertheemissionsscandalhadoccurred.
Regardingtheeffectofbothemotionsonthetwoinvestigatedcrisisoutcomes,itwas
foundthatangerhadanegativeimpactontheVWGroup’spost-crisisreputationandsympathya
positiveeffectonthiscrisisoutcome.Thus,thesefindingsarenotonlyinlinewiththatofChoiand
Lin(2009b)butalsoexpandit,asnotonlyaneffectofangerbutalsoofsympathyonreputation
wasfound.Moreover,theseresultsconfirmoneextensionoftheSCCTmodelwithadirectpath
fromemotionstoreputation,asChoiandLin(2009b)proposed.Further,itisespecially
interestingthatsympathyhadanevenstrongereffectonreputationthananger.Thisimpliesthe
importanceofconsideringnotonlythenegativebutalsoespeciallythepositiveemotionina
crisis.
Moreover,bothemotionshadanimpactontheparticipants’intentionforNWOM,with
angerresultinginahigherintentiontoexpressnegativestatementsabouttheVWGroupand
sympathyleadingtoalowerNWOMintention.ThesefindingsarethusinlinewithMcDonaldet
al.’sstudy(2010),whichfoundthatahigherlevelofangerresultedinahigherNWOMintention.
Furthermore,theresultsconfirmedpartofthenegativecommunicationdynamicthatwasposed
byCoombsetal.(2007).However,whileCoombsetal.(2007)didnotfindevidencefortheir
hypothesisandconcludedthatthemoderatelevelofangerwasnotenoughtoresultinNWOM,the
studyathandprovedthatalreadyalowlevelofangerstronglyincreasedpeople’sintentionto
expressNWOM.Duetoitseffectsize,thesignificanceofangerisevenmoreemphasized.However,
assympathywasfoundtodecreasepeople’sNWOMintention,thispositiveemotionshouldnotbe
leftouteither.Thus,whileangerhadahigherimpactonreputationthanontheNWOMintention,
sympathyhadastrongereffectonpeople’sintentiontouseNWOMthantheirevaluationofthe
VWGroup’spost-crisisreputation.Nevertheless,allfoureffectswerequitehigh,underliningthe
decisiveroleofbothemotionsinthecontextoftheVWemissionsscandal.
Besideshavingfoundevidencefortheimpactsofbothemotionsonthetwocrisis
outcomes,thepresentstudyalsoconfirmedthemediatingroleofangerandsympathyinthe
relationshipsofcrisisresponsibilityandcrisisinvolvementwiththepost-crisisreputationand
NWOMintention.Thereby,angerformedanespeciallystronglinkbetweenthetwoindependent
variablesandNWOM.Overall,sympathydidnotmediatetherelationshipsbetweenthe
independentanddependentvariablesasstronglyasanger,withoneexceptionbeingthelink
betweencrisisresponsibilityandthepost-crisisreputation,wheresympathyhadaslightly
55
strongerimpactthananger.Thisemphasizesthesignificanceofavoidingangerinacrisiseven
further.
SincetheVWemissionsscandalcanbecategorizedintheintentionalcrisiscluster,itwas
assumedthattherespondentswouldattributeahighlevelofcrisisresponsibilitytotheVW
Group.ResultsshowthattherespondentstendedtobelievethattheVWGroupwasresponsible
fortheoccurrenceoftheemissionsscandal(M=5.91;SD=1.19).Hence,thisstudy’sfindings
confirmthisproposedassumption.Wheninterpretingthesefindings,itshouldbeconsidered,
though,thattheinitialmeasurementofcrisisresponsibilitywasreducedinthedataanalysis
process.Astheremainingitemsbelongtotheaccountabilitydimensionoftheoriginal
measurementbyBrownandKi(2013),theresponsibilitysolelystandsfor“thedegreetowhich
theorganizationcouldhaveavoidedthecrisis“(p.14).Thus,wheninterpretingtheVWGroup’s
crisisresponsibilityinthisstudy,itdoesnotrefertointentionality,meaning“thedegreetowhich
thecrisiswascreatedpurposefullybyamemberormembersoftheorganization,”norlocality,
referringto“thedegreetowhichthecrisisisaninternalmatter”(Brown&Ki,2013,p.14).Hence,
theparticipantsbelievedtoahighextentthattheVWGroupisaccountablefortheemissions
scandalandthatitcouldhaveavoidedthecrisisfromoccurring.
Thisstudyrevealedthatcrisisresponsibilityresultedinbothangerandsympathy,thus
confirmingCoombs’(2007a)andCoombsandHolladay’s(2005)assumptionsthatcrisis
responsibilitytriggersthetwomainemotionsofAT.AshypothesizedandinlinewithSCCT
(Coombs,2007a),ahigherperceivedcrisisresponsibility,thusholdingtheVWGroupaccountable
fortheoccurrenceoftheemissionsscandal,resultedinmoreangerbutlesssympathytowardsthe
corporationcomparedtothosewhoassignedlesscrisisresponsibilitytotheVWGroup.Thereby,
theeffectsofcrisisresponsibilityonbothemotionshadapproximatelythesamestrength.Thus,
contradictingtoChoiandLin’s(2009b)study,thepresentstudyalsofoundevidenceforthe
relationofresponsibilityandsympathy,thereforeconfirmingitsroleasapredictorforpositive
andnegativeemotionsinacrisis.
Meetingthecallforexaminingtheconceptofinvolvementincrisiscommunication
research(McDonald&Härtel,2000),thisstudyincorporatedcrisisinvolvementasapredictorfor
emotions.BecauseoftheVWGroup’simportancefortheGermanpopulationanditsfavorable
priorreputation,itwasarguedthattheemissionsscandalwouldbeperceivedashighlyrelevant
bytheGermanpublic.Furthermore,theemissionsscandalwasquiteunexpectedanddeveloped
toasevere,internationalcrisis.Thisisanotherreasonwhyitwasassumedthatitdidmatterto
theGermanrespondents.Thisstudy’sresultsindicate,though,thattherespondentswereonly
involvedonamodestlevel(M=4.27;SD=1.57),thusnotconfirmingthisassumption.Onepossible
explanationforthisisthechangeabilityanddynamicoftheconceptoffeltinvolvement
56
(McDonald&Härtel,2000).Itcouldbethecase,thatthefeltcrisisinvolvementwasespecially
highwhentheemissionsscandalfirstwentpublic.However,asfeltinvolvementisapersonal
statethatcanchangeovertime(Celsi&Olson,1988),itmightbethecasethatthelevelofcrisis
involvementhasdecreasedsincethen.Inaddition,theemissionsscandalcouldhavebeen
perceivedaslessrelevantbecausemoreandmoreinformationonalsootherautomotive
manufacturerswhohavemanipulatedcarswerepublished(e.g.Weingartner,2015).
ResultsprovideevidenceforthesignificanceoftheconceptintheVWemissionsscandal.
Respondentswhoweremoreinvolvedwiththeemissionsscandal,meaningthattheyperceived
thecrisisaspersonallyrelevant,feltsignificantlyangriertowardsthecorporation.Thisfinding
supportsMcDonaldandHärtel’s(2000)andCoombsandHolladay’s(2005)assumptionsthatthe
levelofinvolvementdeterminesaperson’sintensityofemotionsinacrisis.Consideringthe
strengthofthiseffect,crisisinvolvementwasveryimportantforpredictingangerintheVW
emissionsscandal.Theimpactofcrisisinvolvementwasevenstrongerthanthatofcrisis
responsibilitywhendetermininganger.ThisiscontrarytothefindingsofMcDonaldetal.(2010),
whofoundthatcrisisresponsibilitywasamoreimportantpredictorforemotionalreactionsina
crisisthaninvolvement.GiventhefactthatMcDonaldetal.(2010)usedthesameinitial
measurementforcrisisinvolvementbyMcQuarrieandMunson(1992),thisfindingisespecially
interesting.Theseopposingfindingscanbeexplainedbythedifferentresearchapproachesthat
wereusedbyMcDonaldetal.(2010)andinthestudyathand.WhileMcDonaldetal.(2010)used
anexperimentalapproachwithanartificialairlinecompanythathasexperiencedanartificial
crash,thepresentstudyusedasurveymethodandarealcrisisscenario.Regardingtheinfluence
ofcrisisinvolvementonsympathy,thisstudyfoundthatahigherleveloffeltcrisisinvolvement
resultedinlesssympathytowardstheVWGroup,thusconfirmingtheresultsofMcDonaldetal.’s
(2010)study.Theimpactofcrisisinvolvementonsympathywasratherlow,though,comparedto
thatonanger.Furthermore,incomparisonwiththeeffectthatcrisisresponsibilityhadon
sympathy,theeffectofcrisisinvolvementwasonlyabouthalfasstrong,whichisinlinewiththe
studyofMcDonaldetal.(2010)aswell.Concluding,crisisinvolvementwasastrongerpredictor
foranger,whilecrisisresponsibilitywasastrongerpredictorforsympathy.Thisindicatesthe
crucialroleofinvolvementinacrisisandimpliestheincorporationoftheconceptintheSCCT
framework.
Inordertodrawaconnectionbetweentheindividualandcorporateleveloftheemissions
scandal,theidentificationofGermanswiththeVWGroupwasincludedinthisstudyasthe
person-companyfit.DuetotheVWGroup’sfavorablepre-crisisreputation,itwasassumedthat
therespondentswouldhaveahighidentificationwiththecorporation.Despitethisexpectation,
therespondentshadanaveragelylowperson-companyfit(M=2.73;SD=1.32)andthusalow
identificationwiththeVWGroup.Onereasonforthelowlevelofidentificationcouldbethe
57
impactoftheVWemissionsscandalontheparticipants’identificationwiththecorporation.
Althoughthequestionsabouttheperson-companyfitwereaskedbeforeevenmentioningthe
emissionsscandalinthequestionnaireinordertokeeptheimpactofthecrisisaslowaspossible,
itcouldstillbethecasethattheemissionsscandalaffectedtheparticipants’identificationwith
thecorporation.ThisiscontradictingtoAshforthandMael’s(1989)assumptionthatthe
identificationwithagroupenduresevenafterthefailureofagroup.Ontheotherhand,itisinline
withBergeretal.(2006)whosuggestthatchangedmembersofanorganizationcanaffectbeliefs
andidentification.AnotherpossiblereasoncouldbethesizeandcompositionoftheVWGroup.As
thecorporationconsistsofseveralsubsidiaries,productsandbrands,itcouldbeverydifficultfor
peopletoidentifythemselveswiththecorporationasawhole.Instead,itcouldbethecasethat
theyaremorelikelytoidentifythemselveswithcertainbrands,suchasVWorPorsche,or
products,suchastheVolkswagenCamperT2.
Itwasarguedthattheleveloftherespondent’sidentificationwiththeVWGroupwould
affecttherelationshipsofcrisisresponsibilityandcrisisinvolvementwiththeemotional
responsesangerandsympathy.Resultsofthisstudyshowthatperson-companyfitfunctionedas
amoderatorintherelationshipsbetweencrisisresponsibilitywithbothemotionsandbetween
involvementandanger.InthecasethatpeopleidentifiedthemselvesmorewiththeVWGroup,
theinfluenceofcrisisresponsibilityandcrisisinvolvementonangerwasweakened,resultingin
lessangertowardstheVWGroup.Moreover,ahigheridentificationwiththeVWGroup
strengthenedtheimpactofcrisisresponsibilityonsympathy,leadingtomoresympathy.Further
findingsalsorevealed,thatperson-companyfitnotonlymoderatedsuchrelationshipsbutalso
directlyaffectedbothemotions.Thereby,ithadaparticularlystrongimpactonsympathy.Allof
thesefindingsimplythatbuildingastrongerperson-companyrelationshipcanreducethe
negativeemotionalreactionandincreasethepositiveaffect.Thisunderlinesthesignificanceofa
highperson-companyfitintheVWemissionsscandal.TheyalsoconfirmAshforthandMael’s
(1989)argumentthatmoreidentificationresultsinmoresupportforthecorporation–inthis
caseemotionalsupport.However,thisstudydidnotfindprooffortheassumptionthatahigh
corporatereputationresultsinahighidentificationwiththecompany(Bhattacharya&Sen,2003;
Duttonetal.,1994;Keh&Xie,2009).Nevertheless,theseresultssuggesttheconsiderationof
person-companyfitincrisiscommunicationandSCCT.
Finally,followingKiambiandShafer’s(2015)suggestionofcomparingvictimsandnonvictimsofacrisis,thisstudyperformedacomparisonbetweenparticipantswhowereaffectedby
theemissionsscandalandthosewhowerenotaffected.Itwasfoundthatcrisisresponsibility
increasedthelevelofangermoreamongaffectedpublicscomparedtonon-affectedpublics.
Furthermore,angerhadastrongernegativeeffectontheperceivedpost-crisisreputationofthe
VWGroupandastrongerpositiveeffectontherespondents’intentiontoexpressNWOMamong
58
theaffectedparticipants.Thus,angerleadtomorenegativecrisisoutcomesamongtheaffected
personsthanamongthegeneralpublic.Assumingthataffectedpeopleregardedtheemissions
scandalasmoreself-related(Celsi&Olson,1988)andthusevaluateditasmorepersonally
relevant,itseemsplausiblethattheirangeralsohadmoreseverenegativeoutcomesthanfor
peoplewhowerenotaffected.Thisresultparticularlyemphasizesthatdifferentgroupsof
stakeholderscanreactdifferentlytoacrisisandthatespeciallyaffectedpeoplecouldreactmore
negativelytosuchanevent.
5.2.
ManagerialImplications
Basedontheresultsofthisstudy,severalpracticalsuggestionscanbemade.Asthisstudy
confirmed,angerplaysapowerfulroleinacrisis.Notonlydiditnegativelyinfluencethe
participants’evaluationontheVWGroup’spost-crisisreputation,italso,andmorestrongly,
increasedtherespondents’intentiontoexpressNWOMaboutthecorporation.Thestudyfurther
foundthatalreadyalowlevelofangercouldresultinthesenegativecrisisoutcomes.Moreover,
thisstudyrevealedthatsympathyfunctionedasapredictorforpost-crisisreputationandNWOM
intention,aswell.Althoughcorporationsaimtoavoidnegativeconsequencesandenhance
positiveoutcomesofacrisis,theycannotcontrolpeople’semotions.Whattheycaninfluence,
though,arethedrivingforcesofangerandsympathy.
Thisimpliesfirstofall,thatcorporationsshouldunderstandandtakeseriously(Choi&
Lin,2009b)bothemotionalresponsesandtheirconsequencesinordertoreactproperlytoa
crisis(Laufer&Coombs,2006).Inordertomitigateangerandreinforcesympathy,theyshould
carefullycommunicatewiththeirpublicsbasedontheiremotionalstateatacertainmoment.For
this,corporationsshouldconstantlymonitornewscoverageandthepublic’sreactionstoacrisis,
suchasonsocialmediaplatformslikeTwitterandFacebook.Basedonsuchknowledge,
corporationscouldthenidentifyandapplythebestresponsetotheincident(Jin,2014).Byusinga
propercrisisresponse,whichforinstancefocusesonthewellbeingoforcaringforvictims,also
theattributionofcrisisresponsibilitycouldbeweakened.Thisisespeciallysignificantascrisis
responsibilitywasfoundtoaffectthelevelofangerandsympathy.Thus,byreactingproperlytoa
crisis,theusageoftherightcrisisresponsestrategycouldpreventtheoccurrenceoforreducethe
levelofangerandenhancethelevelofsympathy.
Evenmoreimportantly,thisstudyhasrevealedthatcrisisinvolvementisanevenstronger
predictorofangerthancrisisresponsibilityandalsohasanimpactonsympathy.Thus,when
respondingtoanincident,corporationsshouldconsiderpeople’sdegreeofinvolvement(Choi&
Chung,2013)andthereforeadjusttheirresponsestoeachgroupofpeople.Thereby,theyshould
payspecialattentiontotheirdifferentgroupsofstakeholders,suchascustomersorshareholders,
59
astheyareassumedtoevaluateacrisisasparticularlyrelevant.Asthisstudyhasshown,alsothe
generalpublicshouldnotbeforgotten,though,whenrespondingtoacrisis.Thus,public
statements,forinstanceinthemedia,shouldbeprovidedbytheaffectedcorporation,aswell.
Thisstudyhasfurtherfoundevidencefortheimportanceofastrongperson-companyfit
forreducingangerandincreasingsympathyinacrisis.Basedonthisstudy’sfindings,itisimplied
thatcorporationsshouldbuildandmanageastrongrelationshipnotonlywiththeirstakeholders
butalsothegeneralpublic.Forthis,corporationsshouldgettoknowtheneedsandwantsof
differentpublics,forinstancebyconductingregularsurveys.Thisway,corporationscannotonly
performproperrelationshipmanagementwithpublicsbutcanalsoofferandcommunicate
productsandservicesthatthepublicscanidentifywith.Thesecouldbeforinstancebethosethat
dogoodfortheenvironmentorsociety,thusmeetingtheincreasingdemandforenvironmentallyfriendlyproducts(iwd,2013).
Lastly,resultsofthisstudyimplythatcorporationsshouldbeawareabouttheoccurrence
andeffectofemotionalresponsesonpost-crisisreputationandNWOMintentionevenseveral
monthsafteracrisishasoccurred.Thus,suchcorporationsshouldnotonlyimplementsuch
actionsrightafteracrisishashappenedbutalsointhelongterm.
5.3.
Conclusion
TheaimofthisthesiswastoexplorecrisisoutcomesoftheVWemissionsscandal,analyzethe
impactofpersonalperspectivesontheseoutcomesaswellascomparetheserelationships
betweenaffectedandnon-affectedpublics.Thereby,thisstudyfocusedontheGermanpublic’s
evaluationoftheVWGroup’spost-crisisreputationandtheirintentiontouseNWOM.Applying
theSCCTasgroundworkandextendingtheframeworkwiththeconceptsofcrisisinvolvement
andperson-companyfit,aswellasthelinkbetweenemotions(i.e.angerandsympathy)andpostcrisisreputation,thisthesisexaminedtheroleofcrisisresponsibility,crisisinvolvement,
emotionsandperson-companyfitinthecrisiscontext.AstheVWGrouphadagoodpre-crisis
reputationandahighrelevanceasacarmanufacturerespeciallyinGermany,theVWemissions
scandalwasevaluatedasparticularlyrelevantinthiscountry.Thus,asurveyamongtheGerman
publicwasconductedforthepurposeofthisstudy.Both,thehighnumberofparticipants
(N=2072)andthehighresponserate(72.91%)ofthissurveyconfirmedtherelevanceofthe
emissionsscandalforGermans.
Thisstudyhasshownthatalloftheconceptsplayedanimportantroleinthetested
relationships.FindingsrevealedthattherespondentsevaluatedtheVWGroup’spost-crisis
reputationonlyonamodestlevel,leadingtotheassumptionthatthecorporationdidnotmaintain
itsfavorablereputationafterthecrisis.Thestudyfurtherfoundthattherespondents’NWOM
60
intentionwasratherlowafterthecrisis.Thus,itwassupposedthattheVWGroup’sfavorable
priorreputationcouldhavesavedthecorporationfrombeingconfrontedwithahigherlevelof
NWOM.Besides,thisstudyconfirmedtheeffectsofemotionsintheemissionsscandaloncrisis
outcomes.Whileangerledtoamorenegativeperceptionofpost-crisisreputationandtoahigher
intentiontouseNWOM,sympathyresultedinamorefavorablepost-crisisreputationandalower
intentiontouseNWOMabouttheVWGroup.Hence,evidencewasfoundfortheinSCCTexistent
linkbetweenemotionsandNWOMintentionbutalsofortheproposedlinkbetweenemotionsand
post-crisisreputation.Moreover,thesignificanceofthetwoemotionalresponseswasevenmore
emphasizedbyprovingitsmediatingrolesintherelationshipsbetweencrisisresponsibilityand
crisisinvolvementwithpost-crisisreputationandNWOMintention.Thereby,angerwasfoundto
beastrongermediator,highlightingtherelevanceofthisnegativeaffectinacrisis.However,
sympathywasalsoshowntobeimportantinpredictingcrisisoutcomes,thusconfirmingits
proposedrelevanceinthecrisis.
Furthermore,thisstudynotonlyconfirmedthecrucialroleofcrisisresponsibilitybutalso
thatofcrisisinvolvementasapredictorforemotions:Bothconceptsincreasedthelevelofanger
anddecreasedthelevelofsympathyamongtherespondents.Hence,itwasproventhatcrisis
involvement,whichisarathernewconceptinthecontextofcorporatecrises,isarelevant
predictorforcrisisemotions,aswell.BesidestestingtheextensionoftheSCCTframeworkwith
crisisinvolvement,thisstudyalsoincludedtheconceptofperson-companyfit.Accordingtothe
findings,person-companyfitmoderatedthelinksbetweencrisisresponsibilityandbothemotions
aswellasbetweencrisisinvolvementandanger.Thereby,astrongeridentificationwiththeVW
Groupresultedinmoresympathyandlessanger.Finally,thecomparisonofalleffectsamong
affectedandnon-affectedpublicsshowedthatcrisisresponsibilityresultedinmoreangeramong
theaffectedpubliccomparedtothenon-affectedpublic.Inaddition,theimpactofangerwas
strongeramongtheaffectedthanamongthenon-affectedGermanpublic,whilenodifferencewas
observedregardingsympathy.
Hence,havingconfirmedelevenofthetwelveposedhypotheses,thisstudynotonlyfound
evidenceforexistingpathsoftheSCCTframeworkbutalsofortheproposedextensions(i.e.the
linkbetweenemotionsandpost-crisisreputation,aswellastheincorporationofinvolvementand
person-companyfit).Thus,greatvaluewasaddedtocrisiscommunicationresearchbyvalidating
theframeworkforthisrealcrisisscenario.
5.4.
StrengthsandLimitations
Thisstudyaddedvaluetoexistingcrisiscommunicationresearchforseveralreasons.Firstly,it
notonlyfoundevidenceforexistingpathsoftheSCCTbutalsoforproposedextensionswhen
61
testingtheframeworkinarealcrisisscenario.Thereby,thisstudynotonlymetthecallfor
researchbyexaminingthepersonalperspectivesemotionsandinvolvementinacrisis.Italso
confirmedtheimpactofbothemotions(i.e.angerandsympathy)onpost-crisisreputationandthe
significantroleofcrisisinvolvementasapredictorforemotionalresponses.Thus,notonly
productinvolvement,asproposedbyChoiandLin(2013),butalsocrisisinvolvement,wasfound
tobeimportantwhenstudyingcrisisemotionsandshouldbeincorporatedintheSCCT.Nextto
this,thisstudyappliedperson-companyfittotheorganizationalcrisiscontextandfoundevidence
foritsimpactonemotions.
Inaddition,theVWemissionsscandalconstitutedasignificantcasetostudy.Itenabledthe
investigationofasevereandinternationalproductrecallcrisisoutsideoftheUnitedStates.By
analyzingthiscrisis,theartificialityofafictitiousorganizationand/orcrisiswasavoided.
Moreover,andmoreimportantlythecomparisonofeffectsbetweenaffectedandnon-affected
groupswasenabledanditwasrevealedthatangerhadastrongerimpactoncrisisoutcomes
amongaffectedpersons.Inadditiontothis,thepresentstudycontributedtoexistingresearchby
applyingaquantitativesurveymethod,thusgoingbeyondcasestudyresearch,whichhadbeen
dominatingthefieldofcrisiscommunication.Inthiscontext,thehighnumberofparticipants
shouldbementionedthatenabledtheapplicationofSEMforthedataanalysis.
Despitethesestrengthsandtheencouragingresultsofthisstudy,certainlimitations
shouldbetakenintoconsiderationwheninterpretingthesefindings.Firstofall,thestudyathand
onlymeasuredtheVWGroup’sreputationafterthecrisisbutnotthatbeforetheoccurrenceofthe
emissionsscandal.AlthoughseveralsourcesagreeontheVWGroup’sfavorablereputationbefore
thecrisis,noreputationlosscouldbeexplicitlybedetectedbasedonthisstudy’sresults.
Moreover,thepost-crisisreputationwasonlymeasuredonceandthusthedynamicoftheconcept
ofreputationwasnotconsidered.However,anorganization’sreputationdevelopsovertimeand
canchangequicklyduetotheappearanceofnewevidence(Choi&Chung,2013).Inthiscontext,it
hastobeconsideredthatthisstudywasconductedabouthalfayearafterthefirstinformationon
theemissionsscandalwasdisclosed.Thiscouldhavehadaneffectontheevaluationofthe
perceptionofthepost-crisisreputationaswellasontheotherrelevantconceptsofthisstudy,
meaningforinstancethatthereputationhadalreadyrecoveredorthelevelofangerhadalready
decreasedduetothetimepassed.
Furthermore,thisstudyappliedSCCTbutdidnotincludeallelementsoftheframework.
Forinstance,itdidnotconsidercrisisresponsestrategiesthatwereusedbytheVWGroupto
reacttothecrisisortheVWGroup’scrisishistory.Theseareimportantfactors,though,when
evaluatingcrisisoutcomes(seechapter2.6.).
62
Anotherlimitationofthisistheway,inwhichperson-companyfitwasincludedinthe
study.Firstly,asmentionedinchapter5.1.1.,itcouldhavebeendifficultfortherespondentsto
evaluatetheiridentificationwiththeVWGroupbecauseitisalargecorporationwithseveral
brandsandproducts.Peoplemightratheridentifythemselveswithabrandorproductthough,
insteadwithsuchalargeentity.Secondly,thescalethatwasusedtomeasureperson-companyfit
includedsomeitemsthatweredifficulttoanswerbyrespondentsbecausetheyinitiallystemfrom
theconceptofemployer-employeeidentification.Asseveralrespondentsleftacommentabout
thisdifficultyofansweringinthefeedbackfieldintheendofthesurvey,itissupposedthatthis
problemhadoccurred.
Nexttothis,themodelfitofthestructuralmodelwasonlyacceptableandnotashighas
desired.Thishastobeconsideredwheninterpretingtheresultsofthisstudy.Finally,some
limitationsarearesultofthechoiceofmethodandsamplingmethodthatwasusedforthedata
collection.Althoughsurveymethodshavethestrengthtomeasurepeople’sopinionsand
behaviors,itisdebatablewhethertheyarethebestmethodtomeasureemotionsaswell.
Moreover,itshouldbeconsideredthatduetotheself-reportinginasurvey,somepeoplecould
havethetendencytoanswerinasociallydesirablemanner.Asaresultoftheusageofpurposive
samplingandtheself-selectionofrespondents,norepresentativesamplecouldbeachieved.
Instead,thesampleconsistsofmostlyyoungandhighlyeducatedrespondentswhileolderand
lowereducatedpartsoftheGermanpopulationareunder-represented.Thisbiasneedstobe
takenintoconsiderationwheninterpretingtheresultsofthisstudy.
5.5.
FutureResearch
AstheVWemissionsscandaloriginatedintheUnitedStatesandevolvedintoaninternational
crisis,itwouldbeworthwhiletoreplicatethepresentstudyintheUnitedStates.Conductingthe
samestudyinanothercountrythatwasaffectedbytheemissionsscandalwouldalsoshedmore
lightintothemeaningofboththeVWGroupandtheemissionsscandalforGermanyandother
countries.OnlywhencomparingresultsfromaGermansamplewiththatofothernationalities,
thefullsignificanceofthisstudy’sresultswouldbecomeclear.Inaddition,theVWemissions
scandalconstitutesasuitablecaseforalong-termstudy.Byrepeatingthesamesurveyin
Germanyaftersometime,valuableknowledgeaboutthelong-termcrisisoutcomescouldbe
gained.Basedonthis,suggestionscorporationsonhowtohandleacrisisinthelongruncouldbe
given.
Moreover,futurestudiesontheVWemissionsscandalcouldincludeotherindependentor
dependentvariablesthathavenotbeenconsideredinthepresentstudy.Forinstance,other
behavioralintentionsthatareofinterestfororganizations,suchastheintentiontore-purchasea
63
productortheboycottofacorporation,couldbeincorporated.Inadditiontothis,thecrisis
historyandcrisisresponsestrategiesthatwereusedbytheVWGroupcouldbeinvestigated,for
instance,regardingtheirimpactonthecorporation’spost-crisisreputation.Inthiscontext,the
roleoftheVWGroup’sformerCEOMartinWinterkornwouldbeanaspectworthconsidering.As
previousresearchhasshown,defensivecrisisresponseandCEOvisibilityinimmediatecrisis
responsewasthemostefficientforgeneratingthemostpositiveattitudeandmostpositive
purchaseintentioninacrisis(Turketal.,2012).
Thepresentstudyhasfoundevidenceforthesignificantroleofinvolvementinacrisis.
SincetheconceptisstillnewinbothcrisiscommunicationresearchandtheSCCTframework,
though,prospectiveresearchshouldcontinuetoinvestigatecrisisinvolvementinthiscontext.
Additionally,inpreviousresearch,involvementhadbeenoperationalizedindifferentways,for
instanceasproductinvolvementorascrisisinvolvement.Inordertoconfirmtheimportanceof
thisconceptandtheresultsofthisstudy,moreconsistentresearchisnecessary.Thesameapplies
forperson-companyfit.Thestudyathandintroducedtheconceptasaninfluencingfactoron
emotionsinacrisis.Although,thisrelationshipcouldbeconfirmedtoalargeextentinthisstudy,
futureresearchshouldcontinuetoexploreperson-companyfitanditseffectsonemotionsand
crisisoutcomes,suchaspurchaseintention,inorganizationalcrises.
Finally,inordertogainarepresentativesampleandthusgenerizableresults,thisstudy
shouldbereplicatedusinganon-purposivesamplingmethod,suchasquotasampling.Thiswould
enabletheinclusionofindividualswithcertainrelevantcharacteristicsinthesampleandhencea
lessbiasedsample(Möhring&Schlütz,2010).
64
References
Anderson,E.W.(1998).Customersatisfactionandwordofmouth.JournalofServiceResearch,
1(1),5-17.
Arpan,L.M.(2002).WheninRome?Theeffectsofspokespersonethnicityonaudienceevaluation
ofcrisiscommunication.JournalofBusinessCommunication,39(3),314-339.
Ashforth,B.E.,&Mael,F.(1989).Socialidentitytheoryandtheorganization.TheAcademyof
managementreview,14(1),20-39.
Babbie,E.R.(2011).Introductiontosocialresearch.Stamford,CT:WadsworthCengagelearning.
Baron,R.M.,&Kenny,D.A.(1986).Themoderator–mediatorvariabledistinctioninsocial
behaviours.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,51(6),443-464.
Bender,R.(2015,Sept.25).VolkswagenScandalTestsAuto-LovingGermany.TheWallStreet
Journal.Retrievedfromhttp://www.wsj.com/articles/vw-scandal-tests-auto-lovinggermany-1443217183
Bentler,P.M.(1992).OnthetofmodelstocovariancesandmethodologytotheBulletin.
PsychologicalBulletin,112,400–404.
Bergami,M.,&Bagozzi,R.P.(2000).Self-categorization,affectivecommitmentandgroupselfesteemasdistinctaspectsofsocialidentityintheorganization.BritishJournalofSocial
Psychology,39(4),555−577.
Berger,I.E.,Cunningham,P.H.,&Drumwright,M.E.(2006).Identity,identification,and
relationshipthroughsocialalliances.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,34(2),
128-137.doi:10.1177/0092070305284973
Bhattacharya,C.B.,&Sen,S.(2003).Consumer-companyidentification:Aframeworkfor
understandingconsumers'relationshipswithcompanies.JournalofMarketing,67(2),76-88.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
Birchall,J.&Milne,R.(2009,November13).Recallsechoroundglobeinsocialnetworkera.The
FinancialTimes.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1af4dfe6-d09c-11deaf9c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3yqzpb9GL
Bollen,K.A.,&Stine,R.(1990).Directandindirecteffects:Classicalandbootstrapestimatesof
variability.Sociologicalmethodology,20(1),15-140.
Bromley,D.B.(2000).Psychologicalaspectsofcorporateidentity,imageandreputation.
CorporateReputationReview,3(3),240-252.doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540117
Brosius,H.B.,Haas,A.&Koschel,F.(2012).MethodenderempirischenKommunikati-onsforschung.
EineEinführung(6thedition).Wiesbaden:SpringerVS.
Brown,J.J.,&Reingen,P.H.(1987).Socialtiesandword-of-mouthreferralbehavior.Journalof
ConsumerResearch,14(3),350-362.
Brown,K.A.,&Ki,E.J.(2013).Developingavalidandreliablemeasureoforganizationalcrisis
responsibility.Journalism&MassCommunicationQuarterly,90(2),363-384.doi:
10.1177/1077699013482911
Browne,M.W.,&Cudeck,R.(1993).Alternativewaysofassessingmodelt.InK.A.Bollen&J.S.
Long(Eds.),Testingstructuralequationmodels(pp.136–162).NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
65
Burgoon,J.K.,&LePoire,B.A.(1993).Effectsofcommunicationexpectancies,actual
communication,andexpectancydisconfirmationonevaluationsofcommunicatorsandtheir
communicationbehavior.Humancommunicationresearch,20(1),67-96.
Byrne,B.M.(2013).StructuralequationmodelingwithAMOS:Basicconcepts,applications,and
programming.NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Carroll,C.(2009).DefyingaReputationalCrisis–Cadbury’sSalmonellaScare:WhyareCustomers
WillingtoForgiveandForget?CorporateReputationReview,12(1),64-82.
Caruana,A.,&Ewing,M.T.(2010).Howcorporatereputation,quality,andvalueinfluenceonline
loyalty.JournalofBusinessResearch,63(9),1103-1110.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.030
Celsi,R.L.,&Olson,J.C.(1988).Theroleofinvolvementinattentionandcomprehension
processes.Journalofconsumerresearch,15(2),210-224.
Choi,J.,&Chung,W.(2013).AnalysisoftheInteractiveRelationshipBetweenApologyand
ProductInvolvementinCrisisCommunication:StudyontheToyotaRecallCrisis.Journalof
BusinessandTechnicalCommunication,27(1),3-31.doi:10.1177/1050651912458923
Choi,Y.,&Lin,Y.H.(2009a).Consumerresponsetocrisis:Exploringtheconceptofinvolvementin
Mattelproductrecalls.PublicRelationsReview,35,18–22.doi:
10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.009
Choi,Y.&Lin,Y.H.(2009b).ConsumerResponsestoMattelProductRecallsPostedonOnline
BulletinBoards:ExploringTwoTypesofEmotion.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,
21(2),198-207.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627260802557506
Choi,Y.&Lin,Y.H.(2009c).Individualdifferenceincrisisresponseperception:Howdolegal
expertsandlaypeopleperceiveapologyandcompassionresponses?PublicRelations
Review,35,452-454.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.07.002
Chu,K.K.,&Li,C.H.(2012).Thestudyoftheeffectsofidentity-relatedjudgment,affective
identificationandcontinuancecommitmentonWOMbehavior.Quality&Quantity,46(1),
221-236.doi:10.1007/s11135-010-9355-3
Claeys,A.S.,&Cauberghe,V.(2015).Theroleofafavorablepre-crisisreputationinprotecting
organizationsduringcrises.PublicRelationsReview,41(1),64-71.doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.013
Claeys,A.,Cauberghe,V.,&Vyncke,P.(2010).Restoringreputationsintimesofcrisis:An
experimentalstudyofthesituationalcrisiscommunicationtheoryandthemoderating
effectsoflocusofcontrol.PublicRelationsReview,36,256–262.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.05.004
Coombs,W.T.(2004).Impactofpastcrisesoncurrentcrisiscommunicationinsightsfrom
SituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory.JournalofbusinessCommunication,41(3),265289.doi:10.1177/0021943604265607
Coombs,W.T.(2007a).Protectingorganizationreputationsduringacrisis:Thedevelopmentand
applicationofsituationalcrisiscommunicationtheory.CorporateReputationReview,10(3),
163–176.
Coombs,W.T.(2007b).AttributionTheoryasaguideforpost-crisiscommunicationresearch.
PublicRelationsReview,33,135-139.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.016
Coombs,W.T.(2010).Parametersforcrisiscommunication.InW.T.Coombs&S.J.Holladay
(Eds.),Thehandbookofcrisiscommunication(pp.17-53).Malden,MA:Blackwell.
66
Coombs,W.T.(2014).CrisisCommunication:ADevelopingField.InW.T.Coombs(SeriesEd.),
CrisisCommunication:Vol.I(pp.3-18).London:Sage.
Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(1996).Communicationandattributionsinacrisis:An
experimentalstudyincrisiscommunication.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,8(4),279295.
Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(2001).Anextendedexaminationofthecrisissituations:Afusion
oftherelationalmanagementandsymbolicapproaches.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,
13(4),321-340.
Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(2002).Helpingcrisismanagersprotectreputationalassetsinitial
testsoftheSituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory.ManagementCommunication
Quarterly,16(2),165-186.doi:10.1177/089331802237233
Coombs,W.T.&Holladay,S.J.(2005).AnExploratoryStudyofStakeholderEmotions:Affectand
Crises.TheEffectofAffectinOrganizationalSettings,1,263-280.doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1746-9791(05)01111-9
Coombs,W.T.&Holladay,S.J.(2006).Unpackingthehaloeffect:reputationandcrisis
management.JournalofCommunicationManagement,10(2),123-137.doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540610664698
Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(2007).Thenegativecommunicationdynamic.Exploringthe
impactofstakeholderaffectonbehavioralintentions.JournalofCommunication
Management,11(4),300–312.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540710843913
Coombs,W.T.&Holladay,S.J.(2008).Comparingapologytoequivalentcrisisresponsestrategies:
Clarifyingapology’sroleandvalueincrisiscommunication.PublicRelationsReview,34,252257.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.04.001
Coombs,W.T.,Fediuk,T.A.&Holladay,S.J.(2007).FurtherExplorationsofPost-Crisis
CommunicationandStakeholderAnger:TheNegativeCommunicationDynamicModel.
PaperpresentedattheInternationalPublicRelationsResearchConference.
Davies,G.,Chun,R.,DaSilva,R.V.,&Roper,S.(2003).CorporateReputationandCompetitiveness.
NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Dawar,N.&Pillutla,M.(2000).Impactofproduct-harmcrisesonbrandequity:Themoderating
roleofconsumerexpectations.JournalofMarketingResearch,37,215-226.
deVaus,D.D.(1996).SurveysinSocialResearch(4thedition).London:UCLPress.
Dean,D.H.(2004).Consumerreactiontonegativepublicityeffectsofcorporatereputation,
response,andresponsibilityforacrisisevent.JournalofBusinessCommunication,41(2),
192-211.doi:10.1177/0021943603261748
Desai,P.(2014).TheRoleOfPrintAdvertisingDuringProductRecallCrisis.InnovateJournalof
BusinessManagement,2(1).
Doorley,J.,&Garcia,H.(2010).Reputationmanagement:Thekeytosuccessfulpublicrelationsand
corporatecommunication.NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Dowling,G.(2001).Creatingcorporatereputations:Identity,image,andperformance.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Druckman,J.N.(2001).Theimplicationsofframingeffectsforcitizencompetence.Political
Behavior,23(3),225-256.
67
Du,S.,Bhattacharya,C.B.,&Sen,S.(2007).Reapingrelationalrewardsfromcorporatesocial
responsibility:Theroleofcompetitivepositioning.Internationaljournalofresearchin
marketing,24(3),224-241.doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001
Dutta,S.&Pullig,C.(2011).Effectivenessofcorporateresponsestobrandcrises:Theroleofcrisis
typeandresponsestrategies.JournalofBusinessResearch,64,1281–1287.doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.013
Dutton,J.E.,Dukerich,J.M.,&Harquail,C.V.(1994).Organizationalimagesandmember
identification.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,39(2),239-263.
Edwards,K.,&Smith,E.E.(1996).Adisconfirmationbiasintheevaluationofarguments.Journal
ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,71(1),5-24.doi:10.1037//0022-3514.71.1.5
Einwiller,S.A.,Fedorikhin,A.,Johnson,A.R.,&Kamins,M.A.(2006).Enoughisenough!When
identificationnolongerpreventsnegativecorporateassociations.JournaloftheAcademyof
MarketingScience,34(2),185-194.doi:10.1177/0092070305284983
Etayankara,M.,&Bapuji,H.(2009,June).Productrecalls:areviewofliterature.Paperpresentedat
AdministrativeSciencesAssociationofCanada(30),NiagaraFalls,Canada.
Folkes,V.S.(1988).Recentattributionresearchinconsumerbehavior:Areviewandnew
directions.JournalofConsumerResearch,14(4),548-565.
Folkman,S.,&Moskowitz,J.T.(2000).Positiveaffectandtheothersideofcoping.American
psychologist,55(6),647-654.doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.6.647
Fombrun,C.(2015,October7).AboutVolkswagen,Reputation,andSocialResponsibility[Blog
post].Retrieved26January2016,from
http://blog.reputationinstitute.com/2015/10/07/about-volkswagen-reputation-andsocial-responsibility/
Fombrun,C.J.&vanRiel,C.B.M.(2004).Fame&Fortune:HowSuccessfulCompaniesBuildWinning
Reputation.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducation.
Geier,B.(2015,September22).EverythingtoknowaboutVolkswagen'semissionscrisis.Fortune.
Retrievedfromhttp://fortune.com/2015/09/22/volkswagen-vw-emissions-golf/
Gibson,D.,Gonzales,J.L.andCastanon,J.(2006).Theimportanceofreputationandtheroleof
publicrelations,PublicRelationsQuarterly,51(3),15–18.
Goyette,I.,Ricard,L.,Bergeron,J.&Marticottte,F.(2010).e-WOMScale:Word-of-Mouth
MeasurementScalefore-ServicesContext*.CanadianJournalofAdministrativeSciences,27,
5-23.doi:10.1002/CJAS.129
Griffin,A.(2015,September26).Volkswagenscandal:Thereisawayoutofthecrisisanditstarts
now.TheTelegraph.Retrievedfrom
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11893883/Volkswagen-scandal-There-isa-way-out-of-the-crisis-and-it-starts-now.html
Gruen,R.J.,&Mendelsohn,G.(1986).Emotionalresponsestoaffectivedisplaysinothers:The
distinctionbetweenempathyandsympathy.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,
51(3),609-614.
Grunwald,G.&Hempelmann,B.(2011).ImpactsofReputationforQualityonPerceptionsof
CompanyResponsibilityandProduct-relatedDangersintimesofProduct-recallandPublic
ComplaintsCrises:ResultsfromanEmpiricalInvestigation.CorporateReputationReview,
13(4),264–283.doi:10.1057/crr.2010.23
68
Harrison-Walker,L.J.(2001).TheMeasurementofWord-of-MouthCommunicationandan
InvestigationofServiceQualityandCustomerCommitmentasPotentialAntecedents.
JournalofServiceResearch,4(1),60-75.
Härtel,C.E.,McColl-Kennedy,J.R.,&McDonald,L.(1998).Incorporatingattributionaltheoryand
thetheoryofreasonedactionwithinanaffectiveeventstheoryframeworktoproducea
contingencypredictivemodelofconsumerreactionstoorganizationalmishaps.Advancesin
ConsumerResearch,25,428-432.
Haucap,J.,Wey,C.,&Barmbold,J.F.(1997).LocationChoiceasaSignalforProductQuality:The
Economicsof"MadeinGermany".JournalofInstitutionalandTheoreticalEconomics
(JITE)/ZeitschriftfürdiegesamteStaatswissenschaft,153(3),510-531.
heiseonline.(2016,January27).Abgas-Skandal:VWbeginntmitRückruf–zunächstfürdas
ModellAmarok.Retrievedfromhttp://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Abgas-SkandalVW-beginnt-mit-Rueckruf-zunaechst-fuer-das-Modell-Amarok-3085837.html
Hennig-Thurau,T.,Gwinner,K.P.,Walsh,G.&Gremler,D.D.(2004).ELECTRONICWORD-OFMOUTHVIACONSUMER-OPINIONPLATFORMS:WHATMOTIVATESCONSUMERSTO
ARTICULATETHEMSELVESONTHEINTERNET?JournalofInteractiveMarketing,18(1),3852.
Herr,P.M.,Kardes,F.R.,&Kim,J.(1991).Effectsofword-of-mouthandproduct-attribute
informationonpersuasion:Anaccessibility-diagnosticityperspective.Journalofconsumer
research,17(4),454-462.
In’nami,Y.&Koizumi,R.(2013).StructuralEquationModelinginEducationalResearch:APrimer.
InM.S.Khine(Ed.),Applicationofstructuralequationmodelingineducationalresearchand
practice(pp.23-54).Rotterdam:SensePublishers.
iwd.(2013,August8).GrüneProduktesindgefragt.Retrieved10Juni2016from
https://www.iwd.de/artikel/gruene-produkte-sind-gefragt-120512/
Iyer,A.,&Oldmeadow,J.(2006).Picturethis:Emotionalandpoliticalresponsestophotographsof
theKennethBigleykidnapping.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,36(5),635-647.doi:
10.1002/ejsp.316
Jin,Y.(2009).Theeffectsofpublic’scognitiveappraisalofemotionsincrisesoncrisiscopingand
strategyassessment.PublicRelationsReview,35,310–313.doi:
10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.02.003
Jin,Y.(2010).Makingsensesensiblyincrisiscommunication:Howpublics’crisisappraisals
influencetheirnegativeemotions,copingstrategypreferences,andcrisisresponse
acceptance.CommunicationResearch,37(4),522-552.doi:10.1177/0093650210368256
Jin,Y.(2014).Examiningpublics'crisisresponsesaccordingtodifferentshadesofangerand
sympathy.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,26(1),79-101.doi:
10.1080/1062726X.2013.848143
Jin,Y.,&Cameron,G.T.(2007).Theeffectsofthreattypeanddurationonpublicrelations
practitioner’scognitive,affective,andconativeresponsesincrisissituations.Journalof
PublicRelationsResearch,19,255–281.
Jin,Y.,Pang,A.,&Cameron,G.T.(2007).Integratedcrisismapping:Towardsapublics-based,
emotion-drivenconceptualizationincrisiscommunication.SpheraPublica,7(1),81-96.
69
Jin,Y.,Pang,A.&Cameron,G.T.(2012).TowardaPublics-Driven,Emotion-Based
ConceptualizationinCrisisCommunication:UnearthingDominantEmotionsinMulti-Staged
TestingoftheIntegratedCrisisMapping(ICM)Model.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,
24,266–298.doi:10.1080/1062726X.2012.676747
JohnsonAvery,E.,WeaverLariscy,R.W.,Kim,S.&Hocke,T.(2010).Aquantitativereviewofcrisis
communicationresearchinpublicrelationsfrom1991to2009.PublicRelationsReview,36,
190–192.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.01.001
Jorgensen,B.K.(1996).ComponentsofConsumerReactiontoCompany-RelatedMishaps:A
StructuralEquationModelApproach.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,23(1),346-351.
Keh,H.T.,&Xie,Y.(2009).Corporatereputationandcustomerbehavioralintentions:Therolesof
trust,identificationandcommitment.IndustrialMarketingManagement,38(7),732-742.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005
Kiambi,D.M.&Shafer,A.(2015).CorporateCrisisCommunication:ExaminingtheInterplayof
ReputationandCrisisResponseStrategies,MassCommunicationandSociety,1-22.doi:
10.1080/15205436.2015.1066013
Kim,H.J.,&Cameron,G.T.(2011).Emotionsmatterincrisis:Theroleofangerandsadnessinthe
publics'responsetocrisisnewsframingandcorporatecrisisresponse.Communication
Research,38(6)826–855.doi:10.1177/0093650210385813
Kim,H.R.,Lee,M.,Lee,H.T.,&Kim,N.M.(2010).Corporatesocialresponsibilityandemployee–
companyidentification.JournalofBusinessEthics,95(4),557-569.doi:0.1007A10551-0100440-2
Kline,R.B.(1998).Principlesandpracticeofstructuralequationmodeling.NewYork,NY:Guilford
publications.
Kollewe,J.(2015,December10).Volkswagenemissionsscandal–timeline.TheGuardian.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/10/volkswagenemissions-scandal-timeline-events
Laczniak,R.,DeCarlo,T.,&Ramaswami,S.(2001).Consumers'responsestonegativeword-ofmouthcommunication:Anattributionstheoryperspective.JournalofConsumerPsychology,
11(1),57-73.
Laufer,D.(2015).Emergingissuesincrisismanagement.BusinessHorizons,2(58),137-139.doi:
0.1007A10551-010-0440-2
Laufer,D.&Jung,J.M.(2010).Incorporatingregulatoryfocustheoryinproductrecall
communicationstoincreasecompliancewithaproductrecall.PublicRelationsReview,36,
147–151.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.03.004
Laufer,D.,&Coombs,W.T.(2006).Howshouldacompanyrespondtoaproductharmcrisis?The
roleofcorporatereputationandconsumer-basedcues.BusinessHorizons,49(5),379-385.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2006.01.002
Lee,B.K.(2004).Audience-OrientedApproachtoCrisisCommunication:AStudyofHongKong
Consumers’EvaluationofanOrganizationalCrisis.CommunicationResearch,31(5),600618.doi:10.1177/0093650204267936
Lee,W.N.,Yun,T.,&Lee,B.K.(2005).Theroleofinvolvementincountry-of-origineffectson
productevaluation:Situationalandenduringinvolvement.JournalofInternational
ConsumerMarketing,17(2-3),51-72.doi:10.1300/J046v17n02_04
70
Lerner,J.S.,&Tiedens,L.Z.(2006).Portraitoftheangrydecisionmaker:Howappraisal
tendenciesshapeanger'sinfluenceoncognition.JournalofBehavioralDecisionMaking,
19(2),115-137.doi:10.1002/bdm.515
Lichtenstein,D.R.,Drumwright,M.E.,&Braig,B.M.(2004).Theeffectofcorporatesocial
responsibilityoncustomerdonationstocorporate-supportednonprofits.Journalof
marketing,68(4),16-32.
Lin,C.P.,Chen,S.C.,Chiu,C.K.,&Lee,W.Y.(2011).Understandingpurchaseintentionduring
product-harmcrises:Moderatingeffectsofperceivedcorporateabilityandcorporatesocial
responsibility.JournalofBusinessEthics,102(3),455-471.doi:10.1007/sl0551-011-0824-
Little,T.D.,Card,N.A.,Bovaird,J.A.,Preacher,K.J.&Crandall,C.S.(2007).Structuralequation
modelingofmediationandmoderationwithcontextualfactors.InT.D.Little,J.A.Bovaird,&
N.A.Card(Eds.),Modelingcontextualeffectsinlongitudinalstudies(pp.207-230).Mahwah,
NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Liu,B.F.,Austin,L.,&Jin,Y.(2011).Howpublicsrespondtocrisiscommunicationstrategies:The
interplayofinformationformandsource.PublicRelationsReview,37(4),345-353.doi:
10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.004
Löhr,J.(2015,October20).Two-thirdsofGermansstilltrustVolkswagenafteremissionsscandal.
TheGuardian.Retrievedfromhttp://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/20/twothirds-of-germans-still-trust-volkswagen-after-emissions-scandal
Love,E.G.,&Kraatz,M.(2009).Character,conformity,orthebottomline?Howandwhy
downsizingaffectedcorporatereputation.AcademyofManagementJournal,52,314-335.
Lyon,L.,&Cameron,G.T.(2004).Arelationalapproachexaminingtheinterplayofprior
reputationandimmediateresponsetoacrisis.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,16(3),
213-241.doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1603_1
Mael,F.,&Ashforth,B.E.(1992).Alumniandtheiralmamater:apartialtestofthereformulated
modeloforganizationalidentification.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,13(2),103−123.
Marin,L.,&Ruiz,S.(2007).“Ineedyoutoo!”Corporateidentityattractivenessforconsumersand
theroleofsocialresponsibility.JournalofBusinessEthics,71(3),245-260.doi:
10.1007/s10551-006-9137-y
McDonald,L.,&Härtel,C.E.(2000).Applyingtheinvolvementconstructtoorganisationalcrises.
ProceedingsoftheAustralianandNewZealandMarketingAcademyConference,GoldCoast,
Australia.
McDonald,L.,Glendon,A.I.,&Sparks,B.(2011).MeasuringConsumers’EmotionalReactionsto
CompanyCrises:ScaleDevelopmentandImplications.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,39,
333-340.
McDonald,L.M.,Sparks,B.&Glendon,A.I.(2010).Stakeholderreactionstocompanycrisis
communicationandcauses.PublicRelationsReview,36,263–271.doi:
10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.04.004
McQuarrie,E.&Munson,J.(1992).Arevisedproductinvolvementinventory-improvedusability
andvalidity.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,19,108-115.
Mizerski,R.W.(1982).Anattributionexplanationofthedisproportionateinfluenceof
unfavorableinformation.JournalofConsumerResearch,9(3),301-310.
71
Möhring,W.&Schlütz,D.(2010).DieBefragunginderMedien-undKommunikations-wissenschaft:
EinepraxisorientierteEinführung(2ndedition).Wiesbaden:SpringerVS.
Murphy,S.(2015,Sept.29).VWscandal:HowitcomparestoToyota'srecallcrisis.YouGov.
Retrievedfromhttps://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/29/volkswagen-crisis-lessonshistory/
Nachtigall,C.,Kroehne,U.,Funke,F.,&Steyer,R.(2003).(Why)ShouldWeUseSEM?Prosand
ConsofStructuralEquationModeling.MethodsofPsychologicalResearchOnline,8(2),1-22.
Neate,R.(2016,March2).VWCEOwastoldaboutemissionscrisisayearbeforeadmittingto
cheatscandal.TheGuardian.Retrievedfrom
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/02/vw-ceo-martin-winterkorn-toldabout-emissions-scandalhttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/02/vw-ceomartin-winterkorn-told-about-emissions-scandal
Neuman,W.L.(2014).SurveyResearch.InW.L.Neuman(Ed.),SocialResearchMethods:
QualitativeandQuantitativeApproaches(7thedition)(pp.201-244).NewYork,NY:Pearson
EducationLimited.
Pawar,B.S.(2009).Theorybuildingforhypothesisspecificationinorganizationalstudies.New
Delhi:SagePublicationsIndia.
Pérez,R.C.(2009).Effectsofperceivedidentitybasedoncorporatesocialresponsibility:therole
ofconsumeridentificationwiththecompany.CorporateReputationReview,12(2),177-191.
Perloff,R.M.(2010).Thedynamicsofpersuasion:communicationandattitudesinthetwenty-first
century.NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Petty,R.E.&Cacioppo,J.T.(1981).AttitudesandPersuasion:ClassicandContemporaryApproaches.
Dubuque,Iowa:Wm.C.BrownCompanyPublishers.
Petty,R.E.&Cacioppo,J.T.(1986).CommunicationandPersuasion.CentralandPeripheralRoutes
toAttitudeChange.NewYork,NY:SpringerVerlag.
Podolny,J.M.,&Phillips,D.J.(1996).Thedynamicsoforganizationalstatus.Industrialand
CorporateChange,5(2),453-471.
Punch,K.F.(2014).Introductiontosocialresearch:Quantitativeandqualitativeapproaches(3rd
edition).London:Sage.
Raykov,T.,&Marcoulides,G.A.(2000).Afirstcourseinstructuralequationmodeling.NewYork,
NY:Routledge.
Reichart,J.(2003).Atheoreticalexplorationofexpectationalgapsinthecorporateissue
construct.CorporateReputationReview,6(1),58-69.doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540190
Reidel,M.(2015,August4).VWundBMWhabenbeidenDeutschendasbesteAnsehen.Horizont.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.horizont.net/marketing/nachrichten/Reputation-VW-undBMW-haben-bei-den-Deutschen-das-beste-Ansehen-135685
ReputationInstitute.(2013).TheGlobalRepTrak®100:TheWorld’sMostReputableCompanies
(2013).RIReportonConsumerPerceptionsofCompaniesin15Countries[Report].
Retrievedfromhttp://www.reputationinstitute.com/Resources/Registered/PDFResources/The-2013-Global-RepTrak®-100-Results-and-Report.aspx
72
ReputationInstitute.(2014).TheGlobalRepTrak®100:TheWorld’sMostReputableCompanies
(2014).RIReportonConsumerPerceptionsofCompaniesin15Countries[Report].
Retrievedfromhttp://www.reputationinstitute.com/Resources/Registered/PDFResources/2014-Global-RepTrak-100.aspx
ReputationInstitute.(2015).TheGlobalRepTrak®100:TheWorld’sMostReputableCompanies
(2015).RIReportonConsumerPerceptionsofCompaniesin15Countries[Report].
Retrievedfromhttps://www.reputationinstitute.com/Resources/Registered/PDFResources/Global-RepTrak-100-2015.aspx
Rhee,M.,&Haunschild,P.R.(2006).Theliabilityofgoodreputation:Astudyofproductrecallsin
theUSautomobileindustry.OrganizationScience,17(1),101-117.doi:10.1287/orsc.
1050.0175
Richins,M.L.(1984).WORDOFMOUTHCOMMUNICATIONANEGATIVEINFORMATION.
Advancesinconsumerresearch,11(1),697-702.
Rousseau,D.M.(2006).Istheresuchathingas“evidence-basedmanagement”?.Academyof
managementreview,31(2),256-269.
Scholl,A.(2009).DieBefragung(2ndedition).Konstanz:UVK-Verl.-Ges.
Schultz,F.,Utz,S.&Göritz,A.(2011).Isthemediumthemessage?Perceptionsofandreactionsto
crisiscommunicationviatwitter,blogsandtraditionalmedia.PublicRelationsReview,37,
20-27.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001
Schumacker,R.E.,&Lomax,R.G.(2004).Abeginner'sguidetostructuralequationmodeling.
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Sen,S.&Bhattacharya,C.B.(2001).DoesDoingGoodAlwaysLeadtoDoingBetter?Consumer
ReactionstoCorporateSocialResponsibility.JournalofMarketingResearch38(2),225-243.
Silverman,G.(2001).Thepowerofwordofmouth.DirectMarketing,64(5),47-52.
Sohn,Y.J.,&Lariscy,R.W.(2015).A“Buffer”or“Boomerang?"—TheRoleofCorporateReputation
inBadTimes.CommunicationResearch,42(2),237-259.doi:10.1177/0093650212466891
Stakeholder.(n.d.).InBusinessDictionary.Retrievedfrom
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/stakeholder.html
Statista.(2016).AnteilderInternetnutzerinDeutschlandindenJahren2001bis2015.Retrieved
fromhttp://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/13070/umfrage/entwicklung-derinternetnutzung-in-deutschland-seit-2001/
Stockmyer,J.(1996).Brandsincrisis:Consumerhelpfordeservingvictims.AdvancesinConsumer
Research,23(23),429-435.
Tajfel,H.(1974).Socialidentityandintergroupbehaviour.SocialScienceInformation,13(2),6593.
Tajfel,H.,&Turner,J.C.(1985).Thesocialidentitytheoryofintergroupbehavior.InS.Worchel&
W.G.Austin(Eds.),Psychologyofintergrouprelations(2nded.,pp.7-24).Chicago:Burnham
IncPub.
Terry,D.,Hogg,M.andWhite,K.(2000)‘Attitude-behaviourrelations:Socialidentityandgroup
membership’,inD.TerryandM.Hogg(eds.),Attitudes,BehaviourandSocialContext:The
RoleOfNormsandGroupMembership,LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Mahwah,NJ,USA,pp.
67–95.
73
TheGroup.(2014).RetrievedfromVolkswagenAG
http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/content/en/the_group.html
Theo,T.,TingTsai,L.&Yang,C-C.(2013).ApplyingStructuralEquationModeling(SEM)in
EducationalResearch:AnIntroduction.InM.S.Khine(Ed.),Applicationofstructural
equationmodelingineducationalresearchandpractice(pp.3-22).Rotterdam:Sense
Publishers.
Tucker,L.,&Melewar,T.C.(2005).Corporatereputationandcrisismanagement:Thethreatand
manageabilityofanti-corporatism.CorporateReputationReview,7(4),377-387.
Turk,J.V.,Jin,Y.,Stewart,S.,Kim,J.,&Hipple,J.R.(2012).Examiningtheinterplayofan
organization'spriorreputation,CEO'svisibility,andimmediateresponsetoacrisis.Public
RelationsReview,38(4),574-583.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.06.012
Ulmer,R.R.(2001).Effectivecrisismanagementthroughestablishedstakeholderrelationships
MaldenMillsasacasestudy.ManagementCommunicationQuarterly,14(4),590-615.
Underwood,R.,Bond,E.,&Baer,R.(2001).Buildingservicebrandsviasocialidentity:Lessons
fromthesportsmarketplace.JournalofMarketingTheoryandPractice,9(1),1-13.
Utz,S.,Schultz,F.,&Glocka,S.(2013).Crisiscommunicationonline:Howmedium,crisistypeand
emotionsaffectedpublicreactionsintheFukushimaDaiichinucleardisaster.Public
RelationsReview,39(1),40-46.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.010
vanRiel,C.B.M.&Fombrun,C.J.(2007).EssentialsofCorporateCommunication.NewYork,NY:
Routledge.
Vizard,S.(2015).WhyVolkswagencannotsurvivetheemissionsscandalunscathed.Marketing
Week.Retrievedfromhttps://www.marketingweek.com/2015/09/24/why-volkswagencannot-survive-the-emissions-scandal-unscathed/
VWglobalsalesfell2%inyearemissionsscandalhit.(2016,January8).TheGuardian.Retrieved
fromhttp://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/08/vw-global-sales-fell-yearemissions-scandal-2015
Walker,K.(2010).Asystematicreviewofthecorporatereputationliterature:Definition,
measurement,andtheory.CorporateReputationReview,12(4),357-387.
Walliman,N.(2006).SocialResearchMethods.London:Sage.
Weiber,R.&Mühlhaus,D.(2014).Strukturgleichungsmodellierung.Berlin,Heidelberg:Springer
Gabler.
Weiner,B,(1985).AnAttributionalTheoryofAchievementMotivationandEmotion.Psychological
Review,92(4),548-573.
Weiner,B.(1986).AnAttributionalTheoryofMotivationandEmotion.NewYork,NY:Springer.
Weiner,B.(2006)SocialMotivation,Justice,andtheMoralEmotions:AnAttributionalApproach.
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Weingartner,M.(2015,November11).AuffälligeAbgaswertebeimehrerenHerstellern.
FrankfurterAllgemeineZeitung.Retrievedfromhttp://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/vwabgasskandal/kraftfahrtbundesamt-stellt-auffaellige-abgaswerte-bei-mehreren-herstellernfest-13907055.html
74
Weiss,H.M.,&Cropanzano,R.(1996).Affectiveeventstheory:Atheoreticaldiscussionofthe
structure,causesandconsequencesofaffectiveexperiencesatwork.Researchin
OrganizationalBehaviour,18,1-74.
West,S.G.,&Finch,J.F.&Curran.P.J.(1995).Structuralequationmodelswithnonnormal
variables:problemsandremedies.Structuralequationmodeling:Concepts,issues,and
applications,56-75.
Wetzer,I.M.,Zeelenberg,M.,&Pieters,R.(2007).“Nevereatinthatrestaurant,Idid!”:Exploring
whypeopleengageinnegativeword-of-mouthcommunication.Psychology&Marketing,
24(8),661-680.doi:10.1002/mar.20178
Wigley,S.&Pfau,M.(2010).CommunicatingBeforeaCrisis:AnExplorationofBolstering,CSR,
andInoculationPractices.InW.T.Coombs&S.J.Holladay(Eds.),Thehandbookofcrisis
communication(pp.607-634).Malden,MA:Blackwell.
Winton,N.(2015,October19).VolkswagenSalesStartToFeelTheImpactOfDieselScandal.
Forbes.Retrievedfrom
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2015/10/19/volkswagen-sales-start-to-feel-theimpact-of-diesel-scandal/#4856a9575e91
Woodyard,C.(2015,November20).Chronology:HowVW'semissionsscandalhasmushroomed.
USAToday.Retrievedfrom
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/20/vw-volkswagen-chronologyemissions/76122812/
Xiao,N.,&Hwan(Mark)Lee,S.(2014).Brandidentityfitinco-branding:Themoderatingroleof
CBidentificationandconsumercoping.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,48(7/8),1239-1254.
doi:10.1108/EJM-02-2012-0075
Yun,T.W.,Lee,W.-N.,&Sego,T.(2002).DirectandIndirectUseofCountryofOriginCuesfor
HybridandNon-hybridProducts.AdvancesinInternationalMarketing,12,195-214.
Zaichkowsky,J.L.(1985).MeasuringtheInvolvementConstruct.JournalofConsumerResearch,12,
341-352.
Zhao,X.,Lynch,J.G.,&Chen,Q.(2010).ReconsideringBaronandKenny:Mythsandtruthsabout
mediationanalysis.Journalofconsumerresearch,37(2),197-206.doi:10.1086/651257
Zhou,S.&Sloan,WM.D.(2011).ResearchMethodsinCommunication(2nd.edition).Northport:
VisionVPress.
Zhukov,D.V.,Bhuiyan,M.A.,&Ullah,A.(2015).Utilizationofthecountryoforigineffectin
product-harmcrisismanagement:anoverviewofliteratureandaconceptualmodel
proposition.InternationalJournalofManagementScienceandBusinessAdministration,1(2),
54-70.
75
Appendices
AppendixA-Questionnaires
AppendixA1-QuestionnaireGerman
SehrgeehrteTeilnehmerin,sehrgeehrterTeilnehmer,
vielenDank,dassSiesichdazubereiterklärthaben,anmeinerUmfrageüberdenVolkswagen
Konzern(imFolgenden:VWKonzern)teilzunehmen.DerVWKonzernumfasstunteranderem
dieAutomarkenVW,Audi,Seat,Skoda,LamborghiniundPorsche.
DieUmfrageistTeilmeinerMasterarbeitanderErasmusUniversitätRotterdam.Demnachhatdie
UmfragekeinerleikommerziellesInteresseunddieErgebnissedienenausschließlich
wissenschaftlichenZwecken.DerFragebogendauertnuretwa10Minuten.BeidenFragengibt
eskeinerichtigenoderfalschenAntworten–esgehtalleinumIhrepersönlicheMeinungund
Einstellungengegenüber,sowieErfahrungenmitdemVWKonzern.AlleDatenwerdennatürlich
strengvertraulichbehandeltundanonymisiertausgewertet.SiewürdenmirmitIhrer
Teilnahmesehrhelfen.
SolltenSieFragenhabenoderandenErgebnissenderStudieinteressiertsein,könnenSiemich
[email protected].
VielenDankimVorausfürIhreTeilnahme.
LouisaWanjek
ErasmusUniversitätRotterdam
[email protected]
___
1. ZuallererstwürdeichgernevonIhnenwissen,obSiejemalsvomVWKonzerngehört
haben?
□ja □nein
2. MenschenkönnenganzunterschiedlicheMeinungengegenüberdemVWKonzern
haben.WieistesbeiIhnen,wiesehrstimmenSiedenfolgendenAussagenzu?
BitteordnenSiesichfürjedeAussageaufderSkalazwischen1bis7ein,wobei1„stimme
überhauptnichtzu“und7„stimmevollundganzzu“bedeuten.MitdenZifferndazwischen
könnenSieIhreMeinungabstufen.
IchidentifizieremichstarkmitdemVWKonzern,wennichmit
1□□□□□□□□□□7
anderendarüberspreche.
IchbevorzugeAutosvomVWKonzern,wennichsiemitdenenvon 1□□□□□□□□□□7
anderenAutomobilherstellernvergleiche. IchstehedemUnternehmensimagevomVWKonzernpositiv
1□□□□□□□□□□7
gegenüber.
76
WennjemanddenVWKonzernkritisiert,fühltessichfürmichwie 1□□□□□□□□□□7
einepersönlicheBeleidigungan.
Ichbinsehrdaraninteressiert,wasandereüberdenVWKonzern 1□□□□□□□□□□7
denken.
ErfolgedesVWKonzernsfühlensichanwiemeineeigenen
1□□□□□□□□□□7
Erfolge.
WennjemanddenVWKonzernlobt,empfindeichesals
1□□□□□□□□□□7
persönlichesKompliment.
WennderVWKonzernindenMedienkritisiertwird,istesmir
1□□□□□□□□□□7
peinlich.
WieSievielleichtmitbekommenhaben,hatderVWKonzernzugegeben,absichtlichMotorenvon
Diesel-Fahrzeugenmanipuliertzuhaben,umdieerlaubtenHöchstwertefürEmissionenin
Prüfungssituationeneinzuhalten.SeitSeptember2015sindweltweitetwa11MillionenAutosder
MarkenVW,Audi,Seat,SkodaundPorschebetroffen.DieserVorfallwirdoftalsder„VWAbgasskandal“bezeichnet.
DiefolgendenFragenbeziehensichaufIhreMeinungüberdenVWKonzernnachdemdie
InformationenüberdenAbgasskandalöffentlichwurden.
3. HabenSiejemalsvomVW-Abgasskandalgehört?
□ja □nein
4. BesitzenSiederzeiteinAutoderMarkenVW,Audi,Seat,SkodaoderPorsche?(Filter)
□ja □nein
5. IstIhrAuto/mindestenseinsIhrerAutosvomAbgasskandalbetroffen?Mitbetroffen
istgemeint,dasseszudenAutomodellenderMarkenVW,Audi,Seat,Skodaoder
Porschegehört,dievomVWKonzernindieWerkstattzurückgerufenwurden.
□ja □nein □Weißnicht 6. DiefolgendenAussagenbetreffenIhrenEindruckvomVWKonzernunddem
Abgasskandal.WiesehrstimmenSiediesenAussagenzu?
BitteordnenSiesichfürjedeAussageaufderSkalazwischen1bis7ein,wobei1„stimme
überhauptnichtzu“und7„stimmevollundganzzu“bedeuten.MitdenZifferndazwischen
könnenSieIhreMeinungabstufen.
BezüglichdesAbgasskandalsistderVWKonzernbesorgtumdas
1□□□□□□□□□□7
WohlseinerAnspruchsgruppen(z.B.Kunden,Mitarbeiter,
Investoren).
DerVWKonzernistinBezugaufdenAbgasskandalimGrunde
1□□□□□□□□□□7
unehrlich.
77
IchtrauedemVWKonzernnichtzu,dieWahrheitüberden
1□□□□□□□□□□7
Abgasskandalzuerzählen.
IchwürdeunterdenmeistenUmständenwahrscheinlichglauben, 1□□□□□□□□□□7
wasderVWKonzernüberdenAbgasskandalsagt.
BezüglichdesAbgasskandalsistderVWKonzernnichtbesorgtum 1□□□□□□□□□□7
dasWohlseinerAnspruchsgruppen(z.B.Kunden,Mitarbeiter,
Investoren). 7. InwiefernstimmenSiedenfolgendenAussagenzu?BittedenkenSieauchhieranden
VWKonzernimZusammenhangmitdemAbgasskandal.
BitteordnenSiesichfürjedeAussageaufderSkalazwischen1bis7ein,wobei1„stimme
überhauptnichtzu“und7„stimmevollundganzzu“bedeuten.MitdenZifferndazwischen
könnenSieIhreMeinungabstufen.
IchwürdeFreundeoderVerwandteermutigen,aufgrunddes
1□□□□□□□□□□7
AbgasskandalskeineAutosvomVWKonzernzukaufen.
WegendesAbgasskandalswürdeichzuanderenLeutennegative
1□□□□□□□□□□7
DingeüberdenVWKonzernunddessenAutossagen.
Ichwürdejemandem,dernachmeinemRatfragt,auchnachdem
1□□□□□□□□□□7
AbgasskandalAutosvomVWKonzernempfehlen.
8. WennSieandenAbgasskandaldenken,wasempfindenSiegegenüberdemVW
Konzern?
BitteordnenSieIhrEmpfindengegenüberdemVWKonzernmitdenfolgendenAdjektivenauf
derSkalazwischen1und7ein.Dabeibedeutet1„überhauptnicht“und7„sehr“.MitdenZiffern
dazwischenkönnenSieIhrEmpfindenabstufen.
WennichandenVWKonzernunddenAbgasskandaldenke,binich...
wütend
überhauptnicht
1□□□□□□□□□□7 sehr
verärgert
überhauptnicht
1□□□□□□□□□□7 sehr
angewidert überhauptnicht
1□□□□□□□□□□7 sehr
empört
überhauptnicht
1□□□□□□□□□□7 sehr
WennichandenVWKonzernunddenAbgasskandaldenke,empfindeich...
Verständnis überhauptnicht
1□□□□□□□□□□7 sehr
Mitleid
überhauptnicht
1□□□□□□□□□□7 sehr
Mitgefühl
überhauptnicht
1□□□□□□□□□□7 sehr
Sympathie
überhauptnicht
1□□□□□□□□□□7 sehr
9. WasdenkenSieüberdenAbgasskandalselbst?
BittebewertenSieIhreEinstellunggegenüberdemAbgasskandalmitdenfolgendenAussagen.
78
DerAbgasskandal(ist)…
unwichtig
□□□□□□□□□□
wichtig
nichtbesorgniserregend
□□□□□□□□□□
besorgniserregend
bedeutetmirnichts □□□□□□□□□□
bedeutetmirviel
spieltkeineRollefürmich
□□□□□□□□□□
spielteineRollefürmich
irrelevant
□□□□□□□□□□
relevant
10. WiesehrstimmenSiedenfolgendenAussagenzu?
BitteordnenSiesichfürjedeAussageaufderSkalazwischen1bis7ein,wobei1„stimme
überhauptnichtzu“und7„stimmevollundganzzu“bedeuten.MitdenZifferndazwischen
könnenSieIhreMeinungabstufen.
DerAuslöserfürdenAbgasskandalwareinevorsätzliche
1□□□□□□□□□□7
HandlungvonjemandemimKonzern.
JemandimKonzernhatdieUrsachefürdenAbgasskandal
1□□□□□□□□□□7
wissentlichherbeigeführt.
DerKonzernhattedieFähigkeit,dasAuftretendesAbgasskandals 1□□□□□□□□□□7
zustoppen.
DerAbgasskandalwarvomKonzernvermeidbar.
1□□□□□□□□□□7
DerKonzernhättedenAbgasskandalvermeidenkönnen.
1□□□□□□□□□□7
DerKonzernsolltefürdenAbgasskandalzurVerantwortung
1□□□□□□□□□□7
gezogenwerden.
DerAbgasskandalwurdedurcheineSchwächeinderOrganisation 1□□□□□□□□□□7
verursacht.
InterneorganisatorischeProblemehabenzumAbgasskandal
1□□□□□□□□□□7
beigetragen.
11. ZumAbschlussmöchteichSiebittennocheinpaarAngabenzuIhrerPersonzumachen.
11.1.
BittegebenSieihrGeschlechtan:
□weiblich
□männlich
11.2.
WiealtsindSie?BittegebenSieIhrAlterinJahrenan:
___Jahre
11.3.
WasistIhrhöchsterBildungsabschluss?
□(noch)keinAbschluss
□Hauptschulabschluss(Volksschulabschluss)
□Realschulabschluss(MittlereReife)
□Abitur/(Fach-)Hochschulreife
□(Fach-)Hochschulabschluss
□Andere,undzwar:______________________
79
11.4.
WasistIhreNationalität?
□Deutsch
□Andere,undzwar:______________________
DamitsindSienunamEndederBefragungangekommen.
FallsSienochAnmerkungenoderKritikhaben,könnenSiegernenochfolgendesFeldausfüllen.
Ende
VielenDanknocheinmalfürIhreTeilnahmeundIhrerUnterstützungbeimeinerAbschlussarbeit!
Ichwürdemichfreuen,wennSiedenuntenstehendenLinkzumeinerUmfragenochanIhre
Familie,Freunde,BekannteoderKollegenweiterleitenwürden.JemehrPersonenanmeiner
Umfrageteilnehmen,destoaussagekräftigersinddieErgebnissemeinerStudie.
https://erasmushcc.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_a9MJdOahXuuae4B
SolltenSieFragenzumeinerStudiehabenoderandenErgebnisseninteressiertsein,könnenSie
michgerneunter437075lw@student.eur.nlkontaktieren.EineZuordnungIhrerE-Mail-Adresse
mitdenAngabenimFragebogenistnichtmöglich.
BesteGrüße
LouisaWanjek
80
AppendixA2-QuestionnaireEnglish
Dearparticipant,
thankyouverymuchfortakingpartinthissurveyabouttheVolkswagenGroup(following:VW
Group). The VW Group comprises among others the brands VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Lamborghini
andPorsche.
ThesurveyispartofmyMastersThesisattheSchoolofHistory,CultureandCommunicationof
the Erasmus University Rotterdam. Thus, this survey does not have any commercial interest
and the results are only used for scientific purposes. The questionnaire will take about 10
minutes. There are no right and wrong answers - I am simply interested in your attitudes and
opinionstowardstheVWGroup.Allofyouranswerswillbecompletelyanonymousandtreated
confidentially.Yourparticipationwouldhelpmeverymuch.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorifyouareinterestedintheresultsofmystudy,pleasedonothesitate
tocontactme([email protected]).
Thankyouinadvanceforyourparticipation.
LouisaWanjek
ErasmusUniversityRotterdam
[email protected]
---
1. Firstofall,IwouldliketoknowifyouhaveeverheardoftheVWGroup?
□yes
□no
2. PersonscanhaveverydifferentopinionsabouttheVWGroup.Howaboutyou,how
muchdoyouagreewiththefollowingstatements?
Pleaseratehowmuchyouagreewiththestatementsonascalefrom1to7,whereas1means
thatyou“stronglydisagree”and7meansthatyou“stronglyagree”.Withthenumbersin
between,youcangraduateyouropinion.
I have strong identification with the VW Group when talking to 1□□□□□□□□□□7
othersaboutit.
IprefercarsoftheVWGroupwhencomparingitwiththatofother 1□□□□□□□□□□7
automobilemanufacturers.
IampositiveaboutthecompanyimageoftheVWGroup.
1□□□□□□□□□□7
WhensomeonecriticizestheVWGroup,itfeelslikeapersonal
1□□□□□□□□□□7
insult.
IamveryinterestedinwhatothersthinkaboutVWGroup.
1□□□□□□□□□□7
ThesuccessesoftheVWGrouparemysuccesses. 1□□□□□□□□□□7
WhensomeonepraisestheVWGroup,itfeelslikeapersonal
1□□□□□□□□□□7
compliment.
81
IfastoryinthemediacriticizestheVWGroup,Ifeelembarrassed. 1□□□□□□□□□□7
Asyoumayhaveheard,theVWGrouphasadmittedtohaveintentionallymanipulatedenginesof
dieselcarstoincreasetheirperformanceonemission,whenbeingtested.SinceSeptember2015,
about11millioncarsofthebrandsVW,Audi,Seat,SkodaandPorschehavebeenaffected.This
incidentisoftenreferredtoasthe“emissionsscandal”.
ThefollowingquestionswillaskyouropinionabouttheVWGroupaftertheinformationabout
this“emissionsscandal”hasbeenrevealed.
3. HaveyoueverheardoftheVWemissionsscandal?
□yes□no
4. DoyoucurrentlyownacarofthebrandsVW,Audi,Seat,SkodaorPorsche?
□yes□no 5. Hasyourcar/atleastoneofyourcarsbeenaffectedbythe“emissionsscandal”?
WithaffecteditismeantthatyourcarbelongstothoseofthebrandsVW,Audi,Seat,
SkodaorPorschethathavebeenrecalledbyVW.
□yes□no □don’tknow 6. TheitemsbelowconcernyourimpressionoftheVWGroupandthe“emissions
scandal”.Howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreewiththesestatements?
Pleaseratehowmuchyouagreewiththestatementsonascalefrom1to7,whereas1means
thatyou“stronglydisagree”and7meansthatyou“stronglyagree”.Withthenumbersin
between,youcangraduateyouropinion.
Regardingtheemissionsscandal,theVWGroupisconcernedwith 1□□□□□□□□□□7
thewell-beingofitspublics(e.g.customers,employees,investors).
TheVWGroupisbasicallydishonestconcerningtheemissions
1□□□□□□□□□□7
scandal.
I do not trust the VW Group to tell the truth about the emissions 1□□□□□□□□□□7
scandal.
Undermostcircumstances,Iwouldbelikelytobelievewhatthe
1□□□□□□□□□□7
VWGroupsaysabouttheemissionsscandal.
Regardingtheemissionsscandal,theVWGroupisnotconcerned
1□□□□□□□□□□7
withthewell-beingofitspublics(e.g.customers,employees,
investors).
82
7. Towhatdegreedoyouagreewiththefollowingitems?PleasethinkagainoftheVW
Groupinthecontextoftheemissionsscandal.
Pleaserateyouragreementwiththestatementsonascalefrom1to7,whereas1meansthat
you“stronglydisagree”and7meansthatyou“stronglyagree”.Withthenumbersinbetween,
youcangraduateyouropinion.
IwouldencouragefriendsorrelativesnottobuycarsfromtheVW 1□□□□□□□□□□7
Groupbecauseoftheemissionsscandal.
Becauseoftheemissionsscandal,Iwouldsaynegativethings
1□□□□□□□□□□7
abouttheVWGroupanditscarstootherpeople.
Even after the emissions scandal, I would recommend cars of the 1□□□□□□□□□□7
VWGrouptosomeonewhoaskedmyadvice.
8. HowdoyoufeelabouttheVWGroupduetothe“emissionsscandal”?
Foreachadjectivebelow,pleaserateyourfeelingstowardstheVWGrouponascalefrom1
to7,whereas1means“notatall”and7means“verymuch”.Withthenumbersinbetween,
youcangraduateyourfeelings.
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
angry notatall
1□□□□□□□□□□7 verymuch
annoyed
notatall
1□□□□□□□□□□7 verymuch
disgusted
notatall
1□□□□□□□□□□7 verymuch
outraged
notatall
1□□□□□□□□□□7 verymuch
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
sympathetic notatall
1□□□□□□□□□□7 verymuch
sorry notatall
1□□□□□□□□□□7 verymuch
compassion notatall
1□□□□□□□□□□7 verymuch
empathy
notatall
1□□□□□□□□□□7 verymuch
9. Whatdoyouthinkoftheemissionsscandalitself?
Pleaserateyourattitudetowardstheemissionsscandalwiththefollowingitems.
Theemissionsscandalis...
unimportant □□□□□□□□□□
important
ofnoconcern □□□□□□□□□□
ofconcern
meansnothing
□□□□□□□□□□
meansalot
doesnotmatter
□□□□□□□□□□
matterstome
irrelevant
□□□□□□□□□□
relevant
10. Howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingitems?
Pleaseratehowmuchyouagreewiththestatementsonascalefrom1to7,whereas1means
thatyou“stronglydisagree”and7meansthatyou“stronglyagree”.Withthenumbersin
between,youcangraduateyouropinion.
83
Thecauseoftheemissionsscandalwasanintentionalactby
1□□□□□□□□□□7
someoneintheorganization.
Someoneintheorganizationknowinglycreatedthecauseofthe
1□□□□□□□□□□7
emissionsscandal.
Theorganizationhadthecapabilitytostoptheemissionsscandal 1□□□□□□□□□□7
fromoccurring.
Theemissionsscandalwaspreventablebytheorganization.
1□□□□□□□□□□7
Theorganizationcouldhaveavoidedtheemissionsscandal.
1□□□□□□□□□□7
The organization should be held accountable for the emissions 1□□□□□□□□□□7
scandal.
The emissions scandal was caused by a weakness in the 1□□□□□□□□□□7
organization.
Internal organizational issues contributed to the emissions 1□□□□□□□□□□7
scandal.
11. Finally,Iwouldliketoaskyoutoprovidesomegeneralinformationaboutyourself.
11.1. Pleaseindicateyourgender:
□Female
□Male
11.2. Howoldareyou?Please,indicateyourageinyears:
___years
1.1. Whatisyourhighestlevelofeducationachieved?
□IhavenotyetcompletedHighSchool
□HighSchoolDiploma(lowest)
□HighSchoolDiploma(middle)
□HighSchoolDiploma(highest)
□UniversityDegree
□Other:______________________
1.2. WhatisyourNationality?
□German
□Other:______________________
Feedback
Youhavereachedtheendofthesurvey.
Ifyouhaveanyfurthercommentsorsuggestionsonthequestionnaire,pleaseletmeknowby
fillinginthefollowingfield.
84
TheEnd
ThankyouagainforyourparticipationandsupportingmyMaster’sthesis!Iwouldbegladifyou
sentthefollowinglinkofthesurveytoyourfamily,friendsorcolleagues.Themorepeople
participateinmysurvey,themoreinformativewillbetheresultsofmystudy.
https://erasmushcc.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_a9MJdOahXuuae4B
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutmystudyorareinterestedintheresults,feelfreetocontactme
via437075lw@student.eur.nl.Anassociationofyoure-mailaddresstoyourstatementsinthe
questionnaireisnotpossible.
Kindregards,
LouisaWanjek
Contact:[email protected]
85
AppendixB–OverviewofItems
ItemName
Operationalization
Reputation1
Regardingtheemissionsscandal,theVWGroupisconcerned
withthewell-beingofitspublics(e.g.customers,employees,
investors).
Reputation2
TheVWGroupisbasicallydishonestconcerningtheemissions
scandal.
Reputation3
IdonottrusttheVWGrouptotellthetruthabouttheemissions
scandal.
Reputation4
Undermostcircumstances,Iwouldbelikelytobelievewhatthe
VWGroupsaysabouttheemissionsscandal.
Reputation5
Regardingtheemissionsscandal,theVWGroupisnot
concernedwiththewell-beingofitspublics(e.g.customers,
employees,investors).
NWOM1
Iwouldencouragefriendsorrelativesnottobuycarsfromthe
VWGroupbecauseoftheemissionsscandal. NWOM2
Becauseoftheemissionsscandal,Iwouldsaynegativethings
abouttheVWGroupanditscarstootherpeople.
NWOM3
Evenaftertheemissionsscandal,Iwouldrecommendcarsof
theVWGrouptosomeonewhoaskedmyadvice.
Anger1
Involvement1
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
angry.
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
annoyed.
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
disgusted.
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
outraged.
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
sympathetic.
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
sorry.
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
compassion.
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeel...
empathy.
Theemissionsscandalis...unimportant/important.
Involvement2
Theemissionsscandalis...ofnoconcern/ofconcern.
Involvement3
Theemissionsscandalis...meansnothing/meansalot.
Involvement4
Theemissionsscandalis...doesnotmatter/matterstome.
Involvement5
Theemissionsscandalis...irrelevant/relevant.
Anger2
Anger3
Anger4
Sympathy1
Sympathy2
Sympathy3
Sympathy4
86
Responsibility1
Thecauseoftheemissionsscandalwasanintentionalactby
someoneintheorganization.
Responsibility2
Someoneintheorganizationknowinglycreatedthecauseofthe
emissionsscandal.
Responsibility3
Theorganizationhadthecapabilitytostoptheemissions
scandalfromoccurring.
Responsibility4
Theemissionsscandalwaspreventablebytheorganization.
Responsibility5
Theorganizationcouldhaveavoidedtheemissionsscandal.
Responsibility6
Theorganizationshouldbeheldaccountablefortheemissions
scandal.
Responsibility7
Theemissionsscandalwascausedbyaweaknessinthe
organization.
Responsibility8
Internalorganizationalissuescontributedtotheemissions
scandal.
PCFit1
IhavestrongidentificationwiththeVWGroupwhentalkingto
othersaboutit.
PCFit2
IprefercarsoftheVWGroupwhencomparingitwiththatof
otherautomobilemanufacturers.
PCFit3
IampositiveaboutthecompanyimageoftheVWGroup.
PCFit4
WhensomeonecriticizestheVWGroup,itfeelslikeapersonal
insult.
PCFit5
IamveryinterestedinwhatothersthinkaboutVWGroup.
PCFit6
ThesuccessesoftheVWGrouparemysuccesses.
PCFit7
WhensomeonepraisestheVWGroup,itfeelslikeapersonal
compliment.
PCFit8
IfastoryinthemediacriticizestheVWGroup,Ifeel
embarrassed.
87
AppendixC–FurtherTables
TableB1:CorrelationMatrixPost-CrisisReputation
Reputation1
Reputation2
Reputation3
Reputation4
Reputation5
Reputation1
1
.29**
.31**
.40**
.70**
Reputation2
1
.58**
.43**
.39**
Reputation3
1
.55**
.49**
Reputation4
1
.34**
Reputation5
1
Note:*p≤.05,**p≤.01;Samplesize=1475;PearsonCorrelation
TableB2:CorrelationMatrixNWOM
NWOM1
NWOM2
NWOM3
NWOM1
1
.64**
-.57**
NWOM2
1
.44**
NWOM3
1
Note:*p≤.05,**p≤.01;Samplesize=1475;PearsonCorrelation
TableB3:CorrelationMatrixAnger
Anger1
Anger2
Anger3
Anger4
Anger1
1
.73**
.59**
.61**
Anger2
1
.48**
.66**
Anger3
1
.52**
Anger4
1
Sympathy3
1
.57**
Sympathy4
1
Note:*p≤.05,**p≤.01;Samplesize=1475;PearsonCorrelation
TableB4:CorrelationMatrixSympathy
Sympathy1
Sympathy2
Sympathy3
Sympathy4
Sympathy1
1
.32**
.46**
.54**
Sympathy2
1
.71**
.45**
Note:*p≤.05,**p≤.01;Samplesize=1475;PearsonCorrelation
88
TableB5:CorrelationMatrixInvolvement
Involvement
1
Involvement
2
Involvement
3
Involvement
4
Involvement
5
Involvement
1
1
Involvement
2
Involvement
3
Involvement
4
Involvement
5
.63**
1
.59**
.52**
1
.52**
.47**
.72**
1
.78**
.63**
.55**
.52**
1
Note:*p≤.05,**p≤.01;Samplesize=1475;PearsonCorrelation
TableB6:CorrelationMatrixCrisisResponsibility
Resp1
Resp2
Resp3
Resp4
Resp5
Resp6
Resp7
Resp8
Resp1
1
.50**
.20**
.26**
.27**
.21**
.17**
.20**
Resp2
1
.17**
.27**
.28**
.22**
.14**
.18**
Resp3
1
.35**
.36**
.21**
.16**
.15**
Resp4
1
.65**
.36**
.09**
.13**
Resp5
1
.33**
.11**
.13**
Resp6
1
.09**
.10**
Resp7
1
.60**
Resp8
1
PC_Fit6
1
.79**
.47**
PC_Fit7
1
.50**
PC_Fit8
1
Note:*p≤.05,**p≤.01;Samplesize=1475;PearsonCorrelation
TableB7:CorrelationMatrixPCFit
PC_Fit1
PC_Fit2
PC_Fit3
PC_Fit4
PC_Fit5
PC_Fit6
PC_Fit7
PC_Fit8
PC_Fit1
1
.59**
.48**
.67**
.58**
.73**
.70**
.46**
PC_Fit2
1
.57**
.44**
.40**
.45**
.43**
.30**
PC_Fit3
1
.38**
.34**
.40**
.39**
.24**
PC_Fit4
1
.52**
.71**
.71**
.54**
PC_Fit5
1
.56**
.52**
.46**
Note:*p≤.05,**p≤.01;Samplesize=1475;PearsonCorrelation
89
TableB8:ExploratoryFactorAnalysisPost-CrisisReputation
Items
FactorLoadings
Regardingtheemissionsscandal,theVWGroupisconcernedwiththewellbeingofitspublics(e.g.customers,employees,investors).(Reputation1)
.651
TheVWGroupisbasicallydishonestconcerningtheemissionsscandal.
(Reputation2)
.636
IdonottrusttheVWGrouptotellthetruthabouttheemissionsscandal.
(Reputation3)
.691
Undermostcircumstances,IwouldbelikelytobelievewhattheVWGroup
saysabouttheemissionsscandal.(Reputation4)
.640
Regardingtheemissionsscandal,theVWGroupisnotconcernedwiththe
well-beingofitspublics(e.g.customers,employees,investors).(Reputation5)
.694
Cronbach’sAlpha
.795
Eigenvalue
2.196
%ofVariance
43.93
Note:MaximumLikelihoodwithVarimaxrotationwasapplied;KMO=.706;factorloadingsbelow.4arenot
includedinthetable
TableB9:ExploratoryFactorNWOM
Items
FactorLoadings
IwouldencouragefriendsorrelativesnottobuycarsfromtheVWGroup
becauseoftheemissionsscandal.(NWOM1)
.904
Becauseoftheemissionsscandal,IwouldsaynegativethingsabouttheVW
Groupanditscarstootherpeople.(NWOM2)
.707
Evenaftertheemissionsscandal,IwouldrecommendcarsoftheVWGroupto
someonewhoaskedmyadvice.(NWOM3)
.627
Cronbach’sAlpha
.780
Eigenvalue
1.708
%ofVariance
56.94
Note:MaximumLikelihoodwithVarimaxrotationwasapplied;KMO=.667;factorloadingsbelow.4arenot
includedinthetable
90
TableB10:ExploratoryFactorAnalysisCrisisResponsibility
Items
FactorLoadings
accountability
locality
intentionality
Theemissionsscandalwaspreventablebythe
organization.(Responsibility4)
Theorganizationcouldhaveavoidedthe
emissionsscandal.(Responsibility5) Theorganizationhadthecapabilitytostopthe
emissionsscandalfromoccurring.
(Responsibility3)
Theorganizationshouldbeheldaccountablefor
theemissionsscandal.(Responsibility6)
.803
.780
.423
.397
Theemissionsscandalwascausedbyaweakness
intheorganization.(Responsibility7)
.905
Internalorganizationalissuescontributedtothe
emissionsscandal.(Responsibility8) .646
Someoneintheorganizationknowinglycreated
thecauseoftheemissionsscandal.
(Responsibility2)
.691
Thecauseoftheemissionsscandalwasan
intentionalactbysomeoneintheorganization.
(Responsibility1)
.643
Cronbach’sAlpha
.686
.751
.664
Eigenvalue
1.692
1.285
1.012
%ofVariance
21.16
16.06
12.66
Note:MaximumLikelihoodwithVarimaxrotationwasapplied;KMO=.704;factorloadingsbelow.4arenot
includedinthetable
91
TableB11:ExploratoryFactorAnalysisCrisisInvolvement
Items
FactorLoadings
Theemissionsscandalisunimportant/important(Involvement1)
.869
Theemissionsscandalisirrelevant/relevant(Involvement5)
.856
Theemissionsscandalisofnoconcern/ofconcern(Involvement2)
.730
Theemissionsscandalmeansnothing/meansalot(Involvement3)
.709
Theemissionsscandaldoesnotmatter/matterstome(Involvement4)
.660
Cronbach’sAlpha
.852
Eigenvalue
2.961
%ofVariance
59.21
Note:MaximumLikelihoodwithVarimaxrotationwasapplied;KMO=.810;factorloadingsbelow.4arenot
includedinthetable
TableB12:ExploratoryFactorAnalysisAnger
Items
FactorLoadings
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeelangry.
(Anger1)
.855
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeelannoyed.
(Anger2)
.842
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeeloutraged.
(Anger4)
.752
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeeldisgusted.
(Anger3)
.643
Cronbach’sAlpha
.855
Eigenvalue
2.419
%ofVariance
60.48
Note:MaximumLikelihoodwithVarimaxrotationwasapplied;KMO=.780;factorloadingsbelow.4arenot
includedinthetable
92
TableB13:ExploratoryFactorAnalysisSympathy
Items
FactorLoadings
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeelcompassion.
(Sympathy3)
.908
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeelsorry.
(Sympathy2)
.760
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeelempathy.
(Sympathy4)
.640
WhenIthinkoftheVWGroupandtheemissionsscandal,Ifeelsympathetic.
(Sympathy1)
.529
Cronbach’sAlpha
.799
Eigenvalue
2.093
%ofVariance
52.33
Note:MaximumLikelihoodwithVarimaxrotationwasapplied;KMO=.720;factorloadingsbelow.4arenot
includedinthetable
TableB14:ExploratoryFactorAnalysisPerson-CompanyFit
Items
FactorLoadings
IhavestrongidentificationwiththeVWGroupwhentalkingtoothersaboutit.
(PCFit1)
.890
WhensomeonepraisestheVWGroup,itfeelslikeapersonalcompliment.
(PCFit7)
.772
IamveryinterestedinwhatothersthinkaboutVWGroup.(PCFit5)
.662
IprefercarsoftheVWGroupwhencomparingitwiththatofotherautomobile
manufacturers.(PCFit2)
.652
IampositiveaboutthecompanyimageoftheVWGroup.(PCFit3) .558
IfastoryinthemediacriticizestheVWGroup,Ifeelembarrassed.(PCFit8)
.549
Cronbach’sAlpha
.838
Eigenvalue
2.863
Variance
47.72%
Note:MaximumLikelihoodwithVarimaxrotationwasapplied;KMO=.831;factorloadingsbelow.4arenot
includedinthetable
93