Abstract:
The development of Coombs’ Situational Crisis Communication Theory provided crisis
communication research with a recommended plan of action for crisis managers through the use
of empirical data. Coombs outlined the specific strategies through experimental methods that
crisis managers can employ to effectively mitigate crises. However, Coombs' theory was
developed mainly in corporate contexts and only limited studies are available exploring its
applicability in various organizational contexts. Focused on rumor crisis contexts, this study
explored the significant difference between SCCT-recommended denial sub-strategies: denial,
attack the accuser, and scapegoat and Kabataan Partylist’s organizational reputation. Through a
posttest-only control group design, a total of 386 respondents were randomly assigned among the
three sub-strategies and a control group. Following the experimental approach in SCCT research,
respondents in the three treatment groups were exposed to three manipulated crisis response
strategies while those assigned to the control group were not exposed to any response strategy
condition. Chi-square tests show a significant association between the strategy used and the
strategy recognized by the respondents implying that the manipulation was effective. Results
showed that only attack the accuser and denial posture sub-strategies are significantly different
from the control group yielding higher organizational reputation scores. The Scapegoat
sub-strategy did not yield significant differences and lower mean scores across all conditions.
The results corroborate Coombs’ suggestion of using attack the accuser and denial sub-strategies
as it is effective in mitigating rumor crises contexts in the context of a political organization.
