Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 7

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Should Organisations Remain Silent Before the Storm: Testing the Effects of Perceived Source of Disclosure and Moral Recognition in a Crisis Response Following a Scansis

Tachkova, Elina R., Fediuk, Tomasz A.·2025·Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management

Abstract

Research in crisis communication has emphasised the complexity of emotions that crises breed. Recently, exploitation crises have received significant scholarly attention. Scansis has been termed as a type of exploitation crisis, which is characterised by strong perceptions of injustice and greed. This study corroborates previous findings pertaining to the effects of scansis on key crisis outcome variables such as purchase intentions and negative word‐of‐mouth. Additionally, we extend on existing research by testing the effectiveness of stealing thunder and explicit recognition of moral outrage following a scansis. Specifically, the study employs a 2 (perceived source of transgression disclosure: organisation vs. media) by 2 (corrective action coupled with moral recognition response: yes vs. no) between‐subjects factorial design. The results indicate that scansis leads to desire for third‐party punishment (i.e., retaliation), which has not been tested in the context of scansis before. Additionally, there is empirical evidence for the robustness of stealing thunder and its effects on purchase intentions, as well as support for the value of moral recognition statements following a scansis, a proposition made by previous research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1468-5973.70056

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. 10.1007/s10551-014-2487-y · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/S0363-8111(03)00043-2 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.05.003 · DOI
  4. 10.1111/1468-5973.12172 · DOI
  5. 10.1080/17439760.2020.1832243 · DOI
  6. Bies R. J., 1987, Research in Organizational Behavior, 289
  7. 10.1037/pspp0000085 · DOI
  8. 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_4 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.001 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1080/00909882.2013.806991 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.012 · DOI
  12. 10.1093/ct/qtz002 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/9781119678953.ch7 · DOI
  14. Coombs W. T., 2023, Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding
  15. 10.1177/0893318995008004003 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1108/13632540710843913 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_04 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1177/089331802237233 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Coombs W. T., 2018, Scandology: An interdisciplinary field, 171
  21. 10.1108/JCOM-08-2018-0078 · DOI
  22. 10.1080/1062726X.2023.2244615 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/9781119678953.ch3 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/9781444314885.ch31 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1007/s10551-013-1647-9 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.jretai.2013.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.08.002 · DOI
  30. 10.1080/1062726X.2013.795867 · DOI
  31. 10.1108/CCIJ-04-2021-0047 · doi:10.1108/ccij-04-2021-0047
  32. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101930 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/1468-5973.70029 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102136 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x · Paper page
  36. 10.1108/13563281011085510 · DOI
  37. 10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1137 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1137 · Paper page
  38. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101851 · DOI
  39. 10.1108/08858629910254076 · doi:10.1108/08858629910254076
  40. 10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.916 · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.916 · Paper page
  41. 10.1177/0893318994007003004 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1111/1468-5973.12561 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.4324/9781003094661 · DOI
  44. 10.1002/9781119678953.ch29 · DOI
  45. Tripp T. M., 2009, Getting Even: The Truth About Workplace Revenge‐‐and How to Stop It
  46. 10.1007/s11211-007-0030-3 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1988.tb00757.x · DOI
  48. 10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Tachkova, E. R., & Fediuk, T. A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Communication Studies Hong Kong Baptist University Kowloon Hong Kong China
  • Family Business Strong, LLC Louisville Kentucky USA
Venue
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-05-26
Volume
33
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0966-0879
  • 1468-5973
Cited by
7
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.