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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“For instance, Tachkova and Fediuk (2025) found that perceiving an organization as involved in an exploitation crisis (scansis) was positively associated with a desire for retaliation.”
From Distinguishing Moral Outrage and Empathetic Anger: Advancing the Triadic Appraisal Framework of Situational Crisis Communication Theory (2026) · cites this paper as Tachkova and Fediuk, 2025
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
Coombs, W. T., & Tachkova, E. R. (2023) · Management Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/08933189221151177 · Cited by 102
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 48
- 10.1007/s10551-014-2487-y · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0363-8111(03)00043-2 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.05.003 · DOI
- 10.1111/1468-5973.12172 · DOI
- 10.1080/17439760.2020.1832243 · DOI
- Bies R. J., 1987, Research in Organizational Behavior, 289
- 10.1037/pspp0000085 · DOI
- 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_4 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00909882.2013.806991 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.012 · DOI
- 10.1093/ct/qtz002 · DOI
- 10.1002/9781119678953.ch7 · DOI
- Coombs W. T., 2023, Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding
- 10.1177/0893318995008004003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1108/13632540710843913 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_04 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/089331802237233 · DOI · Paper page
- Coombs W. T., 2018, Scandology: An interdisciplinary field, 171
- 10.1108/JCOM-08-2018-0078 · DOI
- 10.1080/1062726X.2023.2244615 · DOI
- 10.1002/9781119678953.ch3 · DOI
- 10.1002/9781444314885.ch31 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10551-013-1647-9 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jretai.2013.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.08.002 · DOI
- 10.1080/1062726X.2013.795867 · DOI
- 10.1108/CCIJ-04-2021-0047 · doi:10.1108/ccij-04-2021-0047
- 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101930 · DOI
- 10.1111/1468-5973.70029 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102136 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x · Paper page
- 10.1108/13563281011085510 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1137 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1137 · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101851 · DOI
- 10.1108/08858629910254076 · doi:10.1108/08858629910254076
- 10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.916 · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.916 · Paper page
- 10.1177/0893318994007003004 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1468-5973.12561 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4324/9781003094661 · DOI
- 10.1002/9781119678953.ch29 · DOI
- Tripp T. M., 2009, Getting Even: The Truth About Workplace Revenge‐‐and How to Stop It
- 10.1007/s11211-007-0030-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1988.tb00757.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Niu, R., Eng, N., & Jin, Y. (2026) · Journal of Public Relations Research · doi:10.1080/1062726x.2026.2667179 · Cited by 2
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.