Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 102Public Relations and Crisis CommunicationInterpersonal and Organizational CommunicationDisaster Management and Resilience

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integrating Moral Outrage in Situational Crisis Communication Theory: A Triadic Appraisal Model for Crises

Coombs, W. Timothy, Tachkova, Elina R.·2023·Management Communication Quarterly
DOI 10.1177/08933189221151177
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study uses moral outrage to create a triadic appraisal of crises for situational crisis communication theory (SCCT). The addition of moral outrage improves the theory with an eye toward enhancing its application to the practice of crisis communication. The authors argue that adding moral outrage resulted in a needed reconceptualization of the preventable crisis cluster in SCCT identified by earlier researchers. Moral outrage becomes a third factor stakeholders utilize to assess crisis threats along with (1) determining if the situation is negative and (2) evaluations of crisis responsibility. The results of the study indicate that the preventable crisis cluster should be treated as three distinct sub-clusters. We argue that this triadic appraisal of crisis threat improves SCCT theoretically and has implications for the practice of crisis communication.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/08933189221151177

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Coombs W. T., 2018, Scandalogy: An interdisciplinary field, 172
  2. Coombs W. T., 2021, Advancing crisis communication effectiveness: Integrating public relations Scholarship with practice, 165
  3. Grebe S., 2012, Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 13, 13
  4. Institute for Crisis Management, 2020, ICM annual crisis report
  5. Patel S., 2015, 2015 2nd international conference on Computing for sustainable global development, 537
  6. Verbalyte M., 2018, Scandalogy: An interdisciplinary field, 62

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Coombs, W. T., & Tachkova, E. R.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Crisis and Risk Communications
  • Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
Corresponding author
Tachkova, Elina R.
ORCID
Tachkova, Elina R.
Venue
Management Communication Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-01-09
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
798-820
ISSN
  • 0893-3189 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6798
DOI
10.1177/08933189221151177
OpenAlex
W4319838991
Semantic Scholar
1368372634302167e2fcbc9dcdd9d361342151cb
Cited by
102
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9
FWCI
33.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Management Communication Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Interpersonal and Organizational Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
Keywords
moral outrage, Situational Crisis Communication Theory, crisis responsibility, stakeholder perspectives, crisis communication

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.