Journal of Marketing Communications, 2013

Vol. 19, No. 4, 293–305, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.634430

Does corporate advertising work in a crisis? An examination of

inoculation theory
Sojung Kim*

Department of Advertising and Public Relations, College of Communication, The University of

Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA

The primary purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptual framework of consumer

evaluation of corporate advertising in a corporate crisis. It also suggests future research
propositions by investigating how the so-called inoculation effect from pre-crisis
corporate advertising influences consumer response to corporate advertising during a
crisis. First, the paper describes how the inoculation effect confers resistance to
negative news in a corporate crisis. Next, the paper determines whether the inoculation
effect further reduces consumer resistance to corporate advertising during a crisis.
Other factors that figure into the broader context of corporate crises are then discussed.
These include four other types of external impacts on a crisis situation – the crisis, the
corporation, the media, and individual differences. The article concludes with
implications for research and practice.
Keywords: corporate advertising; inoculation theory; reactance theory; corporate
crisis

Over the long term, corporations spend a great deal on promotional activities enhancing
their image and reputation (Hooghiemstra 2000). The marketing environment, over the last
few decades, has grown much more fast-paced and complicated. Communication strategies,
too, are becoming diverse yet integrated. Corporate communication today includes public
relations, corporate advertising, sponsorship, social responsibility activities, and so forth.
Marketers and marketing scholars have recently been paying closer attention to these
practices. Since each of the corporate communication strategies is coordinated, the whole
endeavor systematically affects the long-term corporate image/reputation.
As seen with the Toyota recall crisis last year, a single corporate crisis can quickly mar a
once sterling image, precipitating the collapse of a corporation’s long-cherished reputation.
Hence, crisis communication is critical to a corporation’s long-term success. In recent
years, crisis communication and its effectiveness have been given due attention by
academic scholars and practitioners. However, a large body of research has leaned toward a
macro approach, presenting crisis communication as a part of the whole crisis management.
Also, not a few studies approached the topic mainly from a public relations perspective.
This paper, therefore, attempts to explore the effectiveness of crisis communication from
another perspective by taking a micro approach that focuses on the effect of corporate
advertising in a corporate crisis.

*Email: sojungkim@mail.utexas.edu

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

294 S. Kim

The main purpose of this study is to propose a conceptual framework of consumer

evaluation of corporate advertising in a corporate crisis and to suggest future research
propositions by investigating how inoculation theory works. The communication and
marketing literature shows that corporate advertising may inoculate a corporation from
attitude changes brought on by negative press about a corporation (Easley, Bearden, and
Teel 1995; Burgoon, Pfau, and Birk 1995). This study further attempts to explore how the
inoculation effect of pre-crisis corporate advertising affects – by building up consumer
resistance toward negative news – consumer response to corporate advertising during a
crisis. In other words, this paper starts from the research question: How does corporate
image advertising in a non-crisis/pre-crisis situation influence during a crisis the
effectiveness of corporate advertising containing a special message regarding a specific
incident.
The proposed theoretical framework is centered on the effect of pre-crisis corporate
advertising on consumer resistance against negative news that further affects consumer
resistance to corporate advertising during a crisis. The theoretical framework also
includes other factors that affect consumer resistance toward corporate advertising in a
crisis, such as the impact of crisis (e.g. crisis type), the impact of the corporation
(e.g. corporate response strategy, corporate reputation), the impact of the media
(e.g. coverage intensity on the crisis, evaluative tone of new coverage), and the impact
of other individual factors (e.g. prior attitudes toward the corporation, involvement with
the crisis).

Literature review
Corporate advertising
Corporations sell themselves through corporate, or institutional, advertising (Duffy 1951).
During the early 1970s, institutional advertising that focused on ‘goodwill’ was generally
called corporate image advertising. Such advertising was defined by its goal to alter or
improve public attitude toward a corporation (Pashupati, Arpan, and Nikolaev 2002).
Therefore, this kind of advertising often centered on ‘good citizenship’ or ‘social
responsibility.’ It in turn led to issue or advocacy advertising. In such advertising, a
corporation expressed political, social, or economic ideas or it elicited public support for
its views or stands (Schumann, Hathcote, and West 1991; Pashupati, Arpan, and Nikolaev
2002). After this type of ad enjoyed a period of popularity, corporate advertising began
leaning toward ‘hybrid’ or ‘umbrella’ ads. These ads promoted products and services as
well as the corporation itself. Since the 1980s and the emergence of a pro-business
environment, we have seen frequent sales-related corporate advertising (Public Relations
Journal 1988).
Financial and special opportunity messages are the two generally known categories of
corporate advertising. A study by Schumann, Hathcote, and West (1991) made a
comprehensive review of the literature of corporate advertising in America. Interestingly,
it added two categories to the two listed above – corporate image and issue/advocacy
advertising. Advertising focusing on financial investment has a relatively specific
objective and target (e.g. potential investors). On the other hand, a special opportunity
message refers to advertising that presents special statements to the public. According to
the researchers’ analysis, special opportunity messages have mainly been used to respond
to negative corporate events – denouncing rumors, financial problems, labor union
boycotts, and so forth. They are deployed to overcome negative publicity and raise
attitudes toward a corporation.
 Journal of Marketing Communications 295

Corporate crisis and corporate advertising as crisis communication

According to Seeger, Sellnow, and Ulmer (1998), an organizational crisis is ‘a specific,
unexpected, and non-routine event or series of events that create high levels of uncertainty
and threaten or are perceived to threaten an organization’s high-priority goals’ (p. 233).
Pearson and Clair (1998) agree that ‘a crisis threatens the viability of an organization and
is characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and means of resolution’ (p. 66). Crises
‘threaten to dissolve an organizations’ social legitimacy’ (Cowden and Sellnow 2002,
p. 195) and quickly cause the collapse of its reputation. Crisis management literature
suggests that corporations should proactively plan and formulate strategies to prevent
potential crises or minimize an organization’s losses (Ritchie 2004). Most importantly,
consistent communication, in a crisis situation, is critical to an organization’s viability.
Recipients of the crisis communication include not only consumers but also stockholders,
employees, suppliers, creditors, competitors, government agencies, and others (Cowden
and Sellnow 2002). In other words, strategic and consistent crisis communication with all
parties involved is absolutely necessary to successfully negotiate the rough waters.
Once a crisis occurs, all communication tools are actively involved. These public
relations play an important role in dealing with the crisis. A crisis, whatever the issue
happens to be, brings a great deal of publicity. Hence it is critical in a crisis situation to
manage well the open relationships with each sector of the public, particularly, mass
media, employees, stockholders, and the government. Dealing with the news, media/press
is more pivotal because of the tremendous impact publicity has on other parties. On this
point, prompt and appropriate management of public relations is required. How then can
corporations form an optimal relationship with such a massive and complex group as
consumers? Even though corporations can influence consumers through the news
media/press, such a route is indirect. Consumers generally gather all their information
about a crisis and a corporation from the press. The one communication tool that
corporations can use to convey their message directly to mass consumers is corporate
advertising.
Corporate advertising is one effective tool for reaching the public. As we have seen, it
is typically used to build a positive corporate image. In a crisis, however, it is more than
just image control. It may become a type of issues/advocacy advertising or special
opportunity message that tries to restore a collapsing corporate image. Cowden and
Sellnow (2002), analyzing Northwest Airlines’ issues advertisements run after the 1998
pilots’ strike, found that issue advertising served as the airline’s primary channel of
responding to the crisis. The ads clearly proclaimed NWA’s position and enabled the
company to restore a positive public image. Other companies have also been effective with
this type of advertising. Proctor & Gamble ran an ad denouncing a rumor that the company
logo was associated with Satanism (see Schumann, Hathcote, and West 1991). Toyota
trying to restore its corporate image damaged by some well-publicized safety issues ran
TV ads apologizing for its product defects.

Theoretical framework
While advertising in a corporate crisis is a fairly common strategy, there has been little
research, aside from some case studies cited above, conducted on how consumers respond
to corporate advertising in a crisis situation. The rest of this paper, therefore, focuses on
how corporate advertising during a crisis can be interrelated with pre-crisis corporate
advertising. The paper will also show how four types of external impacts on a crisis
situation – the crisis, the corporation, the media, and individual differences – will affect
296 S. Kim

consumer response to corporate advertising during a crisis. The theoretical framework is

presented in Figure 1.

The impact of pre-crisis corporate advertising

The first part of this paper investigates the inoculation effect of pre-crisis corporate
advertising on consumer response to negative corporate news. Using the literature review
as a foundation, the paper explores how pre-crisis corporate advertising plays an
inoculation role, influencing subsequent consumer response to negative news. Inoculation
theory posits that ‘refutational pretreatments, which raise the specter of content potentially
damaging to a receiver’s attitude while simultaneously offering direct refutation of that
content, threaten the individual, and thus trigger the motivation to strengthen attitudes,
thereby conferring resistance to subsequent attitude change’ (Pfau 1992, p. 27). Its
rationale is that if individuals build an immune system by a weakened form of attack prior
to a third-party attack, they tend to show resistance to persuasion from subsequent attacks
(McGuire and Papageorgis 1962). Since McGuire introduced the term in his study, much
research has confirmed, in various contexts, the effect of inoculation theory. In particular,
as the theory has been found to be excellent, scholars have applied it to the controversial
issues such as political communication or marketing practices.
Within a variety of contexts, some early research applied the inoculation theory to the
effect of self-disclosure advertising messages. Szybillo and Heslin (1973) used this
perspective to explore how an advertising message confers resistance to an audience
against a third-party attack. They investigated how consumers’ resistance to persuasion
was influenced by different factors – the type of defense (refutational-same versus
refutational-different versus supportive), the time interval between defense and attack, and

Crisis

Consumer Resistance toward

Pre-crisis Corporate Ad
Negative News (Inoculation Theory)

The Impact of Crisis

Crisis type

The Impact of Corporation

Consumer Resistance toward Corporate response strategy
Corporate Ad (Reactance Theory) Corporate reputation

The Impact of Media

Coverage intensity on the crisis
Evaluative tone of news coverage

The Impact of Individual Differences

Consumer Evaluation to the Prior attitudes toward the corporation
Corporate Ad and the Corporation Involvement with the crisis

Perception of ad credibility
Perception of corporation trustworthiness
Attitude toward the ad
Attitude toward the corporation

Figure 1. Model of consumer evaluation to corporate advertising in a corporate crisis.

 Journal of Marketing Communications 297

the credibility of the attacker. According to their findings, the type of defense was the most
important factor. All defense types – refutational-same self-disclosure (e.g. an ad message
specifically counters specific points addressed in the upcoming attack), refutational-
different self-disclosure (e.g. an ad message counters points different from the ones in the
upcoming attack), and supportive ad message (e.g. ad messages absent of negative
information and only positive statements were found to be more effective than those
offering no defense). Furthermore, the results show refutational-same message as superior,
followed by supportive and refutational-different. Similarly, Easley, Bearden, and Teel
(1995) also found that, in terms of inhibiting belief change in the presence of an attack, a
refutational-same defense was more effective than either a refutational-different defense
or no defense at all. The refutational-different defense, however, was found to bear little
significant difference from offering no defense. This finding suggests that if advertisers
know beforehand of an upcoming attack, they can benefit most by deploying in advance a
refutational-same self-disclosure ad.
In reality, however, corporations can seldom predict what sort of negative press they
will be forced to defend themselves against. It seems impossible to develop refutational-
same messages prior to some future crises. As described above, some researchers
found that a supportive message prevented an erosion of existing favorable attitudes
toward a corporation (Easley, Bearden, and Teel 1995). This finding is more evidence
supporting the idea that corporate advertising can prevent changes in consumer attitude
caused by negative information. This is because typical corporate advertising –
corporate image ads or issue/advocacy ads – generally contains a supportive defense of
the corporation.
If corporate advertising fails to address a weak form of the coming attack (e.g. self-
disclosure statements regarding the coming attack), yet still serves as a supportive defense
by preventing the erosion of positive attitudes toward a corporation, inoculation theory
may explain such effects. Burgoon, Pfau, and Birk (1995) examined the inoculation effect
of issue/advocacy corporate advertising that could prevent attitude slippage from being
exposed to the subsequent attack. They confirmed the ability of inoculation theory to
explain such effects by showing that issue/advocacy corporate advertising campaigns
inoculate against attitude change by counterargument.
Therefore, in the current study, the author investigates further the ability of corporate
advertising, in general, to protect against erosion of existing attitudes that may follow a
future corporate crisis. It seems logical to suggest that corporate advertising has, on
consumers, an inoculation effect against future negative information involving a
corporation. The following proposition is thus proposed:
P1: Exposure to pre-crisis corporate advertising will, in a corporate crisis, bolster
consumer resistance to negative news about a corporation.

The impact of consumer resistance to negative news

The second part of the proposed framework is an integral part of this article. The main
purpose of this article is to investigate whether the inoculation effect of pre-crisis
corporate advertising can reduce, in a crisis, consumer resistance to corporate advertising.
That is, this section explores how consumer resistance to negative news can help reduce
consumer resistance to corporate advertising in a crisis. The assumption here is that
consumers will naturally resist corporate advertising during a crisis. The paper justifies
this assumption using reactance theory and Persuasion Knowledge Model.
298 S. Kim

Reactance theory deals with how people react to denied or threatened freedom.
Freedom, here, is defined as people’s specific attitudinal and behavioral rights to choose
their own options. People react when their freedom or free will is threatened or eliminated
by a social influence or barrier. In so reacting, people bring pressure for change (Clee and
Wicklund 1980). That is, freedom and a threat to that freedom are antecedents for
reactance arousal. In addition, reactance is proportional to the importance of the freedom
threatened (Brehm 1966; Clee and Wicklund 1980).
In a marketing context, researchers have observed reactance theory at work in
consumers’ responses to the following: sales representatives (Wicklund, Slattum, and
Solomon 1970; Reizenstein 1971), advertisements (Robertson and Rossiter 1974; Koslow
2000; Edwards, Li, and Lee 2002), product availability (Brehm 1966; Mazis, Settle, and
Leslie 1973; West 1975), pricing (Wicklund 1970), and still others. Studies on consumer
reactance to salespeople and advertising provide rationales to support this paper’s
argument. Consumers reject sales representatives or advertisements that employ explicit
persuasive tactics. Clee and Wicklund (1980) call this the ‘boomerang effect.’
The literature on reactance theory asserts that, to be effective, corporate advertising in
a crisis must reduce consumer reactance, which as noted is often aroused by explicit
persuasive tactics. Consumer reactance may also be aroused by post-crisis corporate
advertisements. Supposing, just after a crisis occurs, consumers are flooded with negative
news about a corporation. If the corporation hits the airwaves with an ad, consumers are
likely to perceive it as calculating and not entirely honest. They may rather doubt the
image the ad tries to project (Pashupati, Atpan, and Nikolaev 2002). Thus, when a
corporation bombards consumers with ads intended to clamp down and secure positive
perceptions (or to ward off negative ones), consumers might feel that their freedom to form
their own judgments is being threatened. Consumers want the freedom to change their
attitudes about a corporation. Such freedom, however, may appear to be threatened by ads
that draw a positive image of the corporation. Such ads, in short, may be counter-
productive. The opportune time for a corporation to run ads may not necessarily be during
or immediately after a corporate crisis.
The Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad and Wright 1994), drawn from reactance
theory, provides an additional theoretical foundation to explain consumer resistance toward
corporate advertising during a crisis. The Persuasion Knowledge Model predicts that when
consumers are exposed to an agent’s (advertiser, corporation) persuasion attempt, they are
likely to fall back on their knowledge of persuasion: persuasive knowledge, topic
knowledge, and agent knowledge. This latter type, agent knowledge, refers to one’s general
knowledge of or schemas about marketing agents. Along with the two former types, it is a
critical factor in determining how consumers respond to marketing efforts (e.g. corporate
advertising during a crisis).
In the context of a corporate crisis, when consumers are exposed to corporate
advertising, they may use what they know about the corporation to determine the sincerity
of its message. This implies that if consumers are bombarded with negative news about a
corporation in a crisis situation, they may start to feel negatively toward the corporation.
Their reaction may be mediated by their consumer memory, which in turn may influence
how they evaluate a persuasive message. Hence, if pre-crisis corporate advertising has
built up their resistance to negative news, when faced with corporate advertising during a
crisis, they are more likely to maintain positive perceptions about the corporation. This
logic, therefore, leads to the following:
 Journal of Marketing Communications 299

P2: Consumer resistance to negative news about a corporation will be negatively

related to consumer resistance to corporate advertising in a crisis.

The impact of external factors

According to contingency theory, one of the major PR theories, 87 predisposing and
situational factors affect organization stances on the continuum between accommodation
and advocacy at a given time and regarding a given public (Cancel, Mitrook, and Cameron
1999). Contingency theory reflects a complex reality of public relations practices. Applied
to the context of the current study, the theory implies that it is ineffective and insufficient
to look at only one potential factor in explaining the effectiveness of corporate advertising
in a crisis. Similarly, Coombs’ (2007)situational crisis communication theory considers
the complexity of a corporate crisis by arguing that situational factors (e.g. crisis
responsibility, crisis history, prior relationship reputation) should be taken into account in
understanding consumer behavior in a corporate crisis situation. Therefore, the article also
attempts to determine what other factors come into play in reducing consumer resistance
toward corporate advertising in a crisis situation. As the literature review reveals, there
seem to be four other factors: (1) impact of crisis, (2) impact of corporation, (3) impact of
media, and (4) impact of individual differences.
. Impact of crisis
Crisis management literature argues that crisis communication should be developed
differently depending on the type and intensity of the crisis. Crises, of course, come in all
forms. They range from small-scale organizational issues to natural disasters. Similarly,
their impacts vary widely. Also varying are the vulnerabilities of corporations to crises
(Pearson and Clair 1998; Ritchie 2004). According to Burnett (1998), crisis situations are
classified by threat level (high versus low), response option (many versus few), time
pressure (intense versus minimal), and degree of control (low versus high). If the threat
level is high, response options are few; the time pressure is intense; and the degree of
control is low. This type of situation is naturally the most challenging for an organization.
If all of these factors were opposite, the problem might scarcely be called a crisis. Since
consumer involvement with a corporate crisis differs based on the crisis type and intensity,
crisis classification can help managers develop crisis management strategies.
Of all crisis characteristics, what has been given due attention in the area of public
relations research is crisis type. Coombs’s (1995) crisis typology, based on attribution
theory (Weiner 1986), has often been used in studying the effects of crisis type. One
dimension of crisis type is a corporation’s controllability (internal and external). Was it
controlled by the organization itself or by outside agents? Another dimension is a
corporation’s intentionality (intentional and unintentional); was the crisis event the result
of purposeful actions? The crisis type is categorized into accident (unintentional and
internal), transgression (intentional and internal), faux pas (unintentional and external),
and terrorism (intentional and external). A substantial number of past studies have
employed two types of crisis – accident and transgression. Past findings suggest that
consumers are more likely to blame a corporation for a transgression crisis than an
accident crisis (Cho and Gower 2006; Kim, Kim, and Cameron 2008), and they hold a
more positive image of a corporation when exposed to an accident crisis than when
exposed to a transgression crisis (Coombs and Holladay 1996). According to the crisis
situation model given by Coombs (2007), an organization’s crisis responsibility has an
impact on organizational reputation and such organizational reputation consequently
300 S. Kim

affects behavioral intentions. The findings imply that, assuming they hold some degree of
reactance toward corporate crisis communications (corporate advertising), consumers’
resistance may be influenced by the type of crisis. In turn, consumer resistance will be less
when a crisis is unintentional. From a review of the literature, the following is postulated:
P3: An accidental crisis will lead to less consumer resistance toward corporate
advertising in a crisis than will a transgression crisis.

. Impact of corporation
Another critical factor in crisis communication is the corporate response strategy
(Dutta and Pullig 2011; Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava 2000; Dawar and Pillutla
2000; Coombs 1998, 1999). The type of corporate response strategy has been identified
namely based on two important dimensions: (1) the degree of explanation about the crisis,
and (2) whether the response strategy assures the prevention of the crisis. Past studies have
used response strategies categorized in various ways: for instance, denial, reduction-of-
offensiveness, and corrective action (Dutta and Pullig 2011); counterargumentation and
diagnosticity response (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava 2000); attack the accuser,
denial, excuse, justification, ingratiation, corrective action, and full apology (Coombs
1998); and unambiguous stonewalling, ambiguous response, and unambiguous support
(Dawar and Pillutla 2000). What strategy is most effective? A common finding suggests
that assuming responsibility (i.e. full apology or unambiguous support) is more effective
than denying responsibility (i.e. simple denial or unambiguous stonewalling). If a
corporation, through its ads, gives the consumer the impression that it is avoiding
responsibility or not explaining the crisis, its messages will be not just unpersuasive but
damaging. Therefore, the following proposition is postulated:
P4: Assumption of responsibility will lead to less consumer resistance to corporate
advertising in a crisis than will avoidance of responsibility.
Crisis management literature suggests that corporate reputation affects consumer
perception of an ongoing crisis. Siomkos and Kurzbard (1994) found that when a crisis
involved a reputable and well-known company, consumers perceived the degree of danger
associated with it as relatively small. Mowen (1980) also showed that corporate reputation
influences consumer response to product recalls; a familiar company was blamed less for a
product defect than was an unfamiliar company. Similarly, Mowen, Jolly, and Nickell
(1981) showed that consumers perceived a product defect differently depending on a
corporation’s reputation. Such a different consumer perception due to corporate reputation
ultimately may affect consumer resistance to corporate communication activities (such as
corporate advertising) dealing with a crisis. This review of the literature leads to:
P5: A more reputable corporation will, in a crisis, encounter less consumer resistance
to corporate advertising than will a less reputable corporation.

. Impact of media
The media impacts a corporate crisis. Depending on how the media deals with it, a
crisis can remain a small incident or be turned into a severe crisis (Keown-McMullan
1997). In a crisis, the media is, after all, the main influence on public opinion. Hence, it can
either mar the organizational image by impacting public opinion with negative press or
 Journal of Marketing Communications 301

protect it by preserving positive public opinion. Agenda setting provides a useful

foundation to explain the impact of media on public opinion in a corporate crisis.
The agenda-setting hypothesis is based on the notion that media influences individual
social cognition; the public sees an object through the media (Wanta, Golan, and Lee
2004). The first level of agenda setting posits that media coverage of an object increases
the perceived importance of the object. Extensive media coverage makes the public more
likely to perceive an event as important (Wanta, Golan, and Lee 2004). In a corporate
crisis, such coverage will make consumers perceive the crisis as important and salient and
thereby may affect their resistance toward corporate advertising during a crisis.
Most interesting, the second level of agenda-setting studies suggests that not only
media coverage of objects but also media coverage of attributes of those objects will
touch on public perceptions of the objects. Past studies have argued that the media’s take
on a story affects the public’s perspective (Golan and Wanta 2001; Kiousis,
Bantimaroudis, and Ban 1999; Takeshita and Mikami 1995). If, for example, the
media deals with a corporate crisis negatively (less negatively), consumers are more
likely to perceive the crisis negatively (less negatively). Both issue and attribute salience
in the news media, therefore, transfer to the public’s beliefs and perceptions of the
importance and attributes of the issue. The agenda setting thus implies that media reaction
to a crisis can affect consumer resistance toward corporate advertising in a crisis. This is
because the news coverage of a crisis directly influences consumer perception of both the
crisis and the corporation. Based on this literature review, the following propositions are
proposed:
P6: Less news media coverage about a corporate crisis will lead to less consumer
resistance to corporate advertising in a crisis than will more news media coverage
about a corporate crisis.
P7: A less negative evaluative tone from news media about a corporate crisis will lead
to less consumer resistance toward corporate advertising in a crisis than will a
more negative evaluative tone from news media.

. Impact of individual differences

Consumer resistance to corporate advertising is influenced by the effects of the crisis,
the corporation, and the media, factors that are external and objective. Consumers,
however, can be affected by their own individual characteristics in resisting corporate
advertising in a crisis. In the domain of corporate/brand crisis research, much attention has
recently been given to one of a variety of individual characteristics – attitude strength.
That is, the way pre-crisis attitudes toward a corporation influence consumer response to a
corporate crisis, providing marketing insights into the importance of a consumer –brand
relationship (Kim and Atkinson 2011; Huber et al. 2010; Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and
Unnava 2000; Dawar and Pillutla 2000). For instance, one dimension of attitude strength,
consumer commitment to a brand, moderates the effects of negative information on
attitude (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava 2000). In addition, consumers’ prior
expectations of a brand moderate the negative effect on brand equity of an unambiguous
stonewalling response to product-harm crises (Dawar and Pillutla 2000). Moreover, a
recent study found that pre-crisis attitudes toward a corporation have a positive effect on
post-crisis corporate advertising-related behavior: attitudes toward the ad, attitudes toward
the corporation, and purchase intention (Kim and Atkinson 2011). From the review of
relevant literature, it is logically assumed that pre-crisis attitudes toward a corporation
302 S. Kim

influence, during a crisis, consumer resistance toward corporate advertising. The following
is thus postulated:
P8: Individuals who had more favorable attitudes toward a corporation before a crisis
will have less resistance toward corporate advertising in a crisis than will those
who had less favorable attitudes toward the corporation.
The intensity or severity of a crisis can be perceived differently depending on an
individual’s proximity or connection to the company dealing with the crisis. Suppose, for
example, that a corporation faces a product defect. Who feels a connection to this news?
Owners of the product might feel a connection and become involved in following news
of the company’s handling of it. Non-owners might care little about the corporation’s
crisis. When people are more involved in a crisis, they are more likely to search for
information regarding the crisis. Consequently they are more likely to perceive the crisis
as severe. The relationship between crisis involvement and other consumer behavior (e.g.
news media consumption, perception of a crisis) explains the potential for negative
effects on ad-related consumer behaviors. That is, it is assumed that highly involved
consumers may feel stronger resistance to a corporation’s persuasion than less involved
consumers.
P9: Individuals who are less involved in a corporate crisis will have less resistance
toward corporate advertising in a crisis than will those who are more involved in a
corporate crisis.

The effectiveness of corporate advertising in a crisis

The last construct of the framework indicates that consumer resistance to corporate
advertising in a crisis influences consumer evaluation of the corporate advertising. In other
words, if consumers are less resistant to a corporate ad, they are more likely to highly
evaluate the credibility of the ad message and the corporation. And these positive
perceptions and evaluations of the ad message and corporation would consequently lead to
favorable attitudes toward the ad and corporation themselves. Some previous research has
shown, as discussed above, that resistance toward negative news directly and positively
affects consumer evaluation toward corporate advertising during a crisis. That is, pre-crisis
corporate advertising inoculates against attitude changes caused by negative news that
follows; it simultaneously projects and protects the corporation’s credibility (Burgoon,
Pfau, and Birk 1995; Easley, Bearden, and Teel 1995).
On the other hand, there has been little research, to the author’s knowledge, that shows
how consumer resistance to corporate advertising in a crisis influences advertising
effectiveness (credibility and attitudes). Some past studies are indirectly related to this issue.
They suggest minimized consumer resistance to advertising increases advertising
effectiveness, in terms of its credibility, its engendering of consumer attitude, its creating
corporate credibility, and its instilling of a favorable attitude toward a corporation. In the
Edwards, Li, and Lee (2002) study, the authors argued that based on reactance theory, when
advertising is perceived as less intrusive, consumers feel less irritation (less resistance) with
online ads. Koslow’s (2000) study also suggests that consumer reactance and defensive
motivation lead to skepticism of advertising claims. From this review of past research and
the researcher’s logical assumptions, the following proposition is proposed:
P10: Less consumer resistance to corporate advertising in a crisis will lead to more
positive evaluations.
 Journal of Marketing Communications 303

Discussion and future research

Based on the review of the literature, a model of consumer evaluation toward corporate
advertising in a corporate crisis has been developed. The model focuses on three series of
relationships between constructs: (1) the effect of pre-crisis corporate advertising on
consumer resistance to negative news about a corporate crisis, (2) the effect of consumer
resistance to negative news on consumer resistance to corporate advertising in a crisis, and
(3) the effect of consumer resistance to corporate advertising in a crisis on consumer
evaluation of the corporate advertising. The model also proposes other factors that affect
the main constructs, suggesting that the effectiveness of corporate advertising in a crisis
can be studied from various perspectives. This model would contribute to current theory
and practice by acknowledging the complexity of corporate crisis, integrating
interdisciplinary research domains, including advertising, public relations, consumer
psychology, and others, and attempting to explore the inoculation effect beyond consumer
response toward negative news.
For empirical validation, future research should investigate proposed propositions
drawn from the reviews of the literature. Real crisis cases, such as the recent ones at
Toyota and BP, may provide useful research contexts to test the model. Considering the
complexity and dynamism of a corporate crisis, employing a real crisis in a study will be
more appropriate for examining the comprehensive and complex relationships between
pre- and post-crisis situations. Both qualitative (e.g. interview) and quantitative (e.g.
survey) approaches will be useful to better understand how consumer’s perceptions of and
attitudes toward a corporation are changed after witnessing a crisis, consuming the media,
and being exposed to corporate crisis communication (e.g. corporate advertising). At the
same time, it will be of interest to examine interactions among the effects of four external
factors – crisis, corporation, media, and consumer – on the effectiveness of corporate
advertising in a crisis. Experimental studies will validate such expected effects. That is,
not only testing the whole picture of the framework, but examining specific relationships
between constructs will provide meaningful insights into the research and practice of
corporate crisis communication.
The main contribution of this study is its examination of the inoculation effect of
corporate advertising on reducing consumer resistance to corporate advertising during a
crisis. It examines this through the mediating effect of consumer resistance toward
negative news in a crisis. In addition, by employing two different theories – inoculation
theory and reactance theory – the study explains two different types of consumer
resistance: resistance to negative news and to corporate advertising in a crisis. On this
point, interestingly, the study suggests that the same concept of consumer behavior
(consumer resistance) can be viewed differently and served by each theory in different
contexts. In addition, the integrative and comprehensive model offers a chance to integrate
other research areas. These include journalism, public relations, and crisis management
along with the field of advertising research. Moreover, it will contribute to expanding the
literature pertaining to inoculation and reactance theory through such integrative studies.
The proposed model is also of prime interest to managers. It confirms the importance,
in a corporate crisis, of pre-crisis corporate advertising. The article also suggests practical
ideas on how to develop and execute corporate advertising campaigns within broader crisis
communication contexts when a corporation is facing a crisis. In particular, researchers
will be better equipped to offer practical advice by examining, in future studies, other
factors determined by crisis, corporation, media, and consumer characteristics. For
example, they will be able to suggest which crisis communication strategy (e.g. denial,
304 S. Kim

diversion, excuse, justification, concession) is the most effective in a given circumstance;

they will suggest, in certain circumstances, whether running corporate advertising is even
the right crisis communication strategy.

Notes on contributor
Sojung Kim (M.A.) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at
The University of Texas at Austin. She received her M.A. in advertising from Michigan State
University. Her research interests include corporate communication, corporate credibility, and
consumer psychology in a computer-mediated environment. Her work has been published in
Journal of Internet Commerce and Journal of Social Science Research and a number of conference
proceedings.

References
Ahluwalia, R., R.E. Burnkrant, and H.R. Unnava. 2000. Consumer response to negative publicity:
The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research 37, May: 203–14.
Brehm, J.W. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Burgoon, M., M. Pfau, and T.S. Birk. 1995. An inoculation theory explanation for the effects of
corporate issue/advocacy advertising campaign. Communication Research 22, no. 4: 285–505.
Burnett, J.J. 1998. A strategic approach to managing crises. Public Relations Review 24, no. 4: 475–88.
Cancel, A.E., M.A. Mitrook, and G.T. Cameron. 1999. Testing the contingency theory of
accommodation in public relations. Public Relations Review 23, no. 2: 171– 97.
Cho, S.H., and K.K. Gower. 2006. Framing effect on the public’s response to crisis: Human interest
frame and crisis type influencing responsibility and blame. Public Relations Review 32: 420– 2.
Clee, M.A., and R.A. Wicklund. 1980. Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of
Consumer Research 6: 389–405.
Coombs, T.W. 1995. Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of
the appropriate crisis response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly 8: 447– 75.
———. 1998. An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better
understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research 10, no. 3: 177– 91.
———. 1999. Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of
Public Relations Research 11, no. 2: 125– 42.
———. 2007. Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application
of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review 10, no. 3: 163– 76.
Coombs, T.W., and S.J. Holladay. 1996. Communication and attributions in a crisis: An
experimental study of crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research 8: 279– 95.
Cowden, K., and T.L. Sellnow. 2002. Issues advertising as crisis communication: Northwest airlines’
use of image restoration strategies during the 1998 pilot’s strike. The Journal of Business
Communication 39, no. 2: 193– 219.
Dawar, N., and M.M. Pilutla. 2000. Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating
role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research 37, May: 215– 26.
Duffy, B. 1951. Advertising media and markets. 2nd ed. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Dutta, S., and C. Pullig. 2011. Effectiveness of corporate response to brand crises: The role of crisis
type and response strategies. Journal of Business Research 64, no. 12: 1281– 7.
Easley, R.W., W.O. Bearden, and J.E. Teel. 1995. Testing predictions derived from inoculation
theory and the effectiveness of self-disclosure communication strategies. Journal of Business
Research 34: 93 – 105.
Edwards, S.M., H. Li, and J.-H. Lee. 2002. Forced exposure and psychological reactance:
Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of
Advertising 31, no. 3: 83 – 95.
Friestad, M., and P. Wright. 1994. The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with
persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research 21, June: 1 – 31.
Golan, G., and W. Wanta. 2001. Second-level agenda setting in the New Hampshire primary: A
comparison of coverage in three newspapers and public perceptions of candidates. Journalism
and Mass Communication Quarterly 78, no. 2: 247–59.
Hooghiemstra, R. 2000. Corporate communication and impression management: New perspectives
why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27: 55 – 68.
 Journal of Marketing Communications 305

Huber, F., K. Vollhardt, I. Matthes, and J. Vogel. 2010. Brand misconduct: Consequences on
consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Business Research 63: 1113– 20.
Keown-McMullan, C. 1997. Crisis: When does a molehill become a mountain? Disaster Prevention
and Management 6, no. 1: 4 – 10.
Kim, J., H.J. Kim, and G.T. Cameron. 2008. Are your corporate crisis responses effective?: The
effects of crisis types and corporate responses on the public’s perceptions of organizational
responsibility for crisis. In Proceedings, 348–63. Coral Gables: International Public Relations
Research Conference.
Kim, S., and L.J. Atkinson. 2011. Consumer responses toward corporate advertising: Exploring the
case of Toyota crisis. Paper presented at the 2011 American Psychology Association
Convention, in Washington, DC, USA.
Kiousis, S., P. Bantimaroudis, and H. Ban. 1999. Candidate image attributes: Experiments on the
substantive dimension of second level agenda setting. Communication Research 26: 414– 28.
Koslow, S. 2000. Can the truth hurt? How honest and persuasive advertising can unintentionally
lead to increased consumer scepticism. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 32, no. 2: 245– 68.
Mazis, M.B., R.B. Settle, and D.C. Leslie. 1973. Elimination of phosphate detergents and
psychological reactance. Journal of Marketing Research 10: 390– 5.
McGuire, W.J., and D. Papageorgis. 1962. Effectiveness of forewarning in developing resistance to
persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly 26, no. 1: 24 – 34.
Mowen, J.C. 1980. Further information consumer perceptions of product recalls. Advances in
Consumer Research 7, no. 1: 519– 23.
Mowen, J.C., D.W. Jolly, and G.S. Nickell. 1981. Factors influencing consumer responses to product
recalls: A regression analysis approach. In Advances consumer research, ed. K. Moore, 405–70.
Arlington.
Pashupati, K., L. Arpan, and A. Nikolaev. 2002. Corporate advertising as inoculation against
negative news: An experimental investigation of efficacy and presentation order effects.
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 24, no. 2: 1 – 15.
Pearson, C.M., and J.A. Clair. 1998. Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management
Review 23, no. 1: 59 – 76.
Pfau, M. 1992. The potential of inoculation in promoting resistance to the effectiveness of
comparative advertising messages. Communication Quarterly 40, no. 1: 26 – 44.
Public Relations Journal. 1988. The Best Corporate Advertising 44, May: 32 –3.
Reizenstein, R.C. 1971. A dissonance approach to measuring the effectiveness of two personal
selling techniques through decision reversal. In Proceedings, 176– 80. Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
Ritchie, B.W. 2004. Chaos, crises and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis management in the
tourism industry. Tourism Management 25: 669– 83.
Robertson, T.S., and J.R. Rossiter. 1974. Children and commercial persuasion: An attribute theory
analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 1: 13 – 20.
Seeger, M.W., T.L. Sellnow, and R.R. Ulmer. 1998. Communication, organization and crisis.
In Communication yearbook, ed. M.E. Roloff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schumann, D.W., J.M. Hathcote, and S. West. 1991. Corporate advertising in America: A review of
published studies on use, measurement, and effectiveness. Journal of Advertising 20, no. 3: 35–56.
Siomkos, G.J., and G. Kurzbard. 1994. The hidden crisis in product-harm crisis management.
European Journal of Marketing 28, no. 2: 30 – 41.
Szybillo, G.J., and R. Heslin. 1973. Resistance to persuasion: Inoculation theory in a marketing
context. Journal of Marketing Research 10: 396– 403.
Takeshita, T., and S. Mikami. 1995. How did the mass media influence the voters’ choice in the 1993
general election in Japan?: A study of agenda-setting. Kcio Communication Review 17: 27 – 41.
Wanta, W., G. Golan, and C. Lee. 2004. Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on
public perceptions of foreign nations. Journal of Mass Communication Quarterly 81, no. 2: 364–77.
Weiner, B. 1986. An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
West, S.G. 1975. Increasing the attractiveness of college cafeteria food: A reactance theory
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 656– 8.
Wicklund, R.A. 1970. Prechoice preference reversal as a result of threat to decision freedom.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 14: 8 –17.
Wicklund, R.A., V. Slattum, and E. Solomon. 1970. Effects of implied pressure toward commitment
on ratings of choice alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 6: 449– 57.
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Communications is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.