ABSTRACT

This article applies interpersonal deception theory (IDT) to crisis communication. As strategic communicators, spokespeople representing organizations in crisis often evade questions in media interviews. Upper management and legal counsel tend to prefer evasive language over directly answering questions. Normative crisis communication, however, exhorts honest and straightforward language. In Experiment 1 (N = 262), a company spokesperson either evades or directly answers questions during a media interview. Consistent with IDT, truth and completeness in the messaging mediate the effect of a spokesperson being perceived as less trustworthy when evading, which hampers the organization’s reputation. The results replicate in Experiment 2 (N = 262), in which a spokesperson replies to questions in a media interview through varying degrees of narratives including on-topic narratives, off-topic (spin) storytelling, and nonnarrative answers. On-topic narratives and nonnarratives both serve as viable strategies – bolstering the spokesperson’s trustworthiness and the organization’s reputation – through the messaging components of truth, completeness, clarity, and relevance.

摘要

本文将人际欺骗理论（IDT）应用于危机沟通。作为战略传播者，代表处于危机中的组织的发言人经常在媒体采访中回避问题。与直接回答问题相比，高层管理人员和法律顾问倾向于使用回避性语言。然而，规范性的危机沟通劝诫人们诚实和坦率的语言。在实验1（N = 262）中，公司发言人在接受媒体采访时回避或直接回答问题。与IDT一致，消息中的真实性和完整性可调节发言人在逃避时被认为不值得信任的影响，这会损害组织的声誉。结果重复实验2（N= 262），其中发言人通过不同程度的叙事（包括主题叙事，离题（旋转）叙事和非叙事答案）回答媒体采访中的问题。通过真实，完整，清晰和相关的信息传递部分，叙事性和非叙事性都是可行的策略-增强发言人的可信度和组织的声誉。