INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Crisis Communication Revisited: Theoretical Evolution, Limitations,

and Integrative Insights

Egede Dominion Dominic

PhD. (Researcher), Modern Languages and Communications, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000796

Received: 02 November 2025; Accepted: 10 November 2025; Published: 24 November 2025

ABSTRACT

Crisis communication has emerged as a vital organizational function in an era characterized by elevated

stakeholder expectations, digital interconnectedness, and reputational volatility. This paper provides a critical

review and synthesis of contemporary crisis communication theories, including Situational Crisis

Communication Theory (SCCT), Image Repair Theory (IRT), Apologia Theory, Discourse of Renewal Theory,

Networked Crisis Communication Theory (NCCT), Stealing Thunder Theory, and the Social-Mediated Crisis

Communication Model (SMCC). While each theory offers valuable insights into rhetorical strategies, situational

adaptability, and media-specific dynamics, none adequately addresses the complex, multidimensional nature of

modern crises. Through a comparative and empirical critique, this review highlights significant theoretical gaps,

including insufficient attention to stakeholder psychology, emotional engagement, source credibility, and cultural

variability. The paper advocates for an integrated framework that combines strategic responsiveness, ethical

renewal, and digital engagement. By rethinking traditional models and incorporating interdisciplinary insights,

this study aims to establish a foundation for more resilient, adaptive, and context-sensitive crisis communication

strategies that are suitable for today's organizational landscape.

Keywords: Theories in crisis communications, crisis communication, crisis communication theories, crisis

communication theories, and limitations.

Purpose

One critical debate amid the COVID-19 crisis is whether reputational damage during a crisis is more influenced

by the strategy used or the credibility of the message source. This gap in connection with a real-world approach

is very much understudied. This study aims to evaluate and synthesize key contemporary theories in crisis

communication. Its goal is to enhance the understanding of how organizations can respond effectively to crises

by integrating fragmented theoretical insights. Thus, every crisis communication theory prioritizes maintaining

reputation.

Aims

 To review and compare prominent crisis communication theories such as Situational Crisis

Communication Theory (SCCT) and Image Repair Theory (IRT), among others.

 To identify theoretical gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies in the existing literature.

 To propose an integrated framework that more accurately reflects the complexity of modern crises,

including cultural, digital, and reputational dimensions.

Approach

The study employs a systematic literature review and thematic analysis of peer-reviewed academic articles,

books, and theoretical contributions published between 2000 and 2023. It critically analyses the assumptions,

applications, and evolution of key crisis communication theories, integrating them to propose a more cohesive

theoretical model.

Page 9735

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Findings

While existing theories offer valuable insights, they often operate in silos and typically neglect cross-cultural

and digital communication contexts. The review highlights an overreliance on Western-centric models and notes

the underrepresentation of crisis communication in the public sector and non-Western contexts. The study

proposes an integrated, multidimensional framework that includes considerations of stakeholder trust, media

influence, organizational values, and cultural sensitivity.

Limitations of the Study

The study is conceptual and does not include empirical validation of the proposed integrated framework. It relies

on secondary data, which limits the ability to assess practical applications in real-time crises. Although the

literature selection was systematic, it may still reflect some publication and language biases (e.g., reliance on

English-only sources).

Originality/Value

This study is one of the first to integrate multiple crisis communication theories into a single framework. It offers

scholars and practitioners a more holistic understanding of how to manage crises in an era characterized by

globalization, social media, and increased stakeholder scrutiny. Additionally, it lays the groundwork for future

empirical research and the development of new theories.

Novelty and Contributions

This study synthesizes contemporary crisis communication theories within today's evolving communication

landscape. It critiques established models, including SCCT, IRT, Apologia, Discourse of Renewal, NCCT,

Stealing Thunder, and SMCC, while highlighting their strengths and persistent shortcomings, such as neglecting

stakeholder emotions, cultural contexts, and source credibility. What sets this review apart is its call for a hybrid

framework that transcends individual theories. It advocates for a strategically responsive, ethically grounded,

and digitally fluent approach, which is crucial given the increased scrutiny of stakeholders. By integrating

insights from communication, psychology, ethics, and digital media, the paper provides a roadmap for

developing crisis communication strategies that are resilient, adaptable, and culturally attuned, addressing a

significant gap in the existing scholarship.

INTRODUCTION

Crisis communication, which was once primarily focused on press releases and strategies for restoring an

organization's image, now operates in a highly connected, real-time digital environment. The rise of social media

has democratized information, transforming stakeholders from passive recipients into active participants in

shaping meaning during a crisis. This changing landscape has challenged the fundamental assumptions of

traditional theories. Crises are an unavoidable part of organizational life, and how they are managed has

significant effects on reputation, legitimacy, and stakeholder trust. Since the 1990s, research on crisis

communication has aimed to explain how organizations can effectively respond to crises (Coombs, 1995; Benoit,

1995). However, the rapid changes in the media landscape, particularly the rise of social media and participatory

communication, have disrupted traditional models (Austin, Jin, & Liu, 2012). This evolving environment

necessitates the integration of theories that not only address rhetorical strategies and reputation repair but also

consider interactivity, emotional engagement, response source credibility, and cultural dynamics, free from

Western-centric approaches.

A crisis is a significant, unexpected event or situation that threatens to disrupt the normal functioning of an

individual, organization, community, or society. It often creates uncertainty, risk, and urgency, requiring

immediate decision-making and responses to minimize damage to reputation, operations, stakeholders, or public

safety (Coombs, 2007; Dominic et al., 2022).

Crises are unexpected. They usually occur suddenly or escalate rapidly, posing serious threats to objectives,

assets, health, reputation, or stability. They are known by time Pressure. Swift action is necessary due to the

limited time and high stakes involved. crises create uncertainty. Information during a crisis is often incomplete,

Page 9736

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

evolving, or conflicting. They are high stakes. The outcomes can have long-term implications for credibility,

survival, or public trust (Dominic et al., 2024; Jones, 2025). Crises can be categorized into different types,

including Organizational crises (e.g., scandals, product recalls, financial fraud). Natural crises (e.g., earthquakes,

pandemics). Technological crises (e.g., cyberattacks, system failures). Human-induced crises (e.g., terrorism,

industrial accidents). Reputational crises (e.g., social media backlash, misinformation) (Coombs, 2022).

According to Lee, Hong, and Lee (2024), a crisis is "an unstable time or state of affairs in which a decisive

change is impending, either one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome or one with the

distinct possibility of a highly desirable and extremely positive outcome." Furthermore, Coombs (2007) defines

a crisis as "the perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectations of stakeholders and

can seriously impact an organization’s performance, generating negative outcomes."

Crisis communication theories offer frameworks to help organizations manage their communication during

crises (Mizrak, 2024). These frameworks aim to protect or repair an organization's reputation, maintain

stakeholder trust, and minimize harm. This review presents a comprehensive list of major crisis communication

theories, outlining their key assumptions, applications, and significant shortcomings, along with empirical and

logical critiques. Crisis Communication Theory serves as both an academic framework and a practical guide,

enabling organizations to respond strategically and ethically to crisis events. It integrates principles from public

relations, psychology, rhetoric, organizational behaviour, and media studies, assisting in managing public

perception, promoting transparency, and facilitating recovery. What the organizations say during a crisis is crisis

communication, and what they do is the response strategy (Arikawe et al., 2024; Dominic et al., 2024).

Crisis Communication Theory encompasses a collection of theories and models that illustrate how organizations

can effectively communicate during a crisis. The primary goals are to protect their reputation, maintain

stakeholder trust, minimize harm, and facilitate recovery after the crisis (Coombs, 2018). At its core, these

theories guide what organizations should communicate, when they should communicate it, how to convey the

message, and through which channels. This guidance is tailored to the specific type of crisis, the stakeholders

involved, and the context in which the crises occur. The core objectives of crisis communication theories are to

preserve or repair an organization's reputation by maintaining its image during a crisis. Maintain stakeholder

confidence and trust by building and sustaining trust among stakeholders. To provide accurate and timely

information by ensuring stakeholders receive correct information promptly. To minimize damage and restore

normalcy by reducing negative impacts and returning to regular operations. To demonstrate accountability and

ethical leadership by showing responsibility and upholding ethical standards during a crisis. (Carvache-Franco

et al., 2023).

Furthermore, the key features of crisis communication theories include strategic message framing. These theories

guide organizations in crafting messages that minimize blame, convey empathy, or commit to corrective actions.

Another feature is audience orientation: Crisis theories help organizations consider the perspectives of different

stakeholder groups (employees, customers, media, regulators) and how each group interprets messages

differently. Another feature is crisis typologies: Some crisis theories, like Situational Crisis Communication

Theory (SCCT), categorize crises (e.g., victim, accidental, preventable) to help align responses with public

expectations. Another feature is Timing and Channel Choice: Crisis theories emphasize when and where to

communicate, such as the importance of early disclosure and the choice between traditional and digital platforms.

Lastly, Ethical Dimensions: Crisis communication theories, such as the Discourse of Renewal, emphasize the

importance of honesty, learning from mistakes, and values-based communication in crises (Jechle et al., 2025).

Comprehensive Crisis Communication Theories

Table 1. Foundational Theories

Theory

Founder(s)

Key Concepts / Use

Situational

Crisis W. Timothy Explains how crisis type, responsibility attribution, and

Communication Theory Coombs, 2007

(SCCT)

stakeholder perceptions shape the best response strategies and

their effects on organizational reputation.

Page 9737

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Image Restoration Theory William

Provides rhetorical strategies for repairing image and

reputation after crises.

(IRT)

Benoit,1995

Apologia Theory

Ware

Linkugel, 1973

& Defensive strategies: denial, bolstering, differentiation,

transcendence.

Attribution Theory

Heider,

Weiner,1985

How stakeholders assign responsibility/blame in crises,

influencing responses.

Inoculation Theory

McGuire, 1961

Pre-crisis communication to prepare stakeholders against

potential threats.

Image Repair & Apologia Hearit,

1995- Combines rhetorical and legitimacy approaches to corporate

crisis responses.

Integration

Table 2. Contemporary & Applied Theories

Theory Founder(s)

2006

Key Concepts / Use

Discourse of Renewal Theory Seeger & Ulmer,2007 Ethical communication, rebuilding trust, renewal,

and organizational learning after crises.

Networked

Crisis Yan Jin, Claes de Highlights how social media interactivity shapes

stakeholder perceptions and outcomes.

Communication (NCC) Model Vreese, 2014

Integrated Crisis Mapping Jin, Pang & Cameron, Maps public emotions (anger, fright, anxiety,

(ICM) Model

2007

sadness) to guide effective responses.

Stealing Thunder Theory

Arpan

&

Roskos- Proactive disclosure of crises leads to more

Ewoldsen, 2005

favourable outcomes than reactive responses.

Legitimacy Theory

Suchman, 1995

Organizations seek approval by aligning actions

with societal values/norms.

Social-Mediated

Communication (SMCC)

Crisis Austin, Jin & Liu, Explains how different stakeholders consume and

2012 spread crisis messages via social media.

Rhetorical Arena Theory Frandsen & Johansen, Crisis communication occurs in an interactive,

(RAT)

2010

multi-voiced “arena” of competing narratives.

Corporate Apology Theory

Kellerman, Coombs, Effectiveness of apology types (full, partial, denial)

2006

in restoring reputation.

Table 3. Emerging & Critical Perspectives

Theory

Founder(s)

Murphy, 1996

Key Concepts / Use

Chaos Theory

Crises are nonlinear, unpredictable, and require

flexible and adaptive strategies.

Disaster & Risk Communication Various, 1992

Theories

Bridges public health, disaster management, and

crisis (e.g., Protective Action Decision Model).

Framing Theory

Entman, 1993

How media and organizational framing influence

crisis interpretation.

Page 9738

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Stakeholder Theory

Freeman, 1984

Emphasizes balancing diverse stakeholder needs,

power, and legitimacy.

Institutional & Organizational Suchman,1995

Legitimacy Theory

Preserving legitimacy and trust when crises

threaten societal approval.

Critical-Cultural Approaches to Frandsen

& Challenges Western-centric models, emphasizing

cultural context, power, and marginalized voices.

Crisis Communication

Johansen, 2007

Critical review of crisis communication theories

Crisis communication theories provide various approaches for managing organizational communication during

high-stakes, reputation-threatening events. Below is a synthesized summary and critical discussion of key

theories:

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) by W. Timothy Coombs (2007): SCCT suggests that response

strategies (deny, diminish, rebuild, bolster) should align with the type of crisis and the organization’s level of

responsibility. While SCCT is widely applicable, it often oversimplifies complex crises by categorizing them too

rigidly. Its strength lies in its adaptability to different situations, but it could benefit from more consideration of

emotional nuances and stakeholder cultural diversity.

Image Repair Theory (IRT) by William Benoit (1995): IRT focuses on repairing an organization’s image through

rhetorical options like denial, corrective action, or mortification. While it provides strong rhetorical tools, it lacks

situational guidance, assuming that audiences are rational and responsive to reasoned defences, which may not

hold in emotional or politically charged crises.

Apologia Theory by Keith Michael Hearit (2006): This theory emphasizes rhetorical self-defence through denial,

differentiation, or justification, particularly after reputational accusations. Apologia is useful in addressing

individual or corporate scandals, but it is largely reactive and does not address broader strategic or ethical

considerations.

Rhetorical Arena Theory by Frandsen & Johansen (2010): This theory highlights that crises involve multiple

voices, media, stakeholders, and the public, not just the organization itself. It provides a realistic view of crisis

complexity but lacks prescriptive strategies. It is most effective when combined with models like SCCT or

SMCC that suggest practical responses.

Social-Mediated Crisis Communication (SMCC) Model by Jin & Liu (2010): The SMCC model maps how

information flows between organizations and digital publics, emphasizing source credibility and virality. In the

digital age, it is crucial to understand how the public amplifies messages, but it often downplays the message

content and emotional resonance.

Organizational Crisis Communication (OCC) Theory, as proposed by Matthew Seeger (2006), integrates internal

and external communication, promoting consistency between what employees and the public hear. It excels in

fostering employee engagement and organizational alignment but is less developed in terms of digital strategy

or framing emotional responses.

Integrated Crisis Mapping (ICM) Model by Jin, Pang, & Cameron (2012): ICM categorizes crises based on

public emotions (e.g., fear, anger) to tailor communication responses. While it offers valuable psychological

insights, it is not widely utilized and lacks strategic breadth beyond emotional targeting (AO & Mak, 2021).

Discourse of Renewal Theory by Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger (2007): This theory advocates for a focus on

learning, growth, and ethical responsibility rather than blame in post-crisis communication. It is ideal for long-

term recovery, though it may be impractical in crises that require immediate damage control.

Page 9739

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) by Charles Berger & Richard Calabrese (1975): URT is focused on

reducing public panic through timely and transparent updates. It serves as a foundation for trust-building, though

it is not specifically tailored for large-scale or social media-driven crises.

Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) by the CDC (2002): CERC merges crisis response with

risk communication, especially in public health threats. It is practical for government and health agencies, but it

may be too directive and linear for the messy nature of corporate crises.

Karasek’s Demand-Control Model (Adapted) by Robert Karasek (1979): Originally developed for occupational

health, this model addresses employee stress during crises by balancing job demands with autonomy. While

valuable for internal crisis communication, it has limitations in guiding external messaging.

Narrative Paradigm Theory by Walter Fisher (1984): Fisher’s theory posits that stories, rather than just facts,

shape how the public perceives crises. This approach is strong in humanizing organizations and building

emotional connections, but it requires skilled narrative crafting and may not always conform to legal or technical

constraints.

Contingency Theory of Accommodation by Cancel et al. (1997): This theory advocates for flexible, context-

sensitive communication that balances public and organizational interests. It is one of the most adaptive and

realistic models, although it can be challenging to operationalize without clear boundaries or principles.

These theories collectively offer a diverse set of tools for organizations navigating crisis situations. Some are

strategic and prescriptive, such as Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) and the Crisis and

Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model. Others focus on rhetoric and adaptability, like Image Repair

Theory (IRT) and Apologia. Additionally, some theories are more attuned to emotions and culture, including the

Intimate Communication Model (ICM) and the Narrative Paradigm.

However, there are significant limitations that remain prevalent across these theories. Many places put too much

emphasis on strategy or rhetoric, often neglecting the emotional and psychological responses of stakeholders.

There is also a lack of integration between internal communication, media influence, and ethical renewal.

Furthermore, there is insufficient guidance on managing misinformation, the amplification of messages through

social media, and handling crises in cross-cultural contexts (Zhao, Zhan, & Wang, 2021; Dominic et al., 2023).

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), proposed by W. Timothy Coombs, is a widely used

framework that emphasizes how the appropriateness and effectiveness of a crisis response depend on two key

factors: the type of crisis and the level of organizational responsibility perceived by stakeholders. SCCT

categorizes crises into three types: victim, accidental, and preventable, and associates each with specific response

strategies: deny, diminish, rebuild, or bolster. This theory is praised for its systematic, contingency-based

approach and is backed by empirical research (Coombs & Holladay, 2002), making it a fundamental model for

managing reputation strategically.

However, SCCT has notable limitations. One significant drawback is its neglect of source credibility; it assumes

that stakeholder perception is homogeneous and fails to recognize that the trustworthiness of the communicator

greatly affects message reception (Lim, Sung, & Lee, 2022; Lee, 2020; Dominic et al., 2023). Additionally, the

theory lacks contextual flexibility, which limits its adaptability across different cultural and organizational

settings (Zhao, Zhan, & Wang, 2021). Furthermore, SCCT does not adequately address the emotional and

psychological dimensions of stakeholder responses, an aspect increasingly acknowledged as important in crisis

psychology (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2012). The linear framework of SCCT also does not account for the evolving

and recursive nature of crises. Empirical research by Claeys and Cauberghe (2012) highlights this limitation,

showing that stakeholder perceptions of appropriateness often differ from SCCT’s recommendations, especially

in rapidly changing social media environments.

William Benoit’s Image Repair Theory (IRT) provides a rhetorical framework for how organizations and

individuals can respond to events that threaten their image. The theory outlines five broad strategies: denial,

evasion of responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification that can be tailored to

Page 9740

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

various crisis contexts. One of the strengths of IRT is its adaptability and detail, offering precise verbal tactics

for defending reputational integrity. However, its focus on rhetoric and discursive repair can be limiting, as it

does not adequately consider situational dynamics or the interactive nature of contemporary communication

environments (Brinson & Benoit, 1999).

Moreover, IRT offers little guidance on timing and audience segmentation, which diminishes its practicality in

multi-stakeholder crises. The theory is also inherently reactive, lacking tools for pre-crisis preparedness or post-

crisis transformation. Empirical critiques further complicate its application; for instance, Kim and Cameron

(2011) found that mortification, an apology strategy, did not always result in positive reputational outcomes,

particularly when the perceived sincerity was low or when the organization lacked genuine accountability.

Therefore, while IRT is rhetorically strong, it must be applied cautiously and alongside other strategic

considerations.

Apologia Theory, one of the earliest rhetorical crisis communication frameworks, examines how entities defend

themselves against accusations using strategies such as denial, differentiation, bolstering, and transcendence.

Originally developed for individual speech acts, it highlights the persuasive power of rhetoric in managing blame

and crafting defensive narratives. The theory excels in articulating public discourse mechanisms and is effective

in individual or leadership-focused crises. However, its usefulness for organizations is limited due to its narrow

focus. It overlooks non-verbal and behavioural aspects of crisis response and does not consider the complexity

of organizations or the various communication channels now available. Additionally, the theory lacks a

systematic crisis typology, providing less strategic direction compared to models like SCCT. In today's digital

landscape, characterized by speed, interactivity, and rapid message dissemination, Apologia Theory’s

explanatory power diminishes. Sweetser and Metzgar (2007) argue that the theory struggles to maintain

relevance on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, where stakeholders engage directly, share their interpretations

swiftly, and can spread their reactions virally.

The Discourse of Renewal Theory shifts the focus of crisis communication from damage control to ethical

learning, stakeholder empowerment, and organizational transformation. By emphasizing optimism, a future-

oriented approach, and values-based leadership, this theory encourages post-crisis growth and the rebuilding of

trust. It integrates ethical responsibility and proactive communication, providing a normative model that extends

beyond short-term reputational concerns. However, its theoretical elegance is balanced by operational

challenges. Critics, such as Frandsen and Johansen (2011), argue that the theory can be too abstract and idealistic,

lacking specific guidelines for implementation, especially in high-stakes or rapidly unfolding crises.

Moreover, its core assumption that organizations are willing to engage ethically and transparently does not

always align with actual corporate behaviour or legal constraints. Empirical challenges arise when the theory is

applied superficially. For example, Ulmer et al. (2011) illustrate how BP’s use of renewal rhetoric after the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill failed to resonate with stakeholders due to a lack of substantive change, resulting in

further reputational damage. Thus, while the theory has inspirational potential, successful application requires

authenticity and accountability.

The Networked Crisis Communication Theory (NCCT) examines how the type of media (traditional versus

social) and crisis response strategy influence stakeholder perceptions. It posits that the communication platform

can affect the effectiveness of a crisis message, providing insights into media-channel specificity. This theory is

especially relevant in crises that unfold digitally, as it incorporates media richness and interactivity into its

analysis. However, its strengths are mitigated by significant limitations. NCCT tends to overemphasize the

medium, often at the expense of message content and organizational credibility. Additionally, it treats audiences

as uniform entities, disregarding the diverse and sometimes conflicting expectations of stakeholders. The model

mainly focuses on the early stages of crisis response and lacks robust mechanisms for long-term crisis

management. Liu and Fraustino (2014) found that message reception varies significantly across platforms due

to differing user norms, suggesting that NCCT must evolve to incorporate audience psychology and digital

subcultures for broader relevance.

Stealing Thunder Theory advocates for the pre-emptive disclosure of potentially damaging information before

it becomes public knowledge. This counterintuitive strategy can enhance perceived transparency and reduce

Page 9741

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

stakeholder backlash by framing the narrative before external exposure. Its primary strength lies in its ability to

boost organizational credibility and control over the crisis narrative. However, it is a high-risk strategy. If the

disclosed information is too severe or the timing is off, stakeholders may perceive the move as manipulative or

panicked. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for legal or highly sensitive crises, where admission could lead to

liability or regulatory penalties. Dean (2004) empirically validated that while early disclosures can enhance

perceptions of honesty, they can also amplify negative evaluations if stakeholders feel blindsided or emotionally

overwhelmed. Thus, Stealing Thunder is a double-edged sword that requires careful consideration of both the

content and context of the disclosure.

The Social-Mediated Crisis Communication (SMCC) Model explores how various stakeholders (e.g.,

influencers, followers, and inactive publics) engage with crisis information through social media. It

acknowledges that not all publics respond uniformly and that stakeholder behaviour varies based on

involvement, influence, and digital behaviour. The model’s strength lies in its nuanced understanding of the

social media ecosystem, offering a more audience-centred approach to crisis messaging. However, SMCC also

has several weaknesses. It prioritizes social media as the primary communication channel, potentially

overlooking traditional or hybrid platforms that may be more suitable for certain demographics or types of crises.

Additionally, it assumes rational, linear behaviour from stakeholders and does not adequately address emotional

contagion, misinformation, or the influence of bots and micro-influencers. Eriksson (2018) critiques SMCC’s

static categorization of stakeholder roles, arguing that digital behaviours are fluid, context-dependent, and

continuously evolving. Therefore, while SMCC provides a valuable framework for online crisis communication,

it must be regularly updated to keep pace with digital transformations.

Table 4. Comparative Critique and Synthesis

Comparative Critique and Synthesis

Theory

Core Focus

Main Limitation

Applicability Today

SCCT

Matching response to Ignores emotions, cultural High, with adaptation

responsibility

nuance, and source credibility

Rhetorical & reactive

IRT

Verbal image repair

Defence rhetoric

Moderate

Apologia

Lacks

organizational Low

scalability

Renewal

NCCT

Ethical transformation

Media type effects

Idealistic

High, for values-based orgs

High, but partial

Moderate

Media > message

Can backfire

Stealing

Thunder

Pre-emptive disclosure

SMCC

Stakeholder-media

dynamics

Platform

credibility

bias,

source High, but needs updating

The theoretical development in crisis communication has provided essential insights, but it must now evolve to

meet the complexity of today's communication landscape. This evolution requires moving beyond siloed theories

and adopting an interdisciplinary, empirically tested, and context-sensitive approach. Both scholars and

practitioners should prioritize stakeholder psychology, platform dynamics, reputation management, and ethical

renewal to create more resilient and adaptive crisis strategies.

Crisis communication has matured into a multidimensional field grounded in a variety of theories developed

over the decades. While these theories differ in their approaches, whether rhetorical, strategic, or media-centric,

they collectively aim to guide organizations in managing and mitigating crises through effective communication.

However, evolving stakeholder expectations, the rise of digital media, and the increasing demand for

transparency and ethics have revealed gaps in existing models (Dominic et al., 2021). This discussion

Page 9742

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

synthesizes, critiques, and contextualizes the theories presented earlier. Crisis communication theories have

historically developed along two main paths: strategic and rhetorical.

This division reflects different foundational philosophies and highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of

each approach in responding to organizational crises (Dominic et al., 2023). Strategic approaches, which include

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), the Social-Mediated Crisis Communication Model (SMCC),

and Networked Crisis Communication Theory (NCCT), focus on planning, contingency strategies, and effective

messaging within organizational and media frameworks. On the other hand, rhetorical models such as Image

Repair Theory (IRT) and Apologia Theory emphasize the use of language and moral arguments in defending

reputations and addressing public accountability.

SCCT is perhaps the most widely referenced strategic framework. It employs a situational matching logic, where

the type of crisis and the organization’s level of responsibility dictate the most suitable communication strategy

(Coombs, 2006). While it has significantly contributed to establishing standardized crisis responses, its

effectiveness is limited by its prescriptive nature and a tendency to overlook stakeholder emotions, cultural

differences, and platform-specific behaviours (Dominic, Mahamed & Ogodo, 2025). Although it serves as a

foundation for reputation-focused planning, it operates under the assumption of a linear communication

environment and uniform stakeholder perspectives, assumptions that are increasingly unrealistic in today's

fragmented digital landscape.

Conversely, rhetorical approaches like IRT and Apologia Theory provide rich strategies for organizations

managing blame and seeking to maintain legitimacy (Benoit, 1997). These theories concentrate on the content

and construction of crisis messages, offering classifications of speech acts (e.g., denial, differentiation,

mortification) that help frame narratives effectively. However, they tend to be conceptually narrow, failing to

integrate with organizational dynamics, media frameworks, or the diversity of stakeholder perspectives.

Additionally, their reactive nature limits strategic foresight and organizational learning, reducing their relevance

in prolonged or evolving crises. While these models demonstrate rhetorical sophistication, they lack scalability

in today’s fast-paced, multi-platform crisis environments (Zhao, Zhan, & Liu, 2018).

The rise of social media and digital interactivity has led to models emphasizing networked dynamics, such as

SMCC and NCCT (Liu, Jin, Briones, & Kuch, 2012). These models address a significant gap left by earlier

frameworks by recognizing the nonlinear, participatory, and decentralized nature of modern crisis

communication. SMCC is particularly noteworthy for acknowledging the varied roles of digital publics, ranging

from influential figures to less active stakeholders, and how these groups influence the dissemination and

reception of crisis messages. It redefines the crisis landscape as a dialogic, co-created space where authority is

dispersed, and traditional message control is challenged (Schultz, Utz, & Göritz, 2011). However, SMCC often

places too much emphasis on platform mechanics (such as speed and interactivity) at the cost of content

credibility and message authenticity, which increasingly shape stakeholder perceptions and behaviours.

Similarly, while NCCT adds to our understanding of how media richness and tone affect initial crisis perceptions,

it frequently views digital platforms as monolithic entities, overlooking aspects like algorithmic filtering,

platform culture, and behaviour specific to different affordances. These oversights are significant, given that

message interpretation can vary considerably between, for example, the rapid public discourse on Twitter and

the more personal, segmented interactions found on Facebook. Collectively, these models point to a paradigm

shift from a hierarchical, organization-centred approach to a networked, multivocal narrative, but they require

further refinement to adequately address content authenticity, emotional factors, and strategic ethics.

The Discourse of Renewal Theory addresses an aspect that is notably absent from most other models: the moral

and transformational role of crisis. Instead of concentrating on blame deflection or managing reputational

damage, it promotes values-based communication, stakeholder inclusion, and long-term learning. This approach

aligns with the growing public expectations for organizational transparency, authenticity, and resilience.

However, its practical application faces challenges due to its abstract idealism (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011). The

theory assumes that organizations are both capable and willing to engage in genuine ethical renewal, a premise

that often does not hold true, especially in high-liability contexts or industries struggling with entrenched

reputational issues. Empirical case studies, such as BP’s response following the Deepwater Horizon disaster,

Page 9743

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

demonstrate how stakeholders can quickly recognize and dismiss performative ethics that are not backed by

meaningful behavioral changes (Ulmer et al., 2011).

Similarly, Stealing Thunder Theory adopts a proactive stance by advocating for early, voluntary disclosure of

negative information. Research has shown that this approach enhances transparency and reduces suspicion.

However, it requires a careful balance between openness and strategic self-preservation. The application of this

strategy must be weighed against legal, regulatory, and reputational risks, particularly in high-stakes or litigious

environments. Thus, while the theory promotes strategic transparency, it lacks normative criteria for determining

ethical timing, message framing, or stakeholder targeting, exposing the ethical ambiguity inherent in many crisis

responses (Dean, 2004).

Despite their valuable contributions, no single theory provides a comprehensive solution to the complex nature

of contemporary crises. Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) is adaptable but emotionally and

culturally superficial. Rhetorical models like Image Restoration Theory (IRT) and Apologia provide

communicative nuance but lack strategic depth. Media-centric theories, such as the Situational Media

Communication Model (SMCC) and the Networked Crisis Communication Theory (NCCT), acknowledge

stakeholder interactivity but underemphasize the significance of internal organizational values and learning

processes. Meanwhile, the Discourse of Renewal Theory offers a compelling ethical vision but lacks tactical

specificity (Coombs, 2019).

This fragmented theoretical landscape calls for an integrated framework, one that combines the situational

analysis of SCCT, the stakeholder interactivity of SMCC, and the ethical approach of the Discourse of Renewal

Theory. Such a framework should embed source credibility as a core construct, recognizing that stakeholder trust

increasingly hinges on who communicates, not just what is communicated (Dominic et al., 2024).

Additionally, crisis communication theories must account for cultural sensitivity, acknowledging that

stakeholder expectations and risk perceptions are heavily influenced by local norms and sociopolitical contexts.

Emotional engagement should also be a central focus, as affective responses, such as fear, anger, and empathy,

often determine crisis salience and narrative engagement (Jin et al., 2012). Figure 1 below demonstrates the

empirical support for the theories proposed.

Fig.1 proposed theoretical framework

Mechanisms of Mediation and Interactive Strengthening

The five dimensions discussed do not function independently; they interact with one another. For instance,

cultural norms can influence emotional expression, while sector-specific logics determine which sources are

considered credible. Additionally, sociopolitical contexts can change the dynamics of networked emotions and

source legitimacy (Pratt, 2012; Ketko-Ayali, Cohen, & Michaeli, 2025). Practically speaking, when the

credibility of a response source (RSC) is high, it enhances the positive effects of well-suited strategies across

diverse cultures and sectors. On the other hand, in politicized or low-trust environments, even high-quality

Page 9744

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

strategies may falter unless both source credibility and emotional engagement are addressed simultaneously.

This layered mediation illustrates why relying solely on a single theory, such as Situational Crisis

Communication Theory (SCCT), often yields subpar results in varied, networked crises (Coombs & Holladay,

2010; Dominic et al., 2024; Gierszewska, 2025; Capano & Toth, 2025).

Crisis response strategies are important, but their reputational benefits depend on various factors. Cultural norms,

sector conditions, source credibility, emotional engagement, and sociopolitical contexts all mediate and either

enhance or diminish the relationship between strategy and reputation. By incorporating these dimensions into

crisis communication theory, placing emphasis on source credibility, we can establish a more realistic, testable,

and actionable framework for both research and practice in an age characterized by digital interactivity and

cultural complexity.

Future research should extend beyond isolated theories toward hybrid models that are strategically flexible,

ethically grounded, and digitally agile. The field is at a turning point where theoretical frameworks must adapt

to the complexity of the communicative landscape they aim to elucidate. In doing so, scholars and practitioners

can better navigate the evolving demands of public scrutiny, stakeholder empowerment, and organizational

accountability in an era where crises are a matter of when, not if.

Table 5. Recent debates in crisis communication theories scholarship

Debate Area

Key Issues / Questions

Recent Insights

Influencers & social Should frameworks integrate Micro-influencers shape crisis narratives through

media influencer roles? trust and parasocial ties (e.g., TikTok in disasters).

Digital vs. Traditional How to balance immediacy vs. Politician briefings can dilute trust; younger

Channels clarity? audiences require informal digital platforms.

Speed vs. Accuracy / Should organizations prioritize Rapid responses reduce harm, but misinformation

Misinformation

fast disclosure or verified (esp. AI-driven) complicates strategies.

accuracy?

Cultural Context

Are theories too Western- Collectivist cultures (e.g., China) utilize ambiguity

centric?

and harmony, challenging the universality of

SCCT/IRT.

Strategic Flexibility

Is one “best” model possible?

Contingency Theory emphasizes adaptive, situational

responses vs. universal Excellence Theory ideals.

Timing

&

Crisis How does timing affect Early responses during the issue stage are helpful,

Lifecycle

effectiveness?

while delayed responses at peak may worsen the

reputation.

Ethics & Technology How to ensure fairness in AI- Machine learning enables early detection but raises

based crisis detection? bias/privacy concerns.

Data Breach Crisis What strategies align with Best practice: early

disclosure,

apology,

Communication

regulatory expectations?

responsibility, authority notification—shaped by

privacy laws.

Crisis response source Not just what the theory says or Based on the recent debate in crisis communication

credibility. Ongoing how it functions, but by whom or amid COVID-19, whether reputational damage

Debate

who carried out the saying and during a crisis is more influenced by the strategy used

functions?

(SCCT) or the credibility of the message source. This

debate is yet to be addressed.

Page 9745

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

METHODOLOGY

This review employs a systematic literature review to analyse and integrate contemporary theories of crisis

communication. The goal is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of existing theoretical frameworks in crisis

communication, highlighting their evolution, applications, and limitations. The literature search involved an

extensive exploration of academic articles, books, and other scholarly resources focused on crisis communication

theory. Specific criteria were applied to select studies based on their relevance, quality, and theoretical rigor.

Sources were identified through a combination of electronic databases, including Google Scholar, JSTOR,

Scopus, and the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Only peer-reviewed articles were included to ensure

the relevance and reliability of the theories discussed. The inclusion criteria for selecting articles were as follows:

Relevance to crisis communication theory, Application to real-world crises or crisis management strategies,

Theoretical depth and contribution to the field, and Empirical support for the proposed theories.

Table 6. The inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criterion

Eligibility

Journal articles, conference papers, and book chapters Short survey, erratum, and others

English language Non-English language

Exclusion

Literature type

Language

Indexes

Social sciences, crisis communication, decision- Environmental science, engineering,

making, health sciences, medicine, and psychology; and others

crisis communication theories, and reputation

management.

Countries

Timeline

Africa, Asia, America, and European countries.

Articles from 2000-2024

Others not included

Below 2000 & above 2024

After identifying the relevant literature, the studies were analysed using thematic coding to help authors identify

recurring ideas, constructs, or arguments across studies, detect trends over time, and highlight gaps,

contradictions, and underexplored areas, to uncover key themes and trends in the development of crisis

communication theories. The analysis focused on understanding how different theories address the dynamics of

communication during crises, the role of stakeholders, and factors influencing crisis communication strategies.

Key theories, such as Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), Image Repair Theory (IRT), and

Cultural Approaches to Crisis Communication, were critically examined. This thematic analysis was followed

by a theoretical integration approach, where the key components of each theory were compared and synthesized.

The aim was to create a more coherent and holistic understanding of crisis communication by identifying

overlapping concepts, gaps in existing theories, and areas where integration could enhance theoretical

development.

The review also involved a critical evaluation of the strengths and limitations of the current theories. Theoretical

weaknesses, such as the lack of cultural considerations and the focus on a limited range of crisis types, were

highlighted. Additionally, the review discussed the interdisciplinary nature of crisis communication theory and

suggested potential areas for future research, such as the impact of digital media and the role of social networks

in modern crises. The synthesis of various crisis communication theories provides a more integrated perspective

on how organizations should manage crises in a globally interconnected and digitally mediated environment. By

identifying gaps and inconsistencies in the existing literature, this review offers both practical implications for

crisis managers and a theoretical framework for advancing crisis communication scholarship. This review makes

a dual contribution: it provides a comprehensive synthesis of contemporary crisis communication theories and

proposes an integrated theoretical framework for understanding the complexities of crisis communication across

different organizational and cultural contexts.

Page 9746

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Critical Integration and Gaps

Despite the abundance of existing theories, several notable gaps persist:

1. Fragmentation – The field is characterized by theoretical silos, where rhetorical, psychological, and network

perspectives often remain disconnected (Coombs & Holladay, 2010).

2. Cultural Blind Spots – Many models are predominantly Western-centric and lack the adaptability necessary

for diverse cultural contexts (Frandsen & Johansen, 2017).

3. Digital Complexity – The rise of algorithm-driven platforms and the spread of disinformation present

significant challenges to current theoretical frameworks (Jin et al., 2014).

4. Ethical Dimensions – Theories frequently minimize the role of ethics and trust-building efforts, focusing

primarily on reputation repair (Ulmer et al., 2007).

To effectively address these gaps, it is essential to develop an integrated framework that encompasses rhetorical,

psychological, and digital-network perspectives, while also incorporating cultural and ethical considerations.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of contemporary crisis communication theories reveals a fragmented yet evolving theoretical

landscape shaped by disciplinary divides, technological transformation, and shifting stakeholder expectations.

While strategic models such as Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) offer practical value through

their contingency logic, they often fall short in capturing the psychological, emotional, and cultural complexities

of crisis contexts. Rhetorical theories like Image Restoration Theory (IRT) and Apologia provide valuable

linguistic tools; however, their lack of integration with organizational behaviour and digital interactivity renders

them increasingly inadequate in the face of fast-moving, media-saturated crises. Media-centric models such as

the Social Media Crisis Communication Theory (SMCC) and the Networked Crisis Communication Theory

(NCCT) respond to the realities of networked communication but risk overemphasizing platforms at the expense

of content credibility, stakeholder trust, and ethical considerations. The Discourse of Renewal Theory and

Stealing Thunder Theory highlight the importance of ethics and transparency, yet they often remain idealistic

and operationally underdeveloped in high-risk environments.

From this critical analysis emerges a theoretical gap: no existing model fully captures the multidimensional,

dynamic, and ethically charged nature of modern crises. The strategic-rhetorical divide, while analytically useful,

obscures the need for interdisciplinary integration. Factors such as emotional salience, cultural nuance,

stakeholder agency, and digital interactivity are not peripheral concerns; they are central to how crises are

experienced, interpreted, and resolved. Thus, the field must evolve toward a more holistic framework that

integrates situational responsiveness, digital stakeholder dynamics, and ethical imperatives. This model should

guide message construction and media selection while also accounting for source credibility, trust repair, and

organizational learning. It must remain sensitive to platform-specific features, algorithmic influences, and

nonlinear narrative flows; all hallmarks of the contemporary crisis landscape.

This study is highly relevant to the academic and practical fields of crisis management, public relations, and

strategic communication. For instance:

1. Comprehensive Theoretical Review

Purpose: The study critically examines and synthesizes existing crisis communication theories, such as

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), Image Restoration Theory (IRT), and Chaos Theory.

Relevance: It highlights the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in these theories, helping scholars understand where

current models fall short in explaining or managing modern crises.

2. Integration of Diverse Theoretical Perspectives

Page 9747

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Purpose: Rather than treating each theory in isolation, the study integrates various perspectives, including

rhetorical, social constructivist, and organizational perspectives.

Relevance: This offers a more holistic and nuanced framework for understanding how crises unfold and how

communication strategies should be adapted.

3. Emphasis on Critical and Constructivist Approaches

Purpose: The author challenges dominant paradigms that view crisis communication as linear or purely reactive.

Relevance: This shifts the focus from “what to say after a crisis” to “how social, cultural, source credibility, and

power structures shape crisis narratives.” This perspective is particularly beneficial in today’s social media age,

where crises can be rapidly constructed and deconstructed online.

4. Practical Implications for Organizations

Purpose: The study provides insights into how organizations can better prepare for, respond to, and learn from

crises.

Relevance: It encourages proactive and context-sensitive communication, moving beyond generic strategies to

more culturally and situationally appropriate responses.

5. Applicability to Contemporary Crisis Scenarios

Purpose: The study takes into account evolving types of crises, such as misinformation, cyberattacks, pandemics,

and climate-related disasters.

Relevance: This makes the study especially timely and useful for navigating complex and fast-changing

communication environments.

Justification for the study

This study is important because it:

 Bridges the gap between academic theory and real-world practice.

 Promotes critical thinking and reflexivity in how crises are communicated.

 Encourages the development of adaptive, inclusive, and multidimensional crisis strategies.

While crisis communication theories like Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) and Image

Restoration Theory (IRT) provide useful structured response strategies, they face significant challenges in

addressing the complexities of modern crises. Issues such as misinformation, cultural variability, and the rapid

pace of digital media require more adaptable, context-sensitive, and critically reflective approaches.

To tackle these challenges, scholars recommend integrating interdisciplinary perspectives, developing more

dynamic and culturally adaptive frameworks, and utilizing real-time digital engagement strategies that align with

the evolving nature of crises in today’s society. In summary, crisis communication theory stands at a crossroads.

To remain relevant and robust, it must move away from rigid silos and instead embrace complexity, hybridity,

and moral accountability. Only through such integrative efforts can the field adequately support organizations in

navigating the reputational, social, and ethical challenges of crises in an age of perpetual scrutiny and public

empowerment.

A critical and significant gap persists in the contemporary crisis communication literature. One notable gap or

debate amid the COVID-19 crisis is whether reputational damage during a crisis is more influenced by the

strategy used or the credibility of the message source. This gap in connection with a real-world approach is very

Page 9748

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

much understudied. Although recent perspectives (2020–2023) have championed algorithmic and AI-driven

models (e.g., Bowen & Stohl, 2020; Valentini, 2022), including sophisticated digital frameworks for combating

misinformation and health models tailored to COVID-19, their purported universality is a fallacy. This limitation

constitutes a major impediment to the field, as these advanced models lack the necessary adaptability for cross-

cultural and cross-contextual application, leaving organizations vulnerable when crises deviate from the specific

parameters for which these tools were designed. Crisis communication has moved beyond linear, one-

dimensional models toward complex, stakeholder-driven, and digital-centric frameworks. Foundational theories

remain essential, but they require integration with contemporary perspectives to address today’s challenges. The

future lies in adaptive, ethically grounded, and culturally sensitive models that not only mitigate crises but also

strengthen resilience and stakeholder trust.

REFERENCES

1. AO, S. H., & Mak, A. K. (2021). Regenerative crisis, social media publics, and Internet trolling: A

cultural discourse approach. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 102072.

2. Arikawe, O., Edwards-Fapohunda, M. O., & Waite, P. (2024). Strategies for Student-Related Crisis

Management in The Learning Environment in Further Education Colleges in UK. Iconic Research And

Engineering Journals, 8(2), 576-586.

3. Austin, L., Jin, Y., & Liu, B. F. (2012). The social-mediated crisis communication model: Validating a

multi-pathway approach to social media crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis

Management, 20(3), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2012.00665.x

4. Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. SUNY

Press.

5. Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2),

177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0

6. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a

developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x

7. Bowen, S. A., & Stohl, C. (2020). Automated propaganda: AI and the future of discourse. In The

Routledge handbook of propaganda and public relations (pp. 123-138). Routledge.

8. Brinson, S. L., & Benoit, W. L. (1999). The tarnished star: Restoring Texaco’s damaged public

image. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(4), 483-510.

9. Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A contingency theory

of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(1), 31–63.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0901_02

10. Capano, G., & Toth, F. (2025). Controversial issues in crisis management. Bridging public policy and

crisis management to better understand and address crises. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 16(3),

e12304.

11. Carvache-Franco, O., Carvache-Franco, M., Carvache-Franco, W., & Iturralde, K. (2023). Topic and

sentiment analysis of crisis communications about the COVID-19 pandemic in Twitter’s tourism

hashtags. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 23(1), 44-59.

12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Crisis and emergency risk communication

(CERC). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

13. Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2012). Crisis response and crisis timing strategies, two sides of the same

coin. Public relations review, 38(1), 83-88.

14. Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2012). Crisis response and reputation: The case of Toyota. Public

Relations Review, 38(1), 66–74.

15. Coombs, T. W. (2018). Crisis communication. Encyclopedia of public relations, 2.

16. Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the

“appropriate” crisis-response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 447–476.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318995008004003

17. Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputational assets

during a crisis. Journal of promotion management, 12(3-4), 241-260.

Page 9749

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

18. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and

application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176.

19. Coombs, W. T. (2019). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (5th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

20. Coombs, W. T. (2022). Situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) refining and clarifying a

cognitive‐based theory of crisis communication. The handbook of crisis communication, 193-204.

21. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests

of the situational crisis communication theory. Management communication quarterly, 16(2), 165-186.

22. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2010). The handbook of crisis communication. Wiley-Blackwell.

23. Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity: Effects of corporate reputation, response,

and responsibility for a crisis event. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 41(2), 192-211.

24. Dominic, E.ꢀD., Mahamed, M., & Ogodo, A.ꢀE. (2025). Source credibility as a catalyst: Unraveling its

role in shaping strategic communication acceptability (SCA). International Journal of Academic

Research

in

Business

and

Social

Sciences,

15(2),

Article

E1430.

https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v15-i2/24688

25. Dominic, E. D., Mahamed, M., & Uwadiegwu, I. V. (2023). Demystifying Source Credibility (SC) in

social sciences: An inescapable construct towards effective communications. International Journal of

Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 13(12), 3415-3431.

26. Dominic, E. D., Mahamed, M., Abdullah, Z., & Hashim, N. B. (2021). Rebuilding crisis response

strategies: Nigerian university reputation sustainability during and after the covid-19 pandemic

crisis. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(6), 1448-1466.

27. Dominic, E. D., Mahamed, M., Abdullah, Z., & Hashim, N. B. (2024). A scoping review: Inquiring into

the potency of response source credibility (RSC) towards enhancing crisis response strategies. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 32(1), e12535.

28. Dominic, E. D., Mahamed, M., Maledo, R. O., Erica, O. A., & Obaro, J. E. (2024). Expounding

organizational reputation/crisis: Exploring its definitional landscape. International Journal of Academic

Research in Business & Social Sciences, 14(8), 937-952.

29. Dominic, E., Mahamed, M., Abdullah, Z., & Hashim, N. (2022). A quantitative study on scct: examining

the relationships between crisis response strategy, crisis history, and crisis type on organisational

reputation: Nigerian perspective. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social

Sciences, 12(10).

30. Dominic, E., Mahamed, M., Abdullah, Z., Hashim, N., & Uwadiegwu, I. (2023). Crisis communication:

Conceptualizing the efficacy of information source credibility on crisis message acceptability and

reputation sustainability. Studies in Media and Communication, 11(7), 313.

31. Eriksson, M. (2018). Lessons for crisis communication on social media: A systematic review of what

research tells the practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(5), 526-551.

32. Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument.

Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390180

33. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2010). Crisis communication, complexity, and the cartoon affair: A case

study. The handbook of crisis communication, 425-448.

34. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2011). The study of internal crisis communication: Towards an integrative

framework. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 347–361.

https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281111186977

35. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2017). Organizational crisis communication: A multivocal approach.

SAGE.

36. Gierszewska, A. (2025). INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATION OF HEALTH AND CRISIS HEALTH

EMERGENCIES BETWEEN CITIZENS AND PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH

SOCIAL MEDIA.

37. Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing.

Routledge.

38. Jechle, D., Schuetz, S., & Gewald, H. (2025). Decoding Data Breach Response Strategies: Insights from

Situational Crisis Communication Theory using Topic Modeling.

Page 9750

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

39. Jin, Y., Liu, B. F., & Austin, L. (2014). Examining the role of social media in effective crisis management:

The effects of crisis origin, information form, and source on publics’ crisis responses. Communication

Research, 41(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211423918

40. Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). Integrated crisis mapping: Toward a publics-based, emotion-

driven conceptualization in crisis communication. Sphera Publica, (7), 81-95.

41. Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2012). Toward a publics-driven, emotion-based conceptualization

in crisis communication: Unearthing dominant emotions in multi-stage testing of the Integrated Crisis

Mapping (ICM) model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(3), 266–298.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.676747

42. Jones, B. M. (2025). Crisis Management Strategies for Sustaining Small Business Operations and

Profitability During Unexpected Events (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).

43. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job

redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498

44. Ketko-Ayali, K., Cohen, A., & Michaeli, N. (2025). From SEL to SPEL: Teachers integrating political

emotions in lessons during times of crisis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 160, 105015.

45. Kim, H. J., & Cameron, G. T. (2011). Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and sadness in the

publics’ response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response. Communication Research, 38(6),

826-855.

46. Lee, J. Y., Hong, B., & Lee, J. J. (2024). International Student Crisis Management to COVID-19: A

Comparative Analysis between the United States and South Korea. Journal of Comparative &

International Higher Education, 16(2).

47. Lee, S. Y. (2020). Stealing thunder as a crisis communication strategy in the digital age. Business

Horizons, 63(6), 801-810.

48. Liu, B. F., & Fraustino, J. D. (2014). Beyond image repair: Suggestions for crisis communication theory

development. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 543-546.

49. Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: The

interplay of information form and source. Public Relations Review, 37(4), 345–353.

50. Liu, B. F., Jin, Y., Briones, R., & Kuch, B. (2012). Managing turbulence in the blogosphere: Evaluating

the blog-mediated crisis communication model with theAmerican Red Cross. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 24(4), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.689901

51. Liu, B., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2010). How publics use social media to communicate during crises:

Proposing the social-mediated crisis communication model. Proceedings of the Public Relations Society

of America Educators Academy, Washington, DC, 142-157.

52. Mizrak, K. C. (2024). Crisis management and risk mitigation: Strategies for effective response and

resilience. Trends, challenges, and practices in contemporary strategic management, 254-278.

53. Pratt, C. B. (2012). Theoretical approaches to and sociocultural perspectives in crisis

communication. Case studies in crisis communication: International perspectives on hits and misses, 3-

27.

54. Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to

crisis communication via Twitter, blogs, and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 20–27.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001

55. Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of applied

communication research, 34(3), 232-244.

56. Sung, Y. H., Lim, R. E., & Lee, W. N. (2022). Does company size matter in corporate social

responsibility? An examination of the impact of company size and cause proximity fit on consumer

response. International Journal of Advertising, 41(2), 284-308.

57. Sweetser, K. D., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a relationship

management tool. Public relations review, 33(3), 340-342.

58. Ulmer, R. R., Seeger, M. W., & Sellnow, T. L. (2007). Post-crisis communication and renewal: Expanding

the parameters of post-crisis discourse. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 130–134.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.015

59. Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2007). Effective crisis communication: Moving from

crisis to opportunity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Page 9751

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

60. Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2011). Effective crisis communication: Moving from

crisis to opportunity (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

61. Valentini, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in corporate communication: A new paradigm for strategic

communication? In The Routledge handbook of corporate communication (pp. 345-360). Routledge.

62. Zhao, X., Zhan, M., & Liu, B. F. (2018). Disentangling social media influence in crises: Testing a four-

factor model of social media influence with large data. Public relations review, 44(4), 549-561.

63. Zhao, Y., Zhan, M., & Wang, X. (2021). A cross-cultural perspective on SCCT: Empirical evidence from

China. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 102–110.

64. Zhao, Y., Zhan, M., & Wang, Y. (2021). Beyond the typology: Rethinking the limitations of dominant

crisis communication theories in the digital age. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 102060.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102060

About the author

Egede Dominion Dominic is an emerging scholarly voice in crisis communication, particularly in how source

credibility influences stakeholder response and reputation management during crises. His work blends

theoretical rigor with practical relevance, especially in organizational and educational contexts.

Page 9752

www.rsisinternational.org