Although multinational corporations operate in multiple cultural environments, they currently have no way of anticipating how audiences in different cultural settings will receive, evaluate and respond to their corporate communications in the wake of a crisis. Using impression management as a theoretical framework, specifically the triangle model of responsibility, this dissertation employed a quasi-experimental design in two countries, Spain and the United States, to study the impact of culture, types of excuses and media format on corporate credibility.; Credibility was measured on a 16-item semantic differential scale, with two constituent factors: trustworthiness and expertise. Data were analyzed using a 2 (country---Spain or United States) x 3 (excuse---clarity, obligation, control) x 2 (format---ad or newspaper story) factorial ANOVA.; The results of the study reveal that nationality is the most significant predictor of evaluations of trustworthiness and expertise for a corporation in the wake of an adverse incident. Spanish subjects found excuses offered by a fictitious corporation less credible than American subjects.; Data further reveal that some excuses offered in response to an adverse incident may diminish credibility more than others. Judgments of expertise were more damaged by a prescription clarity excuse (in which the corporation had no way of knowing that the explosion would occur because no scientific literature had predicted it) than by an organizational control excuse (in which the explosion was beyond the organization's control because of a faulty valve).; Finally, results of the study indicate that issuing an excuse in an advertisement or within the context of a news story makes no difference in corporate credibility. This finding implies that organizations wishing to have complete control of their message may wish to choose advertising as a vehicle for delivering their advocacy message.
展开▼
