상황적 위기 커뮤니케이션 이론(SCCT)의 국내 적용과 반 기업 정서의 역할에 대한 연구

Abstract

본 연구는 두 가지 목적을 갖고 실시하였다. 첫째, 생활화학제품 기업 위기 상황에서 상황적 위기 커뮤니케이션 이론(Situational crisis communication theory, 이하 SCCT)를 검토하는 것이며, 둘째, 한국 문화적 변인으로 반 기업 정서에 주목하여 SCCT에서 반 기업 정서의 역할이 무엇인지 확인하는 것이다. 241명의 피험자를 대상으로 사전 평판 2(고/저) X 위기 이력 2(유/무) X 위기 대응 전략 2(방어/수용) 집단 간 설계 실험을 실시하였으며 최종적으로 197개의 응답을 분석에 사용하였다. 통계 방법으로 삼원분산분석(three-way ANOVA), 이원분산분석(two-way ANOVA), 단순회귀분석(simple regression), 헤이즈(Hayes,2013)의 PROCESS 매크로를 사용한 매개 효과 분석 등을 실시하여 연구 문제와 가설을 검증하였다. 위기 유형은 ‘매일 사용하는 생활화학제품의 유해성으로 인한 제품 회수’로 선정하였으며 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 위기 책임성 인식에 대한 독립 변인(사전 평판 X 위기 이력 X 위기 대응 전략 처치) 간 삼원상호작용효과는 나타나지 않았으며, 위기 이력만 위기 책임성 인식에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 위기 유형에 따른 책임성(위기 유형)은 조직 평판에 부(-)적 영향을 주었다. 셋째, 조직 평판에 대한 사전 평판의 직접효과가 나타났으며 위기 책임성 인식을 통한 간접효과는 유의미하지 않았다. 넷째, 조직 평판에 대한 위기 이력의 직접 효과는 유의미하지 않은 반면 위기 책임성 인식을 통한 간접효과는 유의미하였다. 다섯째, 조직 평판에 대한 위기 대응 전략의 직접효과는 나타났지만 위기 책임성 인식을 통한 간접효과는 유의미하지 않았다. 여섯째, 위기 책임성 인식은 조직 평판에 부(-)적 영향을, 조직 평판은 잠재적지지 행동에 정(+)적 영향을 미쳤으며, 위기 책임성 인식→ 조직 평판→ 잠재적지지 행동 경로가 통계적으로 유의미하였다. 마지막으로 위기 책임성 인식, 조직 평판에 대한 반 기업 정서의 조절 효과는 나타나지 않았으나 잠재적지지 행동에 대한 조절 효과는 유의미하게 나타났다. 이러한 연구 결과를 바탕으로 이론적·실무적 시사점 및 한계점을 제시하였다.|This study was carried out with two objectives. First, it examines the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) in a crisis situation of the life chemical companies. Second, it examines the role of anti-corporate sentiments in SCCT by paying attention to anti-corporate sentiments as a cultural variable in Korea.

Design experiment was carried out to 241 subjects between Priority Reputation 2 (High / Low) X Crisis History 2 (Y / N) X Crisis Response Strategies 2 (defense / acceptance) groups. Finally, 197 answered were used for analysis. As for the statistical methods, three-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, simple regression, and mediating effect analysis using Hayes (2013)’s PROCESS macro were carried out to verify research topics and hypothesis. The crisis type was selected as 'product collection by to the hazard of life chemical products'. The study results are as follows. First, there were no three-way interaction effects between independent variables (Prior Reputation X Crisis Response Strategies) and only Crisis History had effect on Crisis Responsibility. Second, Responsibility (crisis type) by Crisis Responsibility had negative (-) effect on Organizational Reputation. Third, there was direct effect on Prior Reputation for Organizational Reputation and there was no significant indirect effect through Crisis Responsibility. Fourth, while direct effects of Crisis History on Organizational Reputation were not significant, indirect effects on Crisis Responsibility were significant. Fifth, direct effects of Crisis Response Strategies on Organizational Reputation were shown, but indirect effects through Crisis Responsibility were not significant. Sixth, Crisis Responsibility had a negative (-) effect on Organizational Reputation, Organizational Reputation had positive (+) effect on Supportive Behavior. Crisis Responsibility → Organizational Reputation → Supportive Behaviors path was statistically significant. Finally, there was no regulatory effect of Crisis Responsibility and Organizational Reputation on anti - corporate sentiment. However, the regulatory effect on Supportive Behaviors was significant. Based on the results of this study, the study proposed a final model and suggested the theoretical and practical implications and limitations.; This study was carried out with two objectives. First, it examines the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) in a crisis situation of the life chemical companies. Second, it examines the role of anti-corporate sentiments in SCCT by paying attention to anti-corporate sentiments as a cultural variable in Korea.

Design experiment was carried out to 241 subjects between Priority Reputation 2 (High / Low) X Crisis History 2 (Y / N) X Crisis Response Strategies 2 (defense / acceptance) groups. Finally, 197 answered were used for analysis. As for the statistical methods, three-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, simple regression, and mediating effect analysis using Hayes (2013)’s PROCESS macro were carried out to verify research topics and hypothesis. The crisis type was selected as 'product collection by to the hazard of life chemical products'. The study results are as follows. First, there were no three-way interaction effects between independent variables (Prior Reputation X Crisis Response Strategies) and only Crisis History had effect on Crisis Responsibility. Second, Responsibility (crisis type) by Crisis Responsibility had negative (-) effect on Organizational Reputation. Third, there was direct effect on Prior Reputation for Organizational Reputation and there was no significant indirect effect through Crisis Responsibility. Fourth, while direct effects of Crisis History on Organizational Reputation were not significant, indirect effects on Crisis Responsibility were significant. Fifth, direct effects of Crisis Response Strategies on Organizational Reputation were shown, but indirect effects through Crisis Responsibility were not significant. Sixth, Crisis Responsibility had a negative (-) effect on Organizational Reputation, Organizational Reputation had positive (+) effect on Supportive Behavior. Crisis Responsibility → Organizational Reputation → Supportive Behaviors path was statistically significant. Finally, there was no regulatory effect of Crisis Responsibility and Organizational Reputation on anti - corporate sentiment. However, the regulatory effect on Supportive Behaviors was significant. Based on the results of this study, the study proposed a final model and suggested the theoretical and practical implications and limitations.