An overview of how communication professionals can apply insights from academic research to design, implement, and institutionalize evidence-based crisis communication in real-world organizational settings.
This article is a substantively shortened version of a chapter written by Jo Detavernier for the second edition of the Handbook of Crisis Communication (Coombs, W. Timothy & Holladay, Sherry J., eds.). The book can be ordered on Amazon through this link.
Both in-house crisis communication professionals and the consultants who advise them stand to benefit substantially from applying insights from academic research to crisis preparation and response. A commitment to evidence-based crisis communication strengthens not only the effectiveness of communication outcomes, but also the professional credibility of those responsible for shaping them.
Business communication, as a management practice, remains a relatively young discipline. As a result, much remains unknown about what makes communication—crisis communication in particular—consistently effective and efficient. Although notable efforts have been made to codify professional knowledge and develop a shared body of standards, the field still lacks the degree of theoretical consensus found in more mature professions.
A comparison with medicine helps clarify this point. When visiting different physicians for the flu, patients may receive slightly different recommendations, but there is universal agreement among accredited doctors about the biological mechanisms at work when a virus enters the body. In contrast, when organizations consult multiple communication professionals about a reputational issue, they may encounter disagreement not only about how to respond, but even about whether a reputational problem exists at all. Empirically validated approaches to crisis communication are rarely applied with the same degree of consistency.
Despite these limitations, the field of communication is far from devoid of reliable knowledge. A growing body of scientific research provides valuable guidance on how communication functions in high-stakes contexts. When professionals adopt an evidence-based approach, they are more likely to achieve their communication objectives, contribute meaningfully to organizational goals, and articulate defensible rationales for their decisions to internal stakeholders. Over time, this strengthens both their credibility and their influence within organizations.
Evidence-Based Management
Rob Briner defines evidence-based management as the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of the best available evidence in decision-making (Briner, 2019). “Conscientious” implies a genuine effort to seek out evidence; “explicit” requires transparency about the evidence used; and “judicious” demands critical evaluation of evidence quality.
Briner further emphasizes that evidence-based practice draws on multiple sources of evidence. Specifically, he identifies four primary sources: scientific literature, organizational data, stakeholder concerns, and professional expertise. Individually, each source offers only a partial view; together, they enable a more complete understanding of what happened and why.
In addition to multiple evidence sources, evidence-based management follows a structured process consisting of six steps: asking answerable questions; acquiring evidence from the four sources; appraising the quality of that evidence; aggregating insights across sources; applying the findings to decision-making; and assessing the outcomes of those decisions.
When communication professionals incorporate academic research into their practice, they do so—implicitly or explicitly—as part of an evidence-based approach. While this article focuses primarily on scientific evidence, the remaining sources should not be treated as secondary. Research-informed strategies that ignore organizational history, stakeholder expectations, or practitioner experience are unlikely to succeed. Likewise, reliance on intuition alone has inherent limitations: professional experience lacks the large datasets, controlled conditions, and systematic feedback loops characteristic of scientific inquiry (Detavernier, 2020).
The Scientific Body of Knowledge in Crisis Communication
Among the most empirically grounded crisis communication theories are Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) and Stealing Thunder Theory.
Developed by Timothy W. Coombs, SCCT posits that effective crisis response depends on aligning the level of accommodative communication—ranging from denial to apology—with the degree of responsibility attributed to the organization (Coombs & Holladay, 2008). Perceived responsibility increases when crises result from human rather than technical error and when organizations have a history of similar incidents.
Importantly, SCCT strategies should be applied only after organizations have addressed stakeholders’ immediate needs for instructing and adjusting information (Sturges, 1994). Instructing information helps stakeholders protect themselves physically, while adjusting information supports emotional coping. Only once these needs are met should organizations turn to reputational positioning.
Stealing Thunder Theory, developed by Laura M. Arpan and Donnalyn Pompper, focuses on crisis timing rather than message content. The theory holds that reputational damage is reduced when organizations disclose crises themselves rather than allowing external parties to do so first. By “stealing the thunder,” organizations retain narrative control.
Research has shown this strategy to be so effective that it reduces the pressure to select the optimal response strategy in other respects (Coombs, 2017). Together, SCCT and Stealing Thunder Theory form foundational components of an evidence-based crisis communication framework.
Emerging Fields of Inquiry
Beyond established theories, crisis communication research continues to expand into new areas. De Waele, Claeys, and Cauberghe (2017) examined how vocal characteristics influence post-crisis reputation. Their findings indicate that, in preventable crises where organizations employ rebuild strategies, a low voice pitch combined with a slow speech rate yields more favorable outcomes. A high pitch may also be effective, but only when paired with a fast speech rate.
Social media crises represent another emerging domain. Coombs (2014) describes scenarios in which organizations face intense online criticism related to customer service failures or perceived irresponsibility. Research suggests that in cases of stakeholder venting, organizations should allow space for expression—even when commentary is highly negative—rather than attempting immediate suppression.
Adjacent Fields of Study
Crisis communicators can also benefit from insights drawn from adjacent disciplines. Risk communication is particularly relevant, with Vincent Covello’s Trust Determination Theory identifying empathy, competence, and honesty as key drivers of trust in high-risk contexts (Walaski, 2011).
Behavioral science further illuminates challenges that arise during crises. Coombs (2019) identifies information-processing issues such as message overload, acquisition biases, and group decision-making errors. Claeys and Coombs (2019) extend this work by suggesting that crisis response decisions are vulnerable to heuristic biases, including myopic loss aversion and hyperbolic discounting, especially under time pressure.
Putting Evidence Into Practice
Given the breadth of available research, how can practitioners translate evidence into practice? Several complementary pathways exist.
First, practitioners must educate themselves. Academic programs that integrate behavioral science provide a strong foundation, but learning also occurs through professional courses, seminars, and independent study. Organizations such as the Institute for Public Relations play an important curatorial role. Tools like the CEBMa Guideline for Critically Appraised Topics help non-academics assess research rigor (Barends et al., 2017).
Second, organizations should embed an evidence-based mindset into everyday practice. Knowledge that has been shown to work should be shared, documented, and institutionalized—most notably within crisis communication plans. Leadership plays a critical role in fostering a culture where decisions are expected to rest on evidence rather than assumption.
Third, evidence must be actively implemented. Crisis manuals and protocols can be designed to incorporate validated principles from SCCT, Stealing Thunder Theory, and behavioral science. Where decision-makers are prone to bias, interventions can target either individuals or their environments. Ensuring adequate rest and nutrition supports cognitive functioning, while environmental changes—such as structured checklists that prompt consideration of long-term consequences—can counteract short-term thinking.
More broadly, practitioners should inventory all actions required during a crisis and conduct a gap analysis between current practices and evidence-based recommendations. Crisis response involves both stakeholder engagement and the activation of internal processes and resources. Effectiveness depends on whether communication objectives for each stakeholder group are met as crises evolve.
Questions worth asking include whether senior communicators understand core crisis theories, whether spokespeople are trained in evidence-based verbal and non-verbal communication, and whether organizational conditions mitigate cognitive narrowing under pressure. Where gaps exist, organizations can develop roadmaps for improvement, invest in training, and build shared understanding of why new practices are warranted.
An organizational culture that values scientific insight and aligns practice with evidence is more likely to succeed in implementing evidence-based crisis communication—and to sustain those practices over time.
Bibliography
Barends, Eric, Rousseau Denise M., Briner, Rob B., CEBMa Guideline for Critically Appraised Topics in Management and Organizations. CEBMa, 2017.
Briner, Rob, The Basics of Evidence-Based Practice. SHRM Executive Network, 2019.
Claeys, An-Sofie and Coombs, Timothy W., “Organizational Crisis Communication: Suboptimal Crisis Response Selection Decisions and Behavioral Economics.” Communication Theory, 2019.
Coombs, Timothy W. and Holladay, Sherry, PR Strategy and Application: Managing Influence. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Coombs, Timothy W., “State of Crisis Communication: Evidence and the Bleeding Edge.” Institute for Public Relations, 2014.
Coombs, Timothy W., “Stealing Thunder: A Valuable Research Line for Practitioners and Academics.” 2017.
Coombs, Timothy W., Ongoing Crisis Communication. Sage, 2019.
Detavernier, Jo, “Rob Briner Interview: Management Consultants Do Not Know How to Read the Scientific Literature.” 2020.
De Waele, Aurélie, Claeys, An-Sofie and Cauberghe, Verolien, “The Organizational Voice.” Communication Research, 2017.
Sturges, David, “Communicating Through Crisis.” Management Communication Quarterly, 1994.
Walaski, Pamela, Risk and Crisis Communications. Wiley, 2011.
