Spokespersons’ Nonverbal Behavior in Times of Crisis: The Relative Importance of Visual and Vocal Cues
When a chief executive officer or spokesperson responds to an organizational crisis, he or she communicates not only with verbal cues but also visual and vocal cues. While most research in the area of crisis communication has focused on verbal cues (e.g., apologies, denial), this paper explores the relative importance of visual and vocal cues by spokespersons of organizations in crisis. Two experimental studies have more specifically examined the impact of a spokesperson’s visual cues of deception (i.e., gaze aversion, posture shifts, adaptors), because sending a credible response is crucial in times of crisis. Each study focused on the interplay of these visual cues with two specific vocal cues that have also been linked to perceptions of deception (speech disturbances in study 1; voice pitch in study 2). Both studies show that visual cues of deception negatively affect both consumers’ attitudes towards the organization (study 1) and their purchase intentions (study 2) after a crisis. In addition, the findings indicate that in crisis communication, the impact of visual cues dominates the outcomes of vocal cues. In both studies, vocal cues only affected consumers’ perceptions when the spokesperson displayed visual cues of deception. More specifically, the findings show that crisis communication messages with speech disturbances (study 1) or a raised voice pitch (study 2) can negatively affect organizational post-crisis perceptions.
KeywordsPublic relations Crisis communication Spokespersons’ visual cues Vocal cues Credibility Deception
This work was supported in part by a grant from the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT) (Grant Number 141414).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Barton, L. (2001). Crisis in organizations II. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.Google Scholar
- Bellis, R. (2016, July 26). Why Hillary Clinton is so hard to trust even when she’s telling the truth. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com.
- Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341–345.Google Scholar
- Chiles, B. W., & Buslig, A. L. S. (2012). “I’m, uhh, sorry”: The influence of fluency and communication competence on perceptions of apologies. Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal, 39(5), 66–85.Google Scholar
- Disley, A. C., Howard, D. M., & Hunt, A. D. (2006, August). Timbral description of musical instruments. Paper presented at the 9th international conference on music perception and cognition, Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
- Gorney, C. (2001). Use of neutral investigators for third-party credibility. Public Relations Quarterly, 33(1), 24–28.Google Scholar
- Hampson, R. (2016, September 25). Tics and tricks: Here’s what Trump and Clinton’s body language reveals. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com.
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analyses. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Patrick, W. L. (2016, September 19). Debate winner is in the eye (not the ear) of the beholder. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com.
- Rappeport, A. (2016, October 10). What story did debate night body language tell? The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.