Literature review

3110524
Word count: 1971

The impact of stealing thunder as a crisis communication strategy

The existing literature about crisis communication mainly focuses on public institutions'
reactions, such as governments, after a crisis. However, there is a more proactive approach for
these institutions to minimize the damage to the organization's reputation. An organization
has several options when releasing information about a crisis. These options include the
various types of explanations and justifications for the problem and the timing of information
release (Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). In this literature review, I would like to focus on
the timing of information release. Instead of bringing the news after the crisis has happened,
an organization could report a crisis before it even occurs or before other parties say it. This
could minimize the organization's damage since the public could perceive this as a proactive
attitude towards the crisis. This approach to the timing of information release is called stealing
thunder. When an organization steals thunder, it breaks the news about its crisis before the
crisis is discovered by the media or other interested parties (Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen,
2005).
           The impact of stealing thunder depends on various elements, such as the pre-crisis
reputation of an organization. During my research, it struck me that there isn't a
comprehensive overview of stealing thunder as a crisis communication strategy, so I would
like to examine this impact in this literature review. Therefore, my research question will be:
What is the impact of stealing thunder as a crisis communication strategy? In the result
section, I will show the literature findings I found and will focus on if stealing thunder had a
positive or negative impact on the organizations that used it as a strategy. Consequently, I will
be discussing the elements in the discussion section that are important for a positive or
negative impact of stealing thunder according to the literature I found. 

Methodology

A systematic literature review was carried out to provide a recap of the existing literature on
the appliance of stealing thunder as a crisis communication strategy. This methodology aims
to, firstly, examine the extent, range and nature of research activity. This type of rapid review
might not describe research findings in any detail but is a valuable way of mapping fields of
study where it is difficult to visualize the range of material that might be available. Secondly,
to summarize and disseminate research findings. This kind of analysis might report in more
detail the results and content of research in particular areas of study, which provides a
mechanism for summarizing and disseminating research findings to policymakers,
practitioners and consumers who otherwise lack time or resources to undertake such work
themselves. Lastly, to identify gaps in the existing literature and draw conclusions around the
current overall state of the research activity in the field (Arksey & O'malley, 2004). 
At first, the research question had the element of stealing thunder to man-made
disasters in it. Due to a lack of literature, man-made disasters were left out of the research and
as a keyword in the search engines. The search engines to find the scientific literature was
performed through Google Scholar, Web of Science and Sci-Hub. The keywords established
for these search engines are: stealing thunder, crisis communication, disaster, crisis response
and crisis management. These keywords were combined, using the Boolean search strategy,
as followed: ["stealing thunder"] AND ["crisis communication" OR "disaster" OR "crisis
response" or "crisis management"]. Stealing thunder was chosen as a keyword since this
concept is the main topic of the research, so I wanted this word included in every article I was
going to use for this review. Furthermore, I chose the other keywords because I wanted to
focus solely on the effects of stealing thunder in a crisis/disaster situation. 
After the search engine research, I applied the snowballing method to acquire more
scholarly articles on the topic. I used Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen since this article was the
most cited study in other scholarly articles. Table 1 provides an overview of the whole
process of finding literature. 

Results

A total of 528 studies were found; 506 records were excluded after reviewing the title and
duplicate removal. Twenty-seven records meeting the criteria were identified, including the
records found with the snowball-method. Sixteen works met all the requirements of the
research on stealing thunder. Table 2 provides a list of the papers selected after the review and
provides an overview of the elements that were searched in the literature. 
Positive impact        

Stealing thunder by an organization with a positive pre-crisis reputation results in higher post-
crisis trust and purchase intention levels than stealing thunder by an organization with a
negative pre-crisis reputation. Stealing thunder together with a positive pre-crisis reputation
and in the context of a product-harm crisis would result in the most favourable outcomes
(Beldad, van Laar & Hegner, 2018). 
If stealing thunder results in nothing more than enhanced credibility of the
practitioners of stealing thunder among journalists and continues to avoid adverse outcomes
among other audiences, the practice sure seems warranted for ethical and practical reasons.
Therefore, practitioners and organizational managers should engage in full rapid disclosure of
information to enhance the journalist-public relations practitioner relationship (Arpan &
Pompper, 2003; Fowler, 2017). 
A study about pre-crisis engagement means that an organization engages with
stakeholders before an adverse event escalates into a crisis. Results show that when that
organization steals thunder, pre-crisis engagement effects were more substantial (Lee & Lee,
2020). Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen show in their study that stealing thunder in a crisis, as
opposed to the information being disclosed by another party, results in higher credibility
ratings for that organization (Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). 
In another study, it is concluded that self-disclosing a crisis results in a less negative
post-crisis reputation than responding to third parties. Besides, it also results in a more
positive impact of organizational message framing, which means that both the intention and
the message's content are interpreted as they were meant to be (Claeys, Cauberghe & Leysen,
2013). Lee believes in his study that, although stealing thunder is not a solution to all
organisations' difficulties, stealing thunder could still be used in a wide range of crises. The
advantages can be far greater than the potential risks (Lee, 2020). 
In an article on the Exxon and Valdez accident, the authors state that Exxon needed to
invoke a proactive communication strategy that would allow it to provide the initial comment
on the accident and set the agenda for how the situation would be handled. Exxon didn't do
so, which allowed the media to alert the world to the damage done (Williams & Treadaway,
1992). In a study regarding media news coverage and stealing thunder, results indicated that
the one who steals thunder receives less news coverage than the one who does not.
Furthermore, results suggest that stealing thunder leads to more positively framed stories
(Wigley, 2011). 
           The results of a study on the impact of stealing thunder by organizations in crisis
reveals that when an organization self-discloses a problem, both the attention to negative
publicity and the relation to this attention to post-crisis reputation are low. That means that if
an organization reveals a crisis, consumers will neither feel inclined to read subsequent
negative publicity nor let such an attack influence their opinion about the organization in
crisis (Claeys & Pandelaere, 2016). 
           Fennis and Stroebe studied the effect of stealing thunder with companies that are not
protected by a positive prior reputation. Results showed that stealing thunder is a viable
consumer influence strategy. However, an essential condition was that companies should not
put a spin on the negative information, which means that they should bring the negative news
just as it is (Fennis & Stroebe, 2014). 
           Another article examines stealing thunder as a service recovery strategy and its impact
on customer loyalty. Based on the research, using stealing thunder sends a message to the
customers that the service provider is transparent, and the consumer feels respected for the
disclosure, leading to loyalty (Guchait et al., 2019). 
           In another study, the effects of stealing thunder by organizational management on
constructive employee voice behaviour is examined. That means that an employee feels
responsible for bringing constructive change to an organization. Studies reveal that if an
organization admits responsibility with an apology and self-discloses the crisis information to
employees, it increases employee's positive behaviours in a crisis.

Neutral or negative impact

Kim states in his dissertation that there are some practical issues with the research on stealing
thunder. He says that there is less known about how the publics respond to self-disclosure
strategies beyond the credibility perceptions. That means that the public's expectations and
evaluations towards self-disclosure are not well known (Kim, 2012).
           Zhou and Shin examined the differences between stealing thunder cases in different
cultural settings. They concluded that the stealing thunder strategy may not always work in
the same way nor have the same power in different cultural backgrounds (Zhou & Shin,
2017). In another study, the impact of proactive and passive strategies on product-harm crises
are examined. The result is that proactive strategies have a more negative effect on firm value
since the stock market infers that the consequence of the crisis is so severe that the firm had
no choice but to act rapidly to reduce financial losses (Chen, Ganesan & Liu, 2009).
Discussion & Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of stealing thunder as a crisis
communication strategy. The first finding that can be recognized is that stealing thunder
enhances the organization’s relationship that steals the thunder with the media. Studies show
that the organization or company that steals the thunder receives less media coverage and
more positive news. This automatically enhances the relationship with the people who are hit
by the crisis or disaster since the media is an essential and reliable source of information
(Arpan & Pompper, 2003; Claeys & Pandelaere, 2016; Fowler, 2017).
           The second important finding is that an organization’s pre-crisis reputation is essential
for the impact stealing thunder has. It is evident that if an organization has a positive pre-crisis
reputation, stealing thunder will positively influence the post-crisis trust in an organization.
Organizations with a negative pre-crisis reputation could make sure that stealing thunder has a
positive effect on their post-crisis reputation by bringing the negative news just as it is
(Beldad, van Laar & Hegner, 2018; Fennis & Stroebe, 2014). In my opinion, however, this is
too straightforward. Organizations with a negative pre-crisis reputation only create more
damage and distrust if they steal thunder because the public could see it as desperate and
misleading. 
           There were also some negative aspects of the appliance of stealing thunder by
organizations. The first is that stealing thunder might not have the same impact in different
cultural settings. People in Asia, for example, could perceive the strategy differently than
Europeans because of other cultural habits. Another negative aspect of the appliance of
stealing thunder by organizations is the negative effect on firm value since stealing thunder
could imply that companies try to reduce financial losses (Chen, Ganesan & Liu, 2009; Kim,
2012; Zhou & Shin, 2017).
           All in all, this review shows that, in general, stealing thunder has a positive impact on
the credibility and image of an organization. Disclosing the negative news before a crisis
occurs is something that the public appreciates, and therefore organization benefits from this
crisis communication strategy. There are, however, some limitations to this research. First, the
literature on the negative aspects of stealing thunder is minimal. Therefore, the findings in this
review could be a little biased. The other limitation is that this review is about the impact of
stealing thunder as a crisis communication strategy in general. Future research should look at
specific crises to see if stealing thunder works with every kind of crisis. 
References

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological

framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8(1), 19-32.

Arpan, L.M. & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2005). Stealing thunder: Analysis of the effects of
proactive disclosure of crisis information. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 425-433.

Arpan, L. M., & Pompper, D. (2003). Stormy weather: Testing “stealing thunder” as a crisis
communication strategy to improve communication flow between organizations and
journalists. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 291-308.

Beldad, A. D., van Laar, E., & Hegner, S. M. (2018). Should the shady steal thunder? The
effects of crisis communication timing, pre‐crisis reputation valence, and crisis type on post‐
crisis organizational trust and purchase intention. Journal of contingencies and crisis
management, 26(1), 150-163.

Chen, Y., Ganesan, S., & Liu, Y. (2009). Does a firm's product-recall strategy affect its
financial value? An examination of strategic alternatives during product-harm crises. Journal
of Marketing, 73(6), 214-226.

Claeys, A. S., Cauberghe, V., & Leysen, J. (2013). Implications of stealing thunder for the
impact of expressing emotions in organizational crisis communication. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 41(3), 293-308. 

Claeys, A. S., Cauberghe, V., & Pandelaere, M. (2016). Is old news no news? The impact of
self-disclosure by organizations in crisis. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3963-3970.

Fennis, B. M., & Stroebe, W. (2014). Softening the blow: Company self-disclosure of
negative information lessens damaging effects on consumer judgment and decision
making. Journal of business ethics, 120(1), 109-120.
Fowler, B. M. (2017). Stealing thunder and filling the silence: Twitter as a primary channel of
police crisis communication. Public relations review, 43(4), 718-728.
Guchait, P., Han, R., Wang, X., Abbott, J., & Liu, Y. (2019). Examining stealing thunder as a
new service recovery strategy: impact on customer loyalty. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management. 

Kim, B. (2012). Proactive self-disclosure of threats: The effects of voluntary disclosure of

corporate issues on perceived organizational transparency, credibility, and perceived
severity of issues (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri--Columbia).

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

age. Business Horizons, 63(6), 801-810.

Lee, S. Y., & Lee, J. Y. (2021). Fixing the barn door before the horse bolts: Effects of pre-
crisis engagement and stealing thunder in crisis communication. Public Relations
Review, 47(1), 101930.

Wigley, S. (2011). Telling your own bad news: Eliot Spitzer and a test of the stealing thunder
strategy. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 50-56.

Williams, D. E., & Treadaway, G. (1992). Exxon and the Valdez accident: A failure in crisis
communication. Communication Studies, 43(1), 56-64.

Zhou, L., & Shin, J. H. (2017). Does stealing thunder always work? A content analysis of
crisis communication practice under different cultural settings. Public Relations Review,43(5),
1036-1047. 
Appendix

Table 1

Pro c e s s o f finding lite rature

Ide ntifie d re c o rds thro ug h

data bas e s e arc hing
(n=528) S e arc hing
1. Go o g le s c ho lar (n=492)
2. We b o f S c ie nc e (n=36)

Ide ntifie d re c o rds thro ug h

data bas e s e arc hing
(n=528) S c re e ning
1. Go o g le s c ho lar (n=25)
2. We b o f S c ie nc e (n=6)

Artic le s fo und via Lite rature afte r duplic ate s

the s no wballing re mo ve d Ide ntific atio n
me tho d (n=5) (n=22)

Full te xt artic le s Full te xt artic le s ac c e s s ible

Elig ibility
e xc lude d (n=11) fo r lite rature re vie w (n=27)

Full te xt artic le s ac c e s s ible

Cho s e n lite rature
fo r lite rature re vie w (n=16)
Table 2

Literature positive Neutral or negative

Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen, Yes No
2005
Arpan & Pommper, 2003 Yes No
Beldad, van Laar & Hegner, Yes No
2018
Fowler, 2017 Yes No
Lee & Lee, 2021 Yes No
Claeys, Cauberghe & Yes No
Leysen, 2013
Lee, 2020 Yes No
Williams & Treadaway, Yes No
1992
Wigley, 2011 Yes No
Claeys & Pandelaere, 2016 Yes No
Fennis & Stroebe, 2014 Yes No
Guchait et al., 2019 Yes No
Kim, 2012 No Yes
Zhou & Shin, 2017 No Yes
Chen, Ganesan & Liu, 2009 No Yes