Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Nonprofits Can Recover from Crisis Events? The Trust Recovery from the Perspective of Causal Attributions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While trust is a valuable relational asset for nonprofits, it is fragile and once broken can cause a great deal of damage to the organization. Therefore, once it is lost after a crisis event, valid strategies are needed to rapidly repair the trust. Although trust repair mechanisms have been widely studied, little is known about the way trust changes over time and the methods needed to repair trust and even less is known about trust in nonprofit organizations. Therefore, two studies were conducted in this paper using the three causal attribution dimensions from attribution theory to reveal how trust in a nonprofit can be damaged and repaired. It was found that the attribution cause significantly influenced the trust repair process; that is, when the cause had a higher locus of causality, stability, and controllability attribution degrees, it was more difficult for donors to forgive the organization. While reducing the controllable attribution of individuals was not found to effectively repair trust, reducing the locus causality or stability had a more significant effect. It was also found that the three specific strategies of denial, diminishing crisis, and rebuilding played a critical role in trust repair for nonprofits influenced by the locus of causality. This study provides a useful framework for nonprofit practitioners seeking to effectively respond to crises and win back the trust of their current and potential donors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N., & Priem, R. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: Toward a conceptual framework. Organization Studies,36(9), 1123–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1998). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research,1(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brühl, R., Basel, J. S., & Kury, M. F. (2018). Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust. European Management Journal,36(2), 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1990). Interpersonal accounting. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,112, 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,56(5), 754–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review,10(3), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). Exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect and crisis. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations: The effect of affect in organizational settings. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1993). Assignment of credit and blame for performance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,36(1), 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cugueró-Escofet, N., Fortin, M., & Canela, M. A. (2014). Righting the wrong for third parties: How monetary compensation, procedure changes and apologies can restore justice for observers of injustice. Journal of Business Ethics,122(2), 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for organizational research. Journal of Applied Psychology,87(4), 611–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A. (2009). Repairing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review,34(1), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drollinger, T. (2010). A theoretical examination of giving and volunteering utilizing resource exchange theory. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing,22(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity-and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(4), 893–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkes, V. S., Koletsky, S., & Graham, J. L. (1987). A field study of causal inferences and consumer reaction: The view from the airport. Journal of Consumer Research,13(4), 534–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuoli, M., & Paradis, C. (2014). A model of trust-repair discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 52–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuoli, M., Weijer, J. V. D., & Paradis, C. (2017). Denial outperforms apology in repairing organizational trust despite strong evidence of guilt. Public Relations Review,43(4), 645–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review,34(1), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. G., & Liden, R. C. (1980). Contextual and attributional influences on control decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology,65(4), 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S. L., Abid-Dupont, M. A., Manville, C., & Hasel, M. C. (2019). Repairing broken trust between leaders and followers: How violation characteristics temper apologies. Journal of Business Ethics,155, 853–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, R., Zhang, W., Wang, T., Li, C. B., & Tao, L. (2018). Timely or considered? Brand trust repair strategies and mechanism after greenwashing in china—From a legitimacy perspective. Industrial Marketing Management,72(5), 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, J. E., Dulek, R. E., & Hale, D. P. (2005). Crisis response communication challenges: Building theory from qualitative data. Journal of Business Communication,42, 112–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, H. A., Howell, L. A., & McDonald, J. L. (2013). Causal attributions and attitudes toward lung cancer. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,43(S1), E37–E45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1980). Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos,35(2), 282–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F., Montoya, A. K., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: Process versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal,25(1), 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, R. L., Ganesan, S., & Klein, N. M. (2003). Service failure and recovery: The impact of relationship factors on customer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,31(2), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, J. D., Xiao, R. B., Huang, Z. D., & Yu, T. Y. (2015). A social computing approach to the cause diffusion for individual donor’s trust damage. International Journal of Computing Science and Mathematics,6(2), 152–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, J. D., Zhang, C., & King, R. A. (2017). Understanding the dynamics of the individual donor’s trust damage in the philanthropic sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,28(2), 648–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, J. D., Zhang, C., & King, R. A. (2018). Measuring trust damage in nonprofit marketing: The role of cognitive and emotional perceptions. International Review on Public & Nonprofit Marketing,15(3), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2013). Repair trust with individuals vs groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,120(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., & Cooper, C. D. (2009). The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective and multilevel conceptualization. Academy of Management Review,34(3), 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence-vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,99(1), 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology,89(1), 104–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. W., & Jeong, S. H. (2015). The role of causal attributions in sport consumers’ emotions and satisfaction judgment. Social Behavior and Personality,43(5), 803–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing,21(3), 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal,38(1), 60–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology,50(1), 569–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lount, R. B., Zhong, C. B., Sivanathan, N., & Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Getting off on the wrong foot: The timing of a breach and the restoration of trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,34(12), 1601–1612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18(5), 566–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing,58(3), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review,22(1), 226–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullinix, K. J., & Norris, R. J. (2019). Pulled-over rates, causal attributions, and trust in police. Political Research Quarterly,72(2), 420–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nangole, P. F. W. (2012). Financial losses, crisis communication strategies and donor financial support among nonprofit organizations affected by incidents of publicized fraud. Dissertations & Theses - Gradworks.

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. Y., & Cho, M. (2015). Celebrity endorsement for nonprofit organizations: The role of celebrity motive attribution and spontaneous judgment of celebrity-cause incongruence. Journal of Promotion Management,21(2), 224–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillutla, M. M., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Attributions of trust and the calculus of reciprocity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,39(3), 448–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premkumar, G., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2008). Explaining information technology usage: A test of competing models. Omega,36(1), 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pučėtaitė, R., Lämsä, A. M., & Novelskaitė, A. (2010). Building organizational trust in a low-trust societal context. Baltic Journal of Management,5(2), 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review,34, 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhee, M., & Valdez, M. E. (2009). Contextual factors surrounding reputation damage with potential implications for reputation repair. Academy of Management Review,34(1), 146–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising,33(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,80(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2010). Gift giving: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing,12(4), 275–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis,13(6), 675–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology,34(4), 414–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review,34(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review,92(2), 548–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52(2), 316–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B., Figueroa-Munoz, A., & Kakihara, C. (1991). The goals of excuses and communication strategies related to causal perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,17(1), 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71874163, 71572185, 71874165) and the Fundamental Research Funds for Technological Innovation of Hubei Province (2018ADC086).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China

    Jundong Hou & Haixiang Guo

  2. China Mineral Resource Strategy and Policy Research Center, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China

    Jundong Hou

  3. Department of Marketing, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Chi Zhang

Authors
  1. Jundong Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haixiang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jundong Hou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Background Information

Study 1 Nonprofit A is a nationwide non-governmental charity organization with 366 affiliates throughout China and is dedicated to China’s charitable concerns. Since its founding, it has maintained its goals of broadening its charitable work in various fields, mobilizing social resources, and increasing public awareness of the great difficulties faced by many members of our society. It has carried out dozens of projects focused on disaster relief, poverty alleviation, elder care, orphan care, education assistance, disability assistance, and medical relief, and has established a nationwide charity network that provides a wide range of assistance programs. This nonprofit’s many humanitarian acts have garnered extensive social attention and have won the trust and support of the society.


Study 2 Nonprofit A is a humanitarian social relief organization and has been involved in assisting wounded soldiers, helping refugees in times of conflict, and providing assistance to disaster victims. This nonprofit has moved into a continuous and rapid development phase, and many branches at different state administrative levels have been restored or expanded. At present, there are branches in the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, as well as 70,000 grassroots units, claiming a total membership of 20 million people.

Transgression scenarios

Study 1 Invoice Event involving nonprofit A (https://news.qq.com/a/20110818/000027.htm).

Brief overview of this event: The fourth creative competition of China copyright association is sponsored by B Co., LTD. According to the agreement, Company B should donate about RMB 15 million to this activity, and then nonprofit A issues a duty-free invoice for this donation. However, media reports have exposed that due to a cash bribe of RMB 50,000, nonprofit A issued the free invoice without receiving any materials donated by Company B.


Study 2 Warehouse Sublease Event involving nonprofit A (http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2014-08-21/025930718944.shtml).

Brief overview of this event: Nonprofit A spent 117 million on building a warehouse to store disaster relief resources. However, media reports have exposed that nonprofit A did not make reasonable use of the warehouse to store materials and leased it to Company C at the price of RMB 1.0 million per year. Company C then subleased this warehouse to D logistics companies at the price of RMB 4.6 million per year.

Repair strategy scenario descriptions used in the two studies

  1. 1.

    Denial strategy When nonprofit A’s transgression was exposed, nonprofit A directly denied that it was true and promised that similar problems would absolutely never occur again.

  2. 2.

    Diminishing crisis strategy When nonprofit A’s transgression was exposed, nonprofit A immediately disclosed evidence in support of the fact that this type of behavior complied with the relevant regulations and policies in China.

  3. 3.

    Rebuilding strategy When nonprofit A’s transgression was exposed, nonprofit A first verified the authenticity of the transgression and determined whether the transgression did occur and was in fact caused by the organizer’s inaccurate information and chaotic management. Nonprofit A then fired the employees that were involved and promised that similar problems would never occur again in the future.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hou, J., Zhang, C. & Guo, H. How Nonprofits Can Recover from Crisis Events? The Trust Recovery from the Perspective of Causal Attributions. Voluntas 31, 71–93 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00176-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00176-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation