How companies can reduce negative emotions in the aftermath of a crisis

Organizations are often ill-prepared to deal with crises. However, such unexpected events can severely disrupt normal operations and provoke strong emotional reactions from stakeholders.

While existing research has largely focused on anger as the primary emotional response to crises (2), scholars have overlooked the broader spectrum of negative emotions (like shame, guilt, contempt or indignation) that can also emerge. These emotions play an important role, as they can significantly influence public perception, trust and organizational reputation. 

So, how can companies identify and respond to these complex reactions in ways that reduce their negative impact?

Understanding organizational crises and their impact on stakeholders

In today’s fast-paced world, almost every organization will face a crisis at some point. A crisis is an unexpected, publicly known and harmful event that interferes with the normal operations of an organization, and generates negative perceptions among stakeholders (investors, customers, employees, etc.).

From BP’s Horizon oil spill to the Boeing 737 MAX’s crashes, the past decade has seen a range of crises that have sparked intense emotions and public condemnation, leading to breaches of trust with key stakeholders.

Most studies focus on anger as the main or only emotion these stakeholders experience. But, in doing so, they overlook how emotions can shape the way people interpret complex information after a crisis. In reality, stakeholders experience a wide range of negative emotions besides anger, such as disgust or contempt. Research in social psychology shows that emotions serve functions that go beyond their direct influence on behavior: they carry meanings that influence how people make sense of disruptive events. In other words, emotions shape how we interpret a complex event like a crisis (3).

More specifically, anger, contempt and disgust perform distinct social roles in responses to crises. Anger directs people’s attention to the transgression; it can be reduced when the response aligns with stakeholders’ understanding of what caused the crisis. By contrast, disgust and contempt shift attention to the transgressor : disgust focuses on moral character, while contempt raises doubt about its competence.

Emotions do not just drive behaviors: they have broader implications for how people make sense of crises. In this way, anger is more closely associated with direct aggression and seeking reparation, while contempt and disgust are linked with social avoidance and exclusion.

Mismatching: when trust is broken

Failure to mitigate negative emotions occurs when, in the aftermath of a crisis, responses are mismatched. This can make the crisis worse through emotion escalation.

A mismatched response strategy is a strategy that neglects stakeholders’ most urgent concerns and therefore fails to mitigate the underlying emotion. In simple terms, when a company does not adequately address the crisis, it draws even more attention to it.

People who first considered the crisis with disgust or contempt will feel these emotions intensify. As the situation deteriorates, such reactions increasingly signal that the organization’s morality and competence are seen as irreversibly compromised.

Take the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, one of the largest environmental disasters in history. In the aftermath, the public experienced anger, disgust and contempt toward both the incident and BP’s handling of it. Failure to address the leak as well as their misleading communications and reluctance to assume responsibility created the impression that the company did not care. Ultimately, BP was forced to take action, like paying $23 billion in compensation and announcing the CEO’s resignation.  

But the oil spill had lasting negative consequences: beyond lawsuits, cleaning costs and various penalties, BP also faced a major decline in public reputation and widespread boycotts, largely driven by its poorly aligned crisis response.

How to address a crisis through the matching approach

In many cases, when companies deal with a crisis, they tend to focus immediately on the transgression by apologising (4), attributing blame (5), offering compensation, etc. However, this strategy might make them lose sight of the transgressor-focused emotions involved and overlook the need to also address them by rebuilding perceptions of competence and morality.

In this regard, negative emotions and perceptions can be reduced by using a matching approach, which means aligning the response with the specific feelings people are experiencing (1).

Focusing on the transgression makes it possible to address anger, which often comes from the belief that serious harm has been done. Here, two types of responses can help: firstly, show that the harm is smaller than people think (only when this is honest and believable); secondly, acknowledge the harm and take action to fix it, such as offering compensation or making real changes, which helps reduce the crisis’s negative impact.

By contrast, focusing on the transgressor helps target disgust and contempt. This approach requires strategies that focus on showing that the organization is taking positive steps, as these actions help dissociate it from the crisis. For example, the company can replace leaders, invest in new initiatives, or put new policies in place. This strategy helps signal that the company is changing for the better. Another option is to deny responsibility: however, this approach is risky, since it can easily backfire if people don’t find it convincing.

In a nutshell:

➢ Responses that focus only on the transgression are unlikely to reduce emotions that target the organization itself. Which means responses need to be tailored to the focus of attention: the transgression or the transgressor, and what people are judging.

➢ As a whole, effective responses must shift how the company itself is perceived, not just how the incident is understood. Any strategy with a focus on the transgression can be paired with complementary strategies that focus on the transgressor, and vice versa.

Restoring trust in the aftermath of a crisis

By tailoring their responses to the specific emotions people feel, companies can protect their reputation, prevent emotional escalation and rebuild trust. 
Research shows that after a trust violation, steps like offering explanations, apologizing, punishing wrongdoers or providing compensation can help reduce anger (1). But for emotions like disgust and contempt, these actions alone are often not enough.

This is where matching comes in handy. By aligning crisis responses with what people are focusing on (whether it’s the harm done or moral concerns), companies are better able to prevent lasting stigma.

Simply pointing to external causes or blaming circumstances is limited. When a company is at fault, leaders must acknowledge responsibility and repair the damage; but addressing deeper concerns is also important. 

More comprehensive responses that focus on the overall perception of the organization, and not just the incident, helps ensure that responses effectively match and reduce negative emotions.

Tackling these emotions after a crisis requires more than managing blame. It involves addressing both the harm done and concerns about the organization’s character and competence. In the end, companies that embrace this matching approach are far more likely to restore trust and, over time, protect their reputation.

References

(1) Antonetti, P., Valor, C. & Božič, B. Mitigating Moral Emotions After Crises: A Reconceptualization of Organizational Responses. J Bus Ethics (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06042-5

(2) Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). The negative communication dynamic: Exploring the impact of stakeholder affect on behavioral intentions. Journal of Communication Management, 11(4), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540710843913

Kim, H. J., & Cameron, G. T. (2011). Emotions Matter in Crisis: The Role of Anger and Sadness in the Publics’ Response to Crisis News Framing and Corporate Crisis Response: The Role of Anger and Sadness in the Publics’ Response to Crisis News Framing and Corporate Crisis Response. Communication Research, 38(6), 826-855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210385813

(3) Barrett LF, Mesquita B, Ochsner KN, Gross JJ. The experience of emotion. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:373-403. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085709. PMID: 17002554; PMCID: PMC1934613. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17002554/

Haidt, J. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10594-012

(4) Antonetti, P., & Baghi, I. (2024). Responding to Cyberattacks: The Persuasiveness of Claiming Victimhood. Journal of Service Research, 28(3), 434-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705241271337

(5) Antonetti, P. & Baghi, I. (2024) Acceptable finger pointing: How evaluators judge the ethicality of blame shifting. European Management Review, 21(4), 902–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12678

Photo by Bank Phrom via Unsplash