Commentary on Dutta and Pullig (2011): Corrective action is more effective than downplaying harm for restoring brand equity

Dutta and Pullig (2011) contrast different strategies for responding to corporate crises, including corrective action (i.e., accepting responsibility and promising remedial action) and downplaying harm (downplaying the amount of damage resulting from the crisis). Based on the results of null hypothesis tests, Dutta and Pullig conclude that downplaying harm is as effective as corrective action for restoring brand equity following a values-based crisis. This finding is concerning because, as Dutta and Pullig note, it may increase the temptation for firms to downplay the severity of their transgressions rather than accepting responsibility for them. Reanalysis of Dutta and Pullig's data using effect size estimates and associated confidence intervals overturns their conclusion. Following a values-based crisis, corrective action is more effective than downplaying harm at restoring brand equity.