AASXXX10.1177/0095399712469197Admi 469197nistration & SocietySulitzeanu-Kenan and Holzman-Gazit © 2012 SAGE Publications Article Administration & Society 2016, Vol. 48(1) 3 –30 Form and Content: © The Author(s) 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0095399712469197 Institutional Preferences aas.sagepub.com and Public Opinion in a Crisis Inquiry Raanan Sulitzeanu-Kenan1 and Yifat Holzman-Gazit2 Abstract Crisis inquiries are intended to serve as instruments for restoring legitimacy. This intended goal has led to particular legitimacy-enhancing institutional choices in the design of these ad hoc institutions. This research utilizes a national panel study to test the effect of institutional attributes of a crisis inquiry and the content of its report on its legitimacy, and the effects of the inquiry findings on public opinion regarding the inquired issue. Our results show that only some institutional attributes predicted the legitimacy of the inquiry findings, whereas the content of the report was strongly and consis- tently associated with report legitimacy. Keywords crisis, inquiry, legitimacy, institutional attributes, credibility Introduction A central political element in the aftermath of national disasters, policy fias- coes, or scandals in many countries is the establishment of ad hoc bodies of 1The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel 2The College of Management Academic Studies, Rishon Lezion, Israel Corresponding Author: Raanan Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Department of Political Science, Federmann School of Public Policy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91905 Israel. Email:
[email protected] Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com by guest on November 22, 2015 4 Administration & Society 48(1) investigation. A few memorable examples are the Warren Commission into the Kennedy assassination (1963), the Widgery and Saville inquiries into the Bloody Sunday incident in the United Kingdom (1972), the Netherlands Institute of War Documentation (NIOD) inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre (1995), and the 9/11 Commission in the United States.