Although testing the effectiveness of crisis response strategies has been a prominent topic in crisis communication research, studies have rarely addressed whether the manipulation of these strategies accurately reflects their theoretical definitions in experiments. Through a systematic review, this study first identified nuances in the manipulation of apology, diminishing, and scapegoating strategies. The study then tested the effect of the variation of the same strategy on the public's responses using three experiments. The findings revealed that an explicit apology was more effective than an implicit apology, while an apology with corrective action was even more effective than an apology alone. Internal scapegoating significantly harmed an organization compared to external scapegoating. Following the results of the study, researchers are encouraged to review their crisis response strategy manipulations to ensure the internal validity of experimental studies in crisis communication.