The Role of Social Media in Local Government Crisis Communications

7/23/2019 The Role of Social Media in Local Government Crisis Communications

1/9

Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

The role of social media in local government crisis

communications

Melissa W. Graham a,, Elizabeth J. Averyb, Sejin Park b

a University of Central Oklahoma, 100 North University Drive, Edmond, OK 73034, United Statesb The University of Tennessee, 476 Communication Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 27 June 2014

Received in revised form 29 January 2015

Accepted 2 February 2015

Keywords:

Social media

Public relations

Government

Transparency

Crisis communication

a b s t r a c t

Using survey data collectedfrom morethan 300 localgovernment officials frommunicipali-

ties acrossthe UnitedStates,this study examinessocial mediause ina relatively unexplored

context, local governments. It specifically addresses the adoption and use of social media

tools for crisis communication and socialmedias part in managing a crisis. Results indicate

the extent of social media use, but not the number of tools used, is positively associated

with local city officials assessments of their ability to control a crisis situation as well as

their overall evaluations of the strength of their responses. Implications and importance of

findings are discussed.

2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Social media enable localgovernments to communicate importantgovernment information, extend government services,

and garner feedback and ideas about government operations with citizens (Golbeck, Grimes, & Rogers, 2010).The open,

dialogic nature of social media eliminates many of the barriers in citizen communication that governments have historically

experienced (Bertot & Jarger, 2010),and communication with constituents can be more frequent, open, and targeted. These

benefits offer particular potential and opportunities for governments to communicate with citizens during times of crises.

The City of Boston utilized social media heavily to communicate with the public in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon

Bombings in early 2013. Social media usage by governments was also vital during the recent wildfires in Yosemite National

Park as well as the historic flooding in Colorado to get information about the crises and safety protocols to citizens and other

interested parties. In times of crisis, social media allow governments and other organizations to communicate quickly and

effectively to reach mass publics (Kim & Liu, 2012).

A 2013 PewResearch Center report revealed that 72% of American adults utilize social networking sites, which represents

a 6% increasefrom theprevious year (PewResearch, 2013). Thisnumber is growing exponentiallyand daily, and organizationsare likewise increasingly taking advantage of this trend to communicate with their publics. These overall numbers of social

networking usage and a 2013 survey on the state of the news media that identifies a decline in traditional news outlets (Pew

Research, 2013) together suggest that citizens will increasingly go online for organizational information, including that from

their governments.

Social media are an important technology for disaster response, primarily because of the tools that enable open exchange

of information through conversation and interaction (Yates & Paquette, 2011). Given its communicative abilities and

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 9313200985.

E-mail addresses:[email protected](M.W. Graham),[email protected](E.J. Avery),[email protected](S. Park).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.001

0363-8111/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.001http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03638111mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.001http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.001mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.001&domain=pdfhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03638111http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.001


2/9

M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394 387

contemporary pervasiveness, social media are no longer an optional channel for governments to use only to push organiza-

tional messages. As user-generated media, social media give government public relations practitioners the ability to inform

and to seek input and opinions from relevant publics (Hand & Ching, 2011) in real-time, which is especially important during

a crisis.

Despite the enormous value social media yield governments in communicating with citizens, there is scant research on

theextent to which local governments are actually using social media for crisis communication efforts. As local governments

continue to face diminishing budgets and stretched time, and less human and fiscal resources even for the management

of daily operations, it is imperative to reveal how social media can maximize efficiency in crisis management. Given the

extraordinary growth in social media use over the past few years, it is also important to evaluate if and how governments

are using this technology to communicate with publics during crises and if and how they are incorporating it into their

crisis communication plans. This exploratory research provides an important audit of local governments use of social media

during crisis to inform future research on how social media can best be utilized across government contexts. An exploration

of the nature of current social media practices of local governments for crisis communication focuses the discussion on how

current practice can be improved. Specific research questions explore the adoption and use of social media tools for crisis

communication by local governments and the role social media play in managing a crisis.

2. Literature review

First, the role of social media in local governments is reviewed. Then, the benefits of citizen engagement are explicated

to demonstrate the potential of social media in crisis management.

2.1. Social media and government

As the popularity of social media soars, the importance that governments place on social media as a communication

tool to engage citizens must rise in turn and reflect active dialog with citizens as a priority (Golbeck et al., 2010).Previous

research reveals governments are adopting social media for many different purposes, including: recruiting activities (Dorris,

2008);reaching out to citizens and other publics; disseminating information to the public and sharing information across

government agencies (Chang & Kanan, 2008; Dorris, 2008); enhancing and promoting community participation (Dorris,

2008); and achieving transparency (Bertot & Jarger, 2010; Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010). AlthoughDuhe (2014)notes

government and politics is a surging area of new media research, only one study ( Graham & Avery, 2013)has focused on

local governments. While the reported benefits of social media use for governments are vast, a recent national study by

Graham and Avery (2013)reveals local governments are somewhat underutilizing social media tools. Encouragingly, the

majority of local governments report using social media to some extent; however, the extent that each tool is used doesnot represent active engagement with citizens through social media (Graham & Avery, 2013).Since governments are an

important information source for publics during a crisis, their engagement through social media should be more active and

reflect a clear response priority in crisis communication plans.

2.2. Benefits of citizen engagement

Efficiency, convenience, accountability, transparency, citizen involvement, and improved trust and democracy are among

the cited benefits of social media use in government (Chang & Kanan, 2008; Cromer, 2010; Dorris, 2008; Kuzma, 2010).

Through social media applications, governments can communicate more efficiently with publics than with more traditional

media and are often able to save resources including time and money (Kingsley, 2010; Kuzma, 2010).Most federal gov-

ernment agencies have a social media presence that includes blogs, social networking sites, YouTube channels, and more

(Bertot, Jaeger, Munson, & Glaisyer, 2010).Moreover, citizens actively using social media desire tangible and interactivecommunication with their governments (Lovari & Parisi, 2015).

While themajority of research regardingsocial media andgovernments focuses on thefederallevel, oneexception is Hand

and Chings (2011) examination of Phoenix area local governments use of social media that found using social media at the

local government level seems to offer promise of increased citizen engagement, reaching citizens on a common platform,

and allowing for citizen comments (p. 379). A similar study by Bonson, Torres, Royo, and Flores (2012) that examined social

media use in local governments in Europe found that many governments have taken advantage of the opportunities social

media present and realized that by disseminating news through social media they can vastly increase audience reach at

little cost. Moreover, the main benefits that social media offer the public sector are increased opportunities for engagement

with citizens and enhanced transparency (Bonson et al., 2012).Since citizen expectations are a primary consideration for

local government activities, government officials understandings of citizen expectations of their social media use is a strong

indicator of its usage and importance in government (Avery & Graham, 2013).Still, there is no current assessment of how

local governments are using social media for crisis communication; therefore, we ask:

RQ1. To what extent do local governments engage social media during crisis?


3/9

388 M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

2.3. Moderators of use and reasons for engaging social media

Previous research on local governments and government agencies suggests that certain factors influence the adoption of

social mediause in organizations. As demonstrated in an analysis of localpublic health departments, Averyet al.(2010) found

that public information officers in health departments had been slower to adopt social media technologies than practitioners

in other industries; furthermore, significant differences were discovered depending on the size of the community served by

that department. The research showed that practitioners in urban communities exhibit the highest adoption rates, followed

by suburban, large town, and rural communities. Therefore, we predict:

H1. Larger communities will use social media to a greater extent for crisis communications than smaller communities.

Additionally, among those whoused socialmedia to disseminate healthinformation, themost commonly used tools were

social networking sites (Avery et al., 2010). Another moderating factor on the adoption of social media use in governments is

the number of public information officers on staff. Local governments with more staff members devoted to communication

efforts are more likely to have a stronger social media presence than governments with smaller staffs (Graham & Avery,

2013). This finding suggests that larger communities with larger budgets and more communication personnel are more

likely to utilize social media to communicate with citizens; these disparities in engagement become more disturbing in the

face of crisis, when public safety may be at stake. To further test and extend these findings in a government context, we ask:

RQ2. To what extent do crisis managers report that social media improved their management of the crisis?

RQ3. To what extent does social media use predict extent of crisis managers sense of control during a crisis?

RQ4. To what extent did social media use predict how well the local government recovered from the crisis?

2.4. Social media and crisis communication

Digital media, and in particular social media, have been catalysts for great change in the practice of crisis communication.

However, research has only begun to analyze the role and potential of social media in crises (Jin, Liu, & Austin, 2014; Liu,

Austin, & Jin, 2011; Schultz, Utz, & Goritz, 2011; Utz, Schultz, & Glocka, 2012).The goal of crisis communication is to convey

the right information to the right people, and social media enable rapid information exchange. Mayfield (2006)describes

social media as human communication that presents characteristics of openness, participation, conversation, community,

and connectedness. The results from anAmerican Red Cross (2011)survey reveal that Americans are increasingly reliant

on social media and mobile technologies to learn about ongoing disasters and to seek help and to share information after

emergencies. Research shows that during a crisis an audiences social media use increases (Smith, 2011),and social media

are often perceived to be more credible sources than traditional mass media (Procopio & Procopio, 2007).Both journalistsand their publics frequently rely on social media for news ideas and information ( GWU & Cision, 2009; Lariscy, Avery,

Sweetser, & Howes, 2009).A recent study byLiu, Fraustino, and Jin (2015) reveals there is no single social media form

preferred for disseminating information about a crisis and that continued investment is needed in ensuring many different

communication forms are utilized.

2.5. Situational crisis communication theory

Coombs situational crisis communication theory, SCCT, is undoubtedly the most commonly used theory to examine

crisis communication and management (Coombs, 2004, 2007).In sum, SCCT suggests that an organizations crisis response

should correspond to the extent of its responsibility for the crisis and the reputational threat posed by the crisis (Coombs,

2007).Jin and Liu (2010) proposed a modification of the SCCT that incorporates social media, the social-mediated crisis

communication model (SMCC) to guide crisis managers in their social media efforts and activities following a crisis. In

particular, SMCC outlines the interactions between an organization involved in a crisis and the different types of publicswho produce and consume information about the crisis via social media (Liu et al., 2013). The first public described in SMCC

involves people who create crisis information for others to consume and are known as influential social media creators. The

second public in SMCC is known as social media followers and includes those who consume the influential social media

creators crisis information. The third public identified by SMCC includes individuals who consume the informational social

media creators information indirectly, social media inactives. By identifying different publics using SMCC, crisis managers,

through monitoring social media, can know how and when to respond online. Also revealing best practices for practitioners

amidst crisis, Veil, Buehner, and Palenchar (2011) propose guidelines for organizations to follow in incorporating social

media tools in risk and crisis communication. They recommend:

1) Determine social media engagement as part of the risk and crisis management policies and approaches; 2) Incor-

porate social media tools in environmental scanning to listen to risk and crisis bearer concerns; 3) Engagesocial media

in daily communication activities; 4) Join the conversation, including rumor management, and determine best chan-

nels to reach segmented publics; 5) Check all information for accuracy and respond honestly; 6) Follow and share

messages with credible sources; 7) Recognize that the media is already using social media; 8) Remember that social


4/9


media is interpersonal communication; 9) Use social media as the primary tool for updates; 10) Ask for help and

provide direction; and 11) Remember Web 2.0 is not a Panacea (Veil et al., 2011,p. 119).

In addition to the many crisis response strategies to select from during a crisis, communications practitioners also must

decide which social media tools are appropriate to useand how frequently they should post updates. Thechoices range from

social networking sites such as Facebook and Google Plus, microblogging sites such as Twitter, photosharing sites such as

Pinterest and Instagram, and video sharing sites including YouTube and Vimeo. Sometimes it might be appropriate to use

all of these to communicate during a crisis, and other times it would make more sense to focus on one or two. During the

2007 and 2008 wildfires in California, Twitter was used to share information and updates with the public ( Sutton, Palen, &Shklovski, 2008).Twitter was also instrumental in sharing information quickly about the 2009 crash of U.S. Airways flight

1549. Shortly after the crash of Asiana Air flight 214 in July 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board used Twitter and

YouTube to inform thepublic about theinvestigation andsharequotes andvideos from thepressconferences(Derner, 2013).

Facebook was the primary crisis communication tool used following a devastating earthquake that hit Haiti in 2010; images

of the devastation were quickly circulated online through Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Several social media tools were

heavily used by the American Red Cross to solicit donations to help those affected by the crisis ( Morgan, 2010).In response

to the imminent threat posed by Hurricane Sandy to the Atlantic Coast, Governors, Mayors and other elected officials relied

heavily Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to inform citizens of threats and evacuations, and, in the aftermath relied on these

tools to get out vital updates to the public (Preston & Stetler, 2012). Increasingly organizations are incorporating social

media into their crisis response strategies and placing great importance on the ability of various social media tools to reach

targeted audience. Local governments are often on the front lines of a crisis, so this evaluation of the extent to which local

governments are utilizing social media in response to specific crisis situations and the specific social media tools they are

using is of particular importance. The crisis responses reviewed above reveal that Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are usedfrequently to communicate about natural disasters and major accidents; thus, it follows that different types of crises will

necessitate varying types and extent of use of social media tools for strategic response. Therefore, the following hypotheses

are made:

H2. The extent of social media use will vary by crisis type.

H3. The number of social media tools used will vary by crisis type.

While the area of crisis communication and social media research is quickly developing, little empirical research exists

on the extent to which these best practices are evident in local governments use of social media for crisis communication,

but this study expands that knowledge base. As nearly one-third of online adults report using social media sites to acquire

information about government agencies or officials (Pew Research, 2013),it is critical to develop a broader understanding

of how governments are taking advantage of the opportunities social media offer, especially during crisis.

3. Method

3.1. Survey administration

In order to investigate local governments crisis management, a private survey research firm that specializes in local

government and public policy research administered a national survey to its database of local government officials. The

firm was selected based on its ability to reach the most broad and representative sample of government offices that both

serve a wide range of population sizes and are diverse in the form of their governments (mayor, manager, commission,

etc.). Following IRB protocol, participants were sent a solicitation email that requested their participation. If they chose to

click on the survey link, participants were first asked to read a statement of informed consent then notified that by clicking

to continue the survey they were expressing their consent. The survey data were stripped of identifying information and

entered into an SPSS file prior to being given to the researchers. Data were then entered into SPSS, cleaned, and screened.

As an incentive, participants were promised and sent an aggregate summary of data for completing the survey.

3.2. Participants

An email request for survey participation was sent to public officials and government employees who handle communi-

cation functions. Theresearch firm sent the email with a cover letter from thelead researcher. Thefirms list is generated and

constantly updated by the research firm through direct human research seeking local government officials email addresses

on theInternet and, in some cases,by calling theofficedirectlyto request contact information. A total of 307governmentoffi-

cials participated in the survey about their crisis management. There were 228 partial completions that were not included in

this analysis, and 125 participants whostarted thesurvey butwere disqualified as they did not meet criteria for participation

(e.g., did not perform a communication function, did not recall a crisis).

Job titles of participants are varied and include the following titles:public information officer,mayor,city administrator,

director of administration, city manager, village manager, council member, director of public safety, president of council,

village administrator, and town supervisor. The most common titles were mayor and city manager. Ages range from 28

to 85, with 11 participants (3.6%) choosing not to answer. The age mean is 55, median is 57, and mode is 62. There are


5/9


Table 1

ANOVA results for social media use.

Factor Dependent variables

Level of social media use Number of social media used

F df 2 F df 2

Community size 4.81* 2, 200 .04 5.81** 2, 283 .03

Crisis type 2.97* 6, 198 .07 1.34 6, 280 .04

* p < .05 (two-tailed).** p < .01 (two-tailed).

representatives from 44 states in the sample. Government officials representing population sizes from less than 5000 people

(n = 8, 2%) to 300,000 or more (n = 1, .3%) were represented in the sample, with the largest categories being populations of

10,00029,000 (n = 130, 42.3%) and 50009999 (n = 76, 25%). Forms of government include board of trustees, commissions,

council-manager/administrator/supervisor, major-councils, presidents, supervisor-councils, and village boards.

3.3. Measures

To answer RQ1,participantswere asked to answer a yes/no questionwhetherthey usedsocial mediain crisis management.

In addition, the types of social media used (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) were measured with a check all that apply

question. The level of usage of social media was measured by asking On a scale of 15, with I being not at all and 5 being

great deal, did you use social media in your crisis management. The number of social media tools used was calculated by

adding the numbers of social media in the social media type question. These two questions (social media usage level and

number of social media used) were also used for testing H2 and 3.

For hypothesis testing, respondents indicated the population of their communities as one of the following: less than

5000; 50009999; 10,00029,999; 30,00049,999; 50,00099,999; 100,000199,999; 200,000299,999; 300,000 or more.

A series of questions were designed to measure crisis types. First, participants were asked to consider a crisis that they had

recently managed in their communities. Participants who could not recall a particular crisis were directed to a survey related

to general crisis communication. Those who were able to recall a crisis were asked to identify the type of crisis as one of

the following: public health, natural disaster, transportation, political, social, criminal, environmental, and other. Finally,

to insure that participants had correctly categorized the crisis, they were asked to provide detailed descriptions about the

crisis. For RQ2, 3, and 4 participants were asked for their level of agreement with the following statements on a 5-point scale

(1 = strongly disagreeand 5 = strongly agree):(a) Social media improved our ability to manage the crisis (RQ2); (b) I feltcontrol during the crisis situation (RQ3); and (c) My citys post-crisis response (recovery) was strong (RQ4).

4. Results

4.1. Social media usage of local governments (RQ1)

Among 288 government officials, 71% (N= 205) used social during crisis while 29% (N= 83) did not. Facebook (N=157,

53%) was the most popular social medium followed by Twitter (N= 81, 27%), blogs (N= 17, 6%), YouTube (N= 13, 5%), Google

Plus (N= 8, 3%), and other (N= 19, 6%). The level of usage of social media (i.e., On a scale of 15, with I being not at all and

5 being great deal, did you use social media in your crisis management) was M= 2.86,SD = 1.48 [1 (N= 83, 29%), 2 (N=34,

12%), 3 (N=63,22%), 4 (N= 56, 19%), 5 (N= 52, 18%)]. The average number of social media used during the crisis was M=1.37,

SD = 1.28 [0 (83, 29%, 1 (91, 32%), 2 (64, 22%), 3 (34, 12%), 4 (12, 4%), 6 (2, 1%), 7 (2, 1%)]. Finally, reported crisis types were

public health (N= 14, 5%), natural disaster (N= 200, 70%), transportation (N= 8, 3%), political (N= 15, 5%), social (N=7, 2%),criminal (N= 27, 9%), environmental (N= 0, 0%), and other (N= 16, 6%).

4.2. Community size and social media use (H1)

In order to test the relationships between community size and social media use (i.e., the level of social media use and the

number of social media used), the populations of cities were divided into three groups based on the number of responses

in each group [Group 1: less than 9999 (N= 81), Group 2: 10,00049,999 (N= 158), Group 3: more than 50,000 (N= 49)].

Two one-way between subjects ANOVAs were performed to identify relationships. To analyze the relationship between

community size and the level of social media use, responses from participants who did not use social media (N=83) were

excluded from the analysis. AsTable 1shows, there was a significant relationship between community size and the level of

usage of social media [F(2,200) = 4.81,p = .009]. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated that the mean for Group 1

(M= 3.23, SD = 1.00) was significantly different than Group 2 (M= 3.66, SD = 1.03) and Group 3 (M= 3.89, SD = 1.00). The result

of second ANOVA was consistent with Hypothesis 1 [ F(2,283) = 5.81,p = .003]. A LSD post hoc comparison was conducted


6/9


Table 2

Standardized regression coefficients of predictors.

Predictors Dependent variables

Impact on crisis management Crisis situation control Strength of response

Block 1Age .09 .04 .11

Working years .18* .13 .04

Block 2Level of social media use .41** .17* .19*

N umber of socia l medi a used .17

*

.05 .05R2 (R2 change) .26** (.23) .02 (.01) .05* (.04)

* p < .05 (two-tailed).** p < .01 (two-tailed).

to find significant differences between groups. The mean of number of social media use for Group 1 (M=.99,SD = 1.07) was

significantly lower than the means for Group 2 (M= 1.45,SD = 1.27) and Group 3 (M= 1.71,SD =1.50).

4.3. Social media use and crisis management (RQs 2, 3, and 4)

Three hierarchical multiple regressions explored the relationship between social media use and the crisis management of

local governments. For each dependent variable (social medias impact on crisis management, control of the crisis situation,

and the strength of governments response to crisis), the first block that included the practitioners age and working years

was entered first followed by the second block that included the extent of social media use and the number of social mediatools used. Table 2 summarizes the results of the regressions on dependent variables. For all three regressions, the first block

did not account for any significant variance in the dependent variables. However, when the second block was added to the

first hierarchical regression, theR2 significantly increased from .03 to .26, and both the extent of social media use ( =.41,

p < .01) and the number of social media tools used ( =.16,p < .05) were positively related to the officials crisis management.The second regressions results revealed that the level of social media use was positively associated with the officials ability

to control the crisis ( =.17,p < .05), while the number of social media tools engaged was not. Finally, the results of the first

regression indicate that only the extent of social media use ( =.19,p < .05) was a significant predictor of the strength ofgovernments response to crisis.

4.4. Crisis type and social media use (H2 and 3)

The relationships between crisis types and social media use were tested using two one-way between-subjects ANOVAs.

There wasa significant relationshipbetween crisistype andthe level of socialmediausage at thep


7/9


In a report from the Congressional Research Service,Lindsay (2011)acknowledges the growing role of social media in

emergency preparedness and management and notes social media are the fourth most popular source for crisis information

for publics; given the rapid growth of social media just in the last three years it has presumably gone up in rank. Social media

enable rapid information exchange to mass audiences and may be an even more credible information source than traditional

mass media; they offer organizations efficiency with respect to time and budget in releasing information (Kingsley, 2010;

Kuzma, 2010; Procopio & Procopio, 2007).Yet, one-third of government offices in this study were not using social media in

their crisis management. Given the well-established benefits they offer organizations, the reasons for this lack of use call for

further explanation; we turn to identified moderators of use to start to explore why.

5.2. Community size and social media use

Avery et al. (2010)note public information officers in health departments were slower to adopt social media technolo-

gies than their counterparts in other industries and found differences depending on the size of the community served by

that department, with rural departments lagging behind those serving larger and more urban areas. This finding led us to

hypothesize that differences would also be present according to size of population served in this more broad analysis of

officials managing a range of crises, from health to political scandal. Practitioners at local governments serving the smallest

communities in this sample used social media during crisis to a lesser extent overall and used fewer tools than officials in

the two larger population categories. Consistent withAvery et al.s (2010)findings, this survey found that as community

size increased so did the extent of use and number of social media tools engaged during a crisis.

This finding is disconcerting and likely explained by the fact that rural officials are managing more strained time, human,

andfinancialresources. Keim andNoji(2011) note thatsocial media may offerimportant psychological benefits for vulnerablepopulations amidst disaster and better involve them as stakeholders in the organizations response. Victims of disaster

identify the need to contribute to improve their abilities to cope with the situation ( Keim & Noji, 2011),and during a crisis

social mediaoffer an importantforum in which people can engage in dialog. These support networksmay be especially critical

in rural areas wherepeople aremore isolated and, often,underserved. Local governments must reach broad audiences during

crisis, and the presence of disparities among the smaller, rural population local government offices is troubling to that end.

In addition to the support offered these publics by social media, disparities in engagement among officials indicate response

protocols may not be as broadly or immediately distributed in more rural areas, which may compromise public health and

safety and, ultimately, the local government officials reputation.

According toPew Research (2013),76% of urban, 72% of suburban, and 70% of rural online adults use social networking

sites; clearly the vast majority of adults across all urbanities are using social media, and the fact that rural government

officials are still lagging behind their larger population counterparts is troubling. Regardless of the moderating factors of

their use, which should be explored in future research, rural local governments officials engagement of social media during

crisis revealed here is troubling. Social media enable participation, contribution, coping, control, and resiliency during crisis,which may be of particular important for more isolated, vulnerable populations. Future research must inform practitioners

how to effectively and strategically engage social media during crisis even in the face of strained resources.

5.3. Crisis type and social media use

Social media use was central to crisis response in major crises such as the wildfires in California (Sutton et al., 2008),the

2009 crash of U.S. Airways flight 1549 (Derner, 2013),the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and Hurricane Sandy (Preston & Stetler,

2012).Now, strategic crisis planning entails identifying which social tools to engage in response, who will manage them,

and the nature of frequency of updates, among many other considerations. As in routine organizational operations, social

media must be engaged efficiently amidst crisis, with an effective plan for their use that makes them more than just tactics

but integral to strategy. Of all media channels, social media offer the most efficient method of the crisis principle of telling

it all and telling it now and telling the truthas well as sharing information broadly and fast. Prior research such as the

studies referenced above demonstrates value of social media during crisis, especially Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube during

a natural disaster and major accidents; of course, this optimism is tempered by the fact that social media can also contribute

to rumor and misinformation (Keim & Noji, 2011).But, a more nuanced understanding of social media engagement during

crisis also requires understanding of how to best match tools to a different crisis situations based on audience information

needs anduse. This study takes a first step in that directionby examining thecurrent state of socialmediause duringdifferent

types of crises.

Although the number of tools did not vary by crisis type, extent of social media use did vary by crisis type. Social media

were used significantly more for crisis communication during public health crises than for natural disaster, transportation,

political, social, or criminal crises. For social crises, social media wereengagedsignificantly less than during natural disasters,

transportation, political, criminal, and the other category. These results are encouraging evidence that social media are,

to some extent, being engaged strategically during crises based on perceived need; of all the types of crisis, public health

crises likely present the most widespread and imminent threats to public well-being and the most immediate informational

demands. Thus, it is positive that use rates are higher for those crisis types. Conversely, social crises would likely call for

significantly less social media engagement, as they likely do not require much public response. The fact that practitioners


8/9


are using social media to a greater extent depending on the type of crisis suggests strategic engagement of the tools instead

of a one size fits all crisis response model approach.

Finally, regression equations were used to evaluate if the extent of social media use, and the number of social media tools

engaged affected the impact of crisis management, control of the situation, and officials evaluations of the strength of their

responses. The effects of age of the officials and the number of years on the job were entered in the first block of the equation

to control for the effects of those factors, which were not significant. Both the extent of social media use and the number of

social media tools used were positively related to the extent of impact of the officials crisis management. Overall, it seems

that practitioners can take from this finding strong evidence that strategic use of social media in their crisis planning will

yield positive impact on and impression of their management of the situation. The extent of social media use, but not the

number of tools used, was positively associated with the officials assessments of their ability to control the crisis as well

their overall evaluations of the strength of their response. So in addition to impact, practitioners are also given evidence

here that crises can be better contained and managed with strategic social media use; in this case, quantity/breadth was not

prioritized over quality/depth. Engaging only one tool meaningfully is likely more effective than checking all the boxes

and using many tools but not well.

5.4. Limitations and future research

This research has limitations. One limitation of this data is that it does rely on recall of a crisis situation; however, we

asked for a recent crisis to overcome some of this threat to validity and reliability. Further, to avoid artificial context testing

while reaching a broad sample, it wasdeemed to be thebest approach.Another limitation is thethreat of a desirableresponse

bias, especially when evaluating their own offices performances. However, variability even in these assessments indicatesa degree of honesty and not just desirability in those assessments. Future research can use the exploratory results presented

here to test more specifically the effects and audience use of different types of tools during various crisis situations to reveal

how these tools are engaged. Exploring this topic from the citizen point of view is important for future studies to ensure that

citizen desires for information during a crisis are being met. Additionally, the framework for crisis communication practices

of local governments provided by this study can be used to investigate crisis communication practices of other spheres of

government or government related entities as well as differences among users based on experience and demographics. In

the meantime, however, we have documented compelling differences in social media use across crisis types and revealed

encouraging evidence of strategic integration of social media in crisis management among local governments.

References

American Red Cross. (2011).Social media in disasters and emergencies. Retrieved fromhttp: //redcrosschat.org/2011/08/24/how-do-you-use-social-media-

in-emergencies/Avery,E. J., & Graham, M. W. (2013). Political publicrelationsand the promotion of participatory,transparent governmentthrough social media.International

Journal of Strategic Communication,7(4), 274291.Avery, E., Lariscy, R., Amador, E., Ickowitz, T., Primm, C., & Taylor, A. (2010). Diffusion of social media among public relations practitioners in health

departments across various community population sizes.Journal of Public Relations Research,22(3), 336358.Bertot,J. C.,Jaeger,P. T.,& Grimes, J.M. (2010). UsingICTsto createa cultureof transparency:E-governmentand socialmedia asopennessandanti-corruption

tools for societies.Government Information Quarterly,27(3), 264271.Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010). Social media technology and government transparency.IEEE Computer Society,11(43), 5359.Bertot,J. C., & Jarger, P. (2010). Designing,implementing, and evaluatinguser-centered and citizen-centerede-government.InternationalJournal of Electronic

Government Research,6(2), 117.Bonson,E., Torres, L., Royo,S., & Flores, F. (2012). Locale-government 2.0:Social mediaand corporate transparencyin municipalities.Government Information

Quarterly,29(2), 123132.

Chang, A. M., & Kanan, P. K. (2008).Leveraging web 2.0 in government. Retrieved fromhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/LeveragingWeb.pdf

Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communications: Insights from situational crisis communication theory. Journal of BusinessCommunication,41, 265289.

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory.

Corporate Reputation Review,10(3), 163177.Cromer, C. (2010). Understanding web 2.0sinfluences on public e-services: A protection motivation perspective.Innovation: Management, Policy& Practice,

12(2), 192205.Derner, P. (2013 July). The NTSB utilizes social media during Asiana 214 investigation ,.http://www.nycaviation.comDorris, M. (2008). Service transformation in government.The Public Manager,36(4), 2528.Duhe, S. (2014). An overview of new media research in public relations journals from 1981 to 2014. Public Relations Review.Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(8),

16121621.Graham, M., & Avery, E. (2013). Government public relations and social media: An analysis of the perceptions and trends of social media use at the local

government level.Public Relations Journal,7, 121.GWU, & Cision. (2009 December).Social media & online usage study. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/ newsctr/10/pdfs/gw cision sm study 09.PDFHand, L. C., & Ching, B. D. (2011). You have one friend request. Administrative Theory & Praxis,33(3), 362382.

Jin, Y., & Liu, B. F. (2010). The blog-mediated crisis communication mo del: Recommendations fo r responding to influential external blogs.Journal of PublicRelations Research,22(4), 429455.

Jin, Y., L iu, B. F., & Austin, L. L. (2014). Examining the role of social media in effective crsisi management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, andsource on publics crisis responses. Communication Research,41(1), 7494.

Keim, M., & Noji, E. (2011). Emergent use of social media: A new age of opportunity for disaster resilience.American Journal of Disaster Medicine,6, 4754.

Kim, S.,& Liu, B. F. (2012). Areall crisesopportunities? A comparison of how corporate and government organizations responded to the 2009 flu pandemic.Journal of Public Relations R esearch,24, 6985.
http://redcrosschat.org/2011/08/24/how-do-you-use-social-media-in-emergencies/http://redcrosschat.org/2011/08/24/how-do-you-use-social-media-in-emergencies/http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/LeveragingWeb.pdfhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/LeveragingWeb.pdfhttp://www.nycaviation.com/http://www.gwu.edu/_newsctr/10/pdfs/gw_cision_sm_study_09.PDFhttp://www.gwu.edu/_newsctr/10/pdfs/gw_cision_sm_study_09.PDFhttp://www.nycaviation.com/http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/LeveragingWeb.pdfhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/LeveragingWeb.pdfhttp://redcrosschat.org/2011/08/24/how-do-you-use-social-media-in-emergencies/http://redcrosschat.org/2011/08/24/how-do-you-use-social-media-in-emergencies/


9/9


Kingsley, C. (2010 March). Making the most of social media: 7 lessons from successful cities. Retrieved from http://www.fels.upenn.edu/sites/www.fels.upenn.edu/files/PP3 SocialMedia.pdf

Kuzma, J. (2010). Asian government usage of web 2.0 social media.European Journal ePractice,9, 113.Lariscy, R. W., Avery, E. J., Sweetser, K. D., & Howes, P. (2009). An examination of the role of online social media in journalists source mix.Public Relations

Review,35(3), 314316.Lindsay, B. R. (2011). Social media and disasters: Current uses, future options, and policy considerations. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/

crs/homesec/R41987.pdfLiu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: The interplay of information form and source. Public Relations

Review,37(4), 345353.Liu, B. F., Fraustino, J., & Jin, Y. (2015). How disaster information form, source, type, and prior disaster exposure affect public outcomes: Jumping on the

social media bandwagon?Journal of Applied Communication Research,43(1), 4465.Liu, B. F., Jin, Y., & Austin, L. L. (2013). The tendency to tell: Understanding publics communicative responses to crisis information form and source. Journal

of Public Relations Research,25(1), 5167.Lovari, A., & Parisi, L. (2014). Listening to digital publics. Investigating citizens voices and engagement within Italian municipalities Facebook pages.Public

Relations Review.Mayfield, A. (2006).What is social media? Retrieved from http://www.spannerworks.com/fileadmin/uploads/eBooks/What is Social Media.pdfMorgan, J. (2010). Twitter and Facebook users respond to Haiti crisis. BBC news (January 15). Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/

americas/8460791.stm

Pew Research. (2013).Social networking useRetrieved fromhttp://w ww.pewresearch.org/data-trend/media-and-technology/social-networking-use/Preston, J., & Stetler, B. (2012 November). How government officials are using Twitter for Hurricane Sandy. The New York Times,. Retrieved from

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/how-government-officials-used-twitter-for-hurricane-sandy/Procopio, C. H., & Procopio, S. T. (2007). Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans? Internet communication, geographic community, and social

capital in crisis.Journal of Applied Communication Research,35(1), 6787.Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Gritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional

media.Public Relations Review,37(1), 2027.Smith, A. (2011).Why Americans use social media,. Retrieved fromhttp:/ /www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/15/why-americans-use-social-media/Sutton,J., Palen,L., & Shklovski,I. (2008). Backchannelson thefront lines:Emergentuses of socialmediain the2007.In Proceedingsfrom the 5th international

ISCRAM conference Southern California wildfires. Washington, DC: ISCRAM.Utz, S., Schultz, F., & Glocka, S. (2012). Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima

Daiichi nuclear disaster.Public Relations Review,39, 4046.Veil, S. R., Buehner, T., & Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A work in process literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis communication.Journal

of Contingencies and Crisis Management,19(2), 110122.Yates, D., & Paquette,S. (2011). Emergency knowledgemanagementand social mediatechnologies:A casestudy of the 2010Haitianearthquake.International

Journal of Information Management,31(1), 613.
http://www.fels.upenn.edu/sites/www.fels.upenn.edu/files/PP3_SocialMedia.pdfhttp://www.fels.upenn.edu/sites/www.fels.upenn.edu/files/PP3_SocialMedia.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41987.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41987.pdfhttp://www.spannerworks.com/fileadmin/uploads/eBooks/What_is_Social_Media.pdfhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8460791.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8460791.stmhttp://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/media-and-technology/social-networking-use/http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/how-government-officials-used-twitter-for-hurricane-sandy/http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/15/why-americans-use-social-media/http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/15/why-americans-use-social-media/http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/how-government-officials-used-twitter-for-hurricane-sandy/http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/media-and-technology/social-networking-use/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8460791.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8460791.stmhttp://www.spannerworks.com/fileadmin/uploads/eBooks/What_is_Social_Media.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41987.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41987.pdfhttp://www.fels.upenn.edu/sites/www.fels.upenn.edu/files/PP3_SocialMedia.pdfhttp://www.fels.upenn.edu/sites/www.fels.upenn.edu/files/PP3_SocialMedia.pdf

Documents

The Role of Social Media in Local Government Crisis Communications