Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022
Predicting Public Cooperation Toward Government Actions in the Early Stages of an Influenza Pandemic in the United States: The Role of Authentic Governmental Communication and Relational Quality
During a public health crisis, government sector is considered the natural leader for overall preparedness and management efforts. Integrating the literature from public relations and public health disciplines, this study proposes a theoretical model to predict individuals’ perceptions, communicative action, as well as their behaviors to follow the governments’ instructions in the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Linking relationship management factors and the framework of the situational theory of problem-solving, the findings of this study demonstrate that authentic communication and relational quality can help increase positive perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes desired by governments regarding pandemic management. However, our findings suggested that unproductive uses of authentic governmental communication may create adverse effects on publics’ perceptions and interpretations and thus pose potential risks, particularly when a public health issue is significantly politicized. Specifically, this study found that, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic in which the Trump administration was blamed for lack of planning and halting responses in the fight against the virus, conservatives who believe that the federal government is practicing authentic communication during the pandemic would consider the issue less important and irreverent; meanwhile, they would recognize more barriers to adopt preventive actions. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AhernS.LohE. (2020). Leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic: Building and sustaining trust in times of uncertainty. BMJ Leader, 5(4), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-000271
2.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
3.
BowenS. A. (2010). The nature of good in public relations: what should be its normative ethic? In HeathR. L. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of public relations (pp. 569–583). SAGE.
4.
BuhrmesterM. D.TalaifarS.GoslingS. D. (2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516
5.
CairnsG.de AndradeM.MacDonaldL. (2013). Reputation, relationships, risk communication, and the role of trust in the prevention and control of communicable disease: A review. Journal of Health Communication, 18(12), 1550–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.840696
6.
CalvilloD. P.RossB. J.GarciaR. J.SmelterT. J.RutchickA. M. (2020). Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of covid-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1119–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620940539
7.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EaglyA. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In VlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). Guilford.
8.
ChangC. (2022). Cross-country comparison of effects of early government communication on personal empowerment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan and the United States. Health Communication, 37(4), 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1852698
9.
ChenY. R. R.Hung-BaeseckeC. J. F.KimJ. N. (2017). Identifying active hot-issue communicators and subgroup identifiers: Examining the situational theory of problem solving. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 124–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016629371
10.
ChengY. (2018). Looking back, moving forward: A review and reflection of the organization-public relationship (OPR) research. Public Relations Review, 44(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.10.003
11.
ChonM. G. (2019). Government public relations when trouble hits: exploring political dispositions, situational variables, and government–public relationships to predict communicative action of publics. Asian Journal of Communication, 29(5), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2019.1649438
12.
ChonM. G.ParkH. (2019). Predicting public support for government actions in a public health crisis: Testing fear, organization-public relationship, and behavioral intention in the framework of the situational theory of problem solving. Health Communication, 36(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1700439
13.
EarleT. C.SiegristM.GutscherH. (2010). Trust in risk management. In EarleT. C.SiegristM.GutscherH. (Eds.) Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation (pp. 18–66). Routledge.
14.
FancourtD.SteptoeA.WrightL. (2020). The Cummings effect: Politics, trust, and behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet, 396(10249), 464–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31690-1
15.
FergusonM. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(4), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810
FrenchP. E. (2011). Enhancing the legitimacy of local government pandemic influenza planning through transparency and public engagement. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02336.x
GrunigJ. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In MossD.MacManusT.VerčičD. (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–46). ITB Press.
20.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. c. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
21.
HartP. S.ChinnS.SorokaS. (2020). Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication, 42(5), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020950
22.
HatcherW. (2020). A failure of political communication not a failure of bureaucracy: The danger of presidential misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6-7), 614–620.
23.
HongH.ParkH.LeeY.ParkJ. (2012). Public segmentation and government–public relationship building: A cluster analysis of publics in the United States and 19 European countries. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2012.626135
24.
HonL. C.GrunigJ. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation.
25.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
26.
HuangI. Y. (2020). Fighting against COVID-19 through government initiatives and collaborative governance: Taiwan experience. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 665–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13239
27.
JungM.LinL.ViswanathK. (2013). Associations between health communication behaviors, neighborhood social capital, vaccine knowledge, and parents’ H1N1 vaccination of their children. Vaccine, 31(42), 4860–4866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.07.068
KiE. J.KimJ. N.LedinghamJ. A. (Eds.) (2015). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Routledge.
30.
KimJ.SungM. (2016). The value of public relations: Different impacts of communal and exchange relationships on perceptions and communicative behavior. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2016.1191014
31.
KimJ. N.GrunigJ. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x
32.
KimJ. N.NiL.KimS. H.KimJ. R. (2012). What makes people hot? Applying the situational theory of problem solving to hot-issue publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2012.626133
33.
KimS.KrishnaA. (2018). Unpacking public sentiment toward the government: How citizens’ perceptions of government communication strategies impact public engagement, cynicism, and communication behaviors in South Korea. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(3), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118x.2018.1448400
34.
LarsonH. J.HeymannD. L. (2010). Public health response to influenza A(H1N1) as an opportunity to build public trust. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(3), 271–272. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.2023
35.
LeeE. J.LeeH. Y.ChoiS. (2020). Is the message the medium? How politicians’ Twitter blunders affect perceived authenticity of Twitter communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106188
36.
LeeM. (2012). The President’s listening post: Nixon’s failed experiment in government public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.011
37.
LeeY. (2019). Crisis perceptions, relationship, and communicative behaviors of employees: Internal public segmentation approach. Public Relations Review, 45(4), 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101832
38.
LeeY. (2020). A situational perspective on employee communicative behaviors in a crisis: The role of relationship and symmetrical communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 14(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118x.2020.1720691
39.
LiJ. Y. (2020). Breaking the silence: Applying and extending the theory of situational support to understand mental health services use among Chinese immigrants in the United States. Journal of International Communication, 14, 6220–6241.
40.
LiJ. Y.HarrisonS.QiaoS.LiX. (2019). Utility of theory to explain village doctors’ willingness to treat people living with HIV in rural China. Journal of Health Communication, 24(2), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2019.1587112
41.
LoudenA.McCauliffK. (2004). The “authentic candidate”: Extending candidate image assessment. In HackerK. (Ed.), Presidential candidate images (pp. 85–103). Rowman & Littlefield.
42.
MadhavN.OppenheimB.GallivanM.MulembakaniP.RubinE.WolfeN. (2018). Pandemics: Risks, impacts, and mitigation. In: JamisonD. T.GelbandH.HortonS.JhaP.LaxminarayanR.MockC. N.NugentR. (Eds.), Disease control priorities: Improving health and reducing poverty. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
43.
McKeeverB. W. (2013). From awareness to advocacy: Understanding nonprofit communication, participation, and support. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2013.806868
44.
MenL. R.YangA.SongB.KiousisS. (2018). Examining the impact of public engagement and presidential leadership communication on social media in China: Implications for government-public relationship cultivation. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(3), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118x.2018.1445090
45.
MolledaJ. C.JainR. (2013). Identity, perceived authenticity and reputation: A dynamic association in strategic communication. In: CarrollC. E. (Ed.), The Handbook of communication and corporate reputation (pp. 435–446). John Wiley and Sons.
46.
MottaM.SteculaD.FarhartC. (2020). How right-leaning media coverage of COVID-19 facilitated the spread of misinformation in the early stages of the pandemic in the U.S. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 53, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423920000396
NiL. (2012). Exploring the role of strategic relationship management in the formation of publics. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118x.2011.634867
49.
NiL.WangQ.ShaB.-L. (2018). Intercultural public relations: Theories for managing relationships and conflicts with strategic publics (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315641737
50.
NiL.XiaoZ.LiuW.WangQ. (2019). Relationship management as antecedents to public communication behaviors: Examining empowerment and public health among Asian Americans. Public Relations Review, 45(5), 101835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101835
51.
NicollA. (2011). Planning for uncertainty: A European approach to informing responses to the severity of influenza epidemics and pandemics. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89, 542–544. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.11.089508
52.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision making, 5(5), 411–419.
53.
QuinnS. C.ParmerJ.FreimuthV. S.HilyardK. M.MusaD.KimK. H. (2013). Exploring communication, trust in government, and vaccination intention later in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: results of a national survey. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 11(2), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2012.0048
54.
ReynoldsB.Quinn CrouseS. (2008). Effective communication during an influenza pandemic: The value of using a crisis and emergency risk communication framework. Health Promotion Practice, 9(4 Suppl), 13S–17S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839908325267
SeltzerT.ZhangW. (2011). Debating healthcare reform: How political parties’ issue-specific communication influences citizens’ perceptions of organization-public relationships. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(4), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901108800405
57.
ShenH.KimJ. N. (2012). The authentic enterprise: Another buzz word, or a true driver of quality relationships?Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(4), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2012.690255
58.
SiegristM.ZinggA. (2014). The role of public trust during pandemics: Implications for crisis communication. European Psychologist, 19(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000169
59.
SissonD. C.BowenS. A. (2017). Reputation management and authenticity: A case study of Starbucks’ UK tax crisis and “# SpreadTheCheer” campaign. Journal of Communication Management, 21(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2016-0043
60.
StevensJ. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.
61.
StokerK.TusinskiK. (2006). Reconsidering public relations’ infatuation with dialogue: Why engagement and reconciliation can be more ethical than symmetry and reciprocity. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 21(2), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327728jmme2102&3_5
62.
ThelwallM.ThelwallS. (2020). Retweeting for COVID-19: Consensus building, information sharing, dissent, and lockdown life. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 75(6), 945–962. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2020-0134
63.
TheyeK.MellingS. (2018). Total losers and bad hombres: The political incorrectness and perceived authenticity of Donald J. Trump. Southern Communication Journal, 83(5), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794x.2018.1511747
64.
UpshurR.FaithK.GibsonJ. L.ThompsonA. K.TracyC. S.WilsonK.SingerP. A. (2007). Ethics in an epidemic: Ethical considerations in preparedness planning for pandemic influenza. Health Law Review, 16(1), 33–39.
VaughanE.TinkerT. (2009). Effective health risk communication about pandemic influenza for vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health, 99(Suppl 2), S324–S332. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.162537
67.
WeeksB. E.KimD. H.HahnL. B.DiehlT. H.KwakN. (2019). Hostile media perceptions in the age of social media: Following politicians, emotions, and perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1653069
YangS. U. (2018). Effects of government dialogic competency: The MERS outbreak and implications for public health crises and political legitimacy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(4), 1011–1032. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017750360
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
