Communication strategies are essential during crises, as they can influence people’s behaviours. For governments, crises increase the need for timely communicating information and engaging with citizens. Communication is not only a matter of sharing the right content but also of understanding the communication style and how communications (should) evolve over time. We present a framework for characterising government communication patterns on social media and how such patterns influence citizen engagement based on sociological, language, and crisis theories. We study the pragmatic meaning of communications by linking it to crisis stages and uncertainty reduction goals. We instantiated the framework in a data collection of local governments communications in Argentina during COVID-19. Our findings indicate that governments reflected specific communication strategies, matching the expected crisis-related stages from the chosen theories. The proposed framework could help government officials to design, monitor, and adjust their communication strategies to achieve efficient information diffusion.
LeeCHYuH. The impact of language on retweeting during acute natural disasters: uncertainty reduction and language expectancy perspectives. Ind Manag Data Syst2020; 120: 1501–1519.
2.
SuttonJSpiroESJohnsonB, et al. Warning tweets: serial transmission of messages during the warning phase of a disaster event. Inform Commun Soci2014; 17(6): 765–787.
3.
FissiSGoriERomoliniA. Social media government communication and stakeholder engagement in the era of COVID-19: evidence from Italy. Int J Public Sect Manag2022; 35(3): 276–293.
4.
BonsónEPereaDBednárováM. Twitter as a tool for citizen engagement: an empirical study of the Andalusian municipalities. Gov Inf Quart2019; 36(3): 480–489.
5.
LappasGTriantafillidouAKaniA. Harnessing the power of dialogue: examining the impact of Facebook content on citizens’ engagement. Local Gov Stud2022; 48(1): 87–106.
6.
ZhengHGohDHLLeeEWJ, et al. Understanding the effects of message cues on COVID-19 information sharing on Twitter. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2022; 73(6): 847–862.
7.
FrandsenFJohansenW. Public Sector Communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2020, pp. 229–244.
8.
HeviaCNeumeyerPA. A perfect storm: COVID-19 in emerging economies. COVID-19 Dev Econ2020; 1(1): 25–37.
9.
Álvarez-NobellAOliveiraAAthaydesA, et al. Strategic communication and political ideologies in South America. COVID-19 crisis management in the cases of the populist governments of Argentina and Brazil. Int J Strateg Commun2022; 16(3): 403–425.
10.
Gálvez-RodríguezMMSáez-MartínAGarcía-TabuyoM, et al. Exploring dialogic strategies in social media for fostering citizens’ interactions with Latin American local governments. Public Relat Rev2018; 44(2): 265–276.
11.
YeoJLiHShinYA, et al. Cultural approach to crisis management. In: Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. New York: Springer, 2023, pp. 2833–2836.
12.
GemelliNA. Management of COVID-19 outbreak in Argentina: the beginning. Disaster Med Public Health Prep2020; 14(6): 815–817.
13.
BonsónERoyoSRatkaiM. Facebook practices in Western European municipalities: an empirical analysis of activity and citizens’ engagement. Adm Soc2017; 49(3): 320–347.
14.
ReuterCHughesALKaufholdM-A. Social media in crisis management: an evaluation and analysis of crisis informatics research. Int J Hum Comput Interact2018; 34(4): 280–294.
15.
CovelloVT. Risk communication: an emerging area of health communication research. Ann Int Commun Assoc1992; 15(1): 359–373.
16.
GudykunstWBKimYY. Communicating with strangers: an approach to intercultural communication. Vol 19. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992.
17.
HuangY-HCWuFChengY. Crisis communication in context: cultural and political influences underpinning Chinese public relations practice. Public Relat Rev2016; 42(1): 201–213.
18.
DrabekTE. Human system responses to disaster: an inventory of sociological findings. New York: Springer, 2012.
19.
FinkS; American Management Association. Crisis management: planning for the Inevitable. New York: American Management Association, 1986.
20.
PalttalaPBoanoCLundR, et al. Communication gaps in disaster management: perceptions by experts from governmental and non-governmental organizations. J Conting Crisis Manag2012; 20(1): 2–12.
21.
HuQKapucuN. Information communication technology utilization for effective emergency management networks. Public Manag Rev2016; 18(3): 323–348.
22.
KimSCHawkinsKH. The psychology of social media communication in influencing prevention intentions during the 2019 US measles outbreak. Comput Human Behav2020; 111: 106428.
23.
LeeGKwakYH. An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Gov Inf Q2012; 29(4): 492–503.
24.
ChoiMAielloLMVargaKZ, et al. Ten social dimensions of conversations and relationships. In: Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020, WWW ’20, Taipei, 20–24 April. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, pp. 1514–1525.
25.
PandolfoA. Habermas’ universal pragmatics: theory of language and social theory. In: CaponeAPiparoFLCarapezzaM (eds) Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Cham: Springer, 2013, pp. 609–635.
26.
BergerCRCalabreseRJ. Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Hum Commun Res1974; 1(2): 99–112.
27.
SonJLeeHKJinS, et al. Content features of tweets for effective communication during disasters: a media synchronicity theory perspective. Int J Inf Manag2019; 45: 56–68.
28.
LindholmJCarlssonTAlbrechtF, et al. Communicating COVID-19 on social media: analysing the use of Twitter and Instagram by Nordic health authorities and prime ministers. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, 2023, pp. 149–172.
29.
HagenLKellerTNeelyS, et al. Crisis communications in the age of social media: a network analysis of Zika-related tweets. Soc Sci Comput Rev2018; 36(5): 523–541.
30.
LachlanKASpencePRLinX, et al. Social media and crisis management: CERC, search strategies, and Twitter content. Comput Human Behav2016; 54: 647–652.
31.
ZhaoXZhanMLiuBF. Disentangling social media influence in crises: testing a four-factor model of social media influence with large data. Public Relat Rev2018; 44(4): 549–561.
32.
López ChauAValle-CruzDSandoval-AlmazánR. Sentiment analysis in crisis situations for better connected government: case of Mexico earthquake in 2017. In: Web 2.0 and Cloud Technologies for Implementing Connected Government. New York: IGI Global, 2021, pp. 162–181.
33.
Henríquez-CoronelPGarcía GarcíaJHerrera-TapiaJ. Management of natural disasters based on Twitter analytics: 2017 Mexico earthquake. In: RochaAFerrásCParedesM (eds) Information Technology and Systems: Proceedings of ICITS 2019. New York: Springer, 2019, pp. 3–12.
34.
AriasFGuerra-AdamesAZambranoM, et al. Analyzing Spanish-language public sentiment in the context of a pandemic and social unrest: the Panama case. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19(16): 10328.
35.
SuttonJGibsonCBPhillipsNE, et al. A cross-hazard analysis of terse message retransmission on Twitter. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2015; 112(48): 14793–14798.
36.
StoneJACanSH. Factors influencing tweet purposes and citizen engagement with municipal Twitter accounts. Online Inf Rev2021; 45(3): 501–516.
37.
BlasiSGobboESeditaSR. Smart cities and citizen engagement: evidence from Twitter data analysis on Italian municipalities. J Urban Manag2022; 11(2): 153–165.
38.
DeriSRappazJAielloLM, et al. Coloring in the links: capturing social ties as they are perceived. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact2018; 2(CSCW): 1–18.
39.
DiasGPBruzzaMTupiaM. Social media adoption and reach: the case of the Lima’s local governments. In: 2022 17th Iberian conference on information systems and technologies (CISTI), Madrid, 22–25 June. New York: IEEE.
40.
AldereteMVDíazLAAlvarezN. E-government through different digital platforms in a group of citizens from an Argentinean city. Rev Investig Desarro Innov2022; 12: 157–170.
41.
TommaselAGodoyDDiaz PaceJA. Towards an effective e-participation: an analysis of the interaction and engagements of Argentine digital citizens. Electron J SADIO2020; 19(2): 208–232.
42.
WellerKBrunsABurgessJ, et al. Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang, 2013.
43.
GraceRThamJCK. Adapting uncertainty reduction theory for crisis communication: guidelines for technical communicators. J Bus Tech Commun2021; 35(1): 110–117.
44.
MikolovTLeQVSutskeverI. Exploiting similarities among languages for machine translation. arXiv:1309.4168, 2013.
45.
PerczekRCarverCSPriceAA, et al. Coping, mood, and aspects of personality in Spanish translation and evidence of convergence with English versions. J Pers Assess2000; 74(1): 63–87.
46.
CameronACTrivediPK. Regression Analysis of Count Data. Vol 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
47.
HilbeJM. Negative Binomial Regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
48.
AikenLSWestSGRenoRR. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. New York: Sage, 1991.
49.
SuhBHongLPirolliP, et al. Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network. In: 2010 IEEE second international conference on social computing, Minneapolis, MN, 20–22 August 2010, pp. 177–184. New York: IEEE.
50.
MontiCAielloLMDe Francisci MoralesG, et al. The language of opinion change on social media under the lens of communicative action. Sci Rep2022; 12(1): 17920.
51.
JungblutMJungblutJ. Do organizational differences matter for the use of social media by public organizations? A computational analysis of the way the German police use Twitter for external communication. Public Adm2022; 100(4): 821–840.
52.
MarsiliN. Retweeting: its linguistic and epistemic value. Synthese2021; 198(11): 10457–10483.
53.
FederAKeithKAManzoorE, et al. Causal inference in natural language processing: estimation, prediction, interpretation and beyond. Trans Assoc Comput Linguist2022; 10: 1138–1158.
54.
MenardS. Collinearity. In: MenardS (ed.) Applied Logistic Regression Analysis (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences). 2nd ed.New York: Sage, 2001, pp. 35–46.
55.
SonJLeeJLarsenKR, et al. Understanding the uncertainty of disaster tweets and its effect on retweeting: the perspectives of uncertainty reduction theory and information entropy. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2020; 71(10): 1145–1161.
56.
Tommasel AGobBsAsTweets: Twitter Dataset of Local Governments in Buenos Aires (Argentina)”, Mendeley Data, V3, doi: 10.17632/3fszgrvm2r.3 URL: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/3fszgrvm2r/3
