Impact of Crisis Communication Strategies on People’s Attitudes toward Behavioral Guidelines Regarding COVID-19 and on Their Trust in Local Officials

Abstract

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) guides responses of corporations in crises. We tested how COVID-19 related crisis communication strategies affect trust in mayors and the acceptance of behavioral measures. A total of 561 participants (53% female) with a mean age of 50 years took part in an online experiment in which we systematically manipulated the mayor’s crisis communication strategy (deny crisis, diminish role in crisis, rebuild relationship after taking responsibility, bolster reputation, no response) and pre-crisis reputation (good past crisis management, bad past crisis management). Age, gender, and education served as covariates. We also tested the predictive power of personal concern regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as internal and external control convictions. In our preregistered analysis, we found that crisis communication strategies had no significant effect on participants’ ratings of behavioral measures, but they affected participants’ trust in the mayor. The deny crisis strategy resulted in the most unfavorable ratings, while the effects of the other strategies were moderated by the mayor’s pre-crisis reputation. Additional exploratory analyses showed that individual concern and trust were important predictors for the acceptance of behavioral measures. Even though we did not find any effects of communication strategies on behavioral measures, our results support SCCT’s utility in guiding communication strategy during a pandemic.

Keywords

COVID-19 / Crisis communication / Germany / Local officials / Situational Crisis Communication Theory

References

[1] Beldad AD, van Laar E, Hegner SM. Should the shady steal thunder? The effects of crisis communication timing, pre-crisis reputation valence, and crisis type on post-crisis organizational trust and purchase intention. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2018, 26(1): 150-163

[2] Bilancini, E., L. Boncinelli, V. Capraro, T. Celadin, and R. Di Paolo. 2020. The effect of norm-based messages on reading and understanding COVID-19 pandemic response governmental rules. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv: 2005.03998

[3] Bish A, Michie S. Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: A review. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2010, 15(4): 797-824

[4] Brühlmann, F. 2019. Understanding and improving subjective measures in human-computer interaction. PhD thesis. University of Basel, Switzerland.

[5] Capraro, V., and H. Barcelo. 2020. The effect of messaging and gender on intentions to wear a face covering to slow down COVID-19 transmission. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv: 2005.05467

[6] Christensen T, Lægreid P. Balancing governance capacity and legitimacy: How the Norwegian government handled the COVID-19 crisis as a high performer. Public Administration Review, 2020, 80(5): 774-779

[7] Coombs WT. Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 2007, 10(3): 163-176

[8] Coombs WT. Public sector crises: Realizations from Covid-19 for crisis communication. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 2020, 13(2): 990-1001.

[9] Coombs WT, Holladay SJ. Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 1996, 8(4): 279-295

[10] Dohle, S., T. Wingen, and M. Schreiber. 2020. Acceptance and adoption of protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of trust in politics and trust in science. Social Psychological Bulletin 15(4). https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.4315.

[11] Everett, J.A.C., C. Colombatto, V. Chituc, W.J. Brady, and M.J. Crockett. 2020. The effectiveness of moral messages on public health behavioral intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint from PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9yqs8

[12] Ferguson, N.M., D. Laydon, G. Nedjati-Gilani, N. Imai, K. Ainslie, M. Baguelin, S. Bhatia, A. Boonyasiri, et al. 2020. Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. London: MRC (Medical Research Council) Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London.

[13] Flinders M. Democracy and the politics of coronavirus: Trust, blame and understanding. Parliamentary Affairs, 2021, 74(2): 483-502

[14] Guglielmi S, Sani GMD, Molteni F, Biolcati F, Chiesi AM, Ladini R, Maraffi M, Pedrazzani A, Vezzoni C. Public acceptability of containment measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: How institutional confidence and specific political support matter. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 2020, 40(9/10): 1069-1085

[15] Guardian. 2020. “This is not a film”: Italian mayors rage at virus lockdown dodgers. The Guardian, 23 March 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/this-is-not-a-film-italian-mayors-rage-coronavirus-lockdown-dodgers. Accessed 10 Dec 2021.

[16] Harper CA, Satchell LP, Fido D, Latzman RD. Functional fear predicts public health compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 2021, 19(5): 1875-1888

[17] Hegner SM, Beldad AD, Kamphuis op Heghuis S. How company responses and trusting relationships protect brand equity in times of crises. Journal of Brand Management, 2014, 21(5): 429-445

[18] Hegner SM, Beldad AD, Kraesgenberg A-L. The impact of crisis response strategy, crisis type, and corporate social responsibility on post-crisis consumer trust and purchase intention. Corporate Reputation Review, 2016, 19(4): 357-370

[19] Jordan, J.J., E. Yoeli, and D.G. Rand. 2021. Don’t get it or don’t spread it: Comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors. Scientific Reports 11: Article 20222.

[20] Kovaleva, A., C. Beierlein, C.J. Kemper, and B. Rammstedt. 2014. Internal-external control convictions (Internale-Externale-Kontrollüberzeugung-4 (IE-4)). Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen – ZIS. https://zis.gesis.org/skala/Kovaleva-Beierlein-Kemper-Rammstedt-Internale-Externale-Kontroll%C3%BCberzeugung-4-(IE-4). Accessed 10 Dec 2021 (in German).

[21] Kukowski C, Bernecker K, Brandstätter V. Self-control and beliefs surrounding others’ cooperation predict own health-protective behaviors and support for COVID-19 government regulations: Evidence from two European countries. Social Psychological Bulletin, 2021, 16(1): 1-28

[22] Lewis JD, Weigert A. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 1985, 63(4): 967-985

[23] Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(3): 709-734

[24] Meade, A.W., and S.B. Craig. 2012. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods 17(3): Article 437.

[25] Meeßen, S.M., M.T. Thielsch, and G. Hertel. 2020. Trust in management information systems (MIS): A theoretical model. Zeitschrift für Arbeits − und Organisationspsychologie 64(1): 6−16.

[26] Schneider, I.K., A.R. Dorrough, and C. Frank. 2021. Ambivalence and adherence to recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Preprint from PsyArXiv.https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/b9hcg

[27] Siegrist M. Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 2021, 41(3): 480-490

[28] Siegrist M, Luchsinger L, Bearth A. The impact of trust and risk perception on the acceptance of measures to reduce COVID-19 cases. Risk Analysis, 2021, 41(5): 787-800

[29] Sulik, J., O. Deroy, G. Dezecache, M. Newson, Y. Zhao, M. El Zein, and B. Tunçgenç. 2021. Trust in science boosts approval, but not following of COVID-19 rules. https://hdl.handle.net/1805/25719. Accessed 10 Dec 2021.

[30] Šuriņa, S., K. Martinsone, V. Perepjolkina, J. Kolesnikova, U. Vainik, A. Ruža, J. Vrublevska, D. Smirnova, et al. 2021. Factors related to COVID-19 preventive behaviors: A structural equation model. Frontiers in Psychology 12: Article 676521.

[31] Thielsch MT, Röseler S, Kirsch J, Lamers C, Hertel G. Managing pandemics—Demands, resources, and effective behaviors within crisis management teams. Applied Psychology, 2021, 70(1): 150-187

[32] Tingley D, Yamamoto T, Hirose K, Keele L, Imai K. Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 2014, 59(5): 1-38

[33] Tracy PE, Fox JA. The validity of randomized response for sensitive measurements. American Sociological Review, 1981, 46(2): 187-200

[34] van Mulukom, V. 2020. Low levels of trust affect guideline adherence and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343377738_Low_Levels_of_Trust_affect_Guideline_Adherence_and_Conspiracy_Belief_during_the_COVID-19_Pandemic. Accessed 10 Dec 2021.

[35] Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. 2020. Hotspot Nimwegen: Gelderland is now a high-risk area (Hotspot Nimwegen: Gelderland ist jetzt Risikogebiet). Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 2 October 2020. https://www.waz.de/region/niederrhein/corona-in-der-grenzregion-lage-in-gelderland-spitzt-sich-zu-id230499814.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2021 (in German).

[36] Wong CML, Jensen O. The paradox of trust: Perceived risk and public compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. Journal of Risk Research, 2020, 23(7–8): 1021-1030