top of page
Search

Utilizing Social Media in Crisis Situations






I. Abstract

This research analysis of social media use in times of crisis aims to better understand its potentially negative impact and how a more encompassing understanding of its uses can impact the overall utility in a crisis. Through scholarly research and real-life crises, this paper examines the rise of sousveillance as a destructive force for organizations and crisis managers alike, the role of Twitter to communicate urgent information or non-urgent information and the importance of crafting trustworthy messages to reach the public on a deeper level.

II. Introduction

As we aim to connect in more meaningful ways, social media has presented a solution to a great deal of communication problems. From reconnecting with old friends to being informed on the latest news, we are constantly connected to a network of people and companies alike. However, in looking past the utility and leisure-like attitude of social media, there is a far more important function to consider, which is using social media in times of crisis. Often in a crisis organizations will turn to social media to relay important news. This differs from the past in which professionals would draft memos or press releases and distribute information at a slower pace. This influx of material at a heightened rate allows more people to be reached unlike ever before.

While much of this seems beneficial to the masses, there is still a fine line to tread when using social media in a crisis. If not carefully planned out, social media use can be negative, or even a destructive force, in times of great duress for the public. The choice of messages and social media platforms used has an impact on how a crisis, and the reaction to a crisis, is perceived by the public. This analysis will attempt to look to previous research and literature on social media use in crisis situations to ultimately understand how social media can be a destructive force in times of crisis, how the medium/platform chosen to communicate the crisis matters and how particular messaging and trustworthiness of content is paramount.

III. Literature Review

This literature review aims to examine past scholarship in order to better understand the relevance of social media in a crisis situation. Rather than only looking at the positive attributes of its use, it is important to further examine the limitations of social media use in a crisis.

Social Media As A Destructive Force

When left to their own devices, the public can become a hindrance to crisis management planning. This is supported by many scholarly works on the topic of “sousveillance” which is termed after the act of the public recording and sharing what is happening first-hand in a crisis (Veil et al. 2011). This term is further framed in a larger sense by researchers in a work-in-process literature review titled, “Incorporating Social Media in Risk and Crisis Communication.” Furthermore, this study looks at best practices for practitioners to utilize in times of crisis. This varies from establishing policies and process approaches to collaborating with credible sources while maintaining transparency with the public (Veil et al. 2011, p. 111). Much of this seems to be fairly in line with similar recommendations of this nature, however the attention to the public’s involvement in a crisis is what supports the thinking that social media can be a destructive force. Veil et al. describes sousveillance as the act “in which bystanders use their phones to record video or take photos of emergency personnel who are not acting professionally” (2011, p. 118). They go on to add that this act in a crisis can have a more damaging impact by which “the immediacy of digital communication might result in false information being communicated to stakeholders” (2011, p. 118).

This has been seen countless times when the public has access to their cellphones and is immediately near a crisis situation. For example, if there is a widespread environmental crisis and medical workers are shown slacking off or not caring for those in need, this could be extremely damaging for the corporation handling the matter. As a result, much of this would go viral and completely damage a great deal of the work crisis managers had done to mitigate the situation. Veil et al. truly touch on an important component of the crisis management process, which is understanding the public’s role in creating conflict, or shedding light, on the issue at hand. This ultimately bleeds over into another concern in which crisis managers must resist the urge to release potentially dangerous information on social media.

Hayley Watson and Kim Hagen examine the engaged public in their research on the Contribution of Social Media in Crisis Management (COSMIC) project. This research includes opportunities and challenges associated with engaging the public on social media in a crisis. While the opportunities can be beneficial, for the purposes of this examination, the threats and dangers to the public will serve to better understand the divisive role of social media in a crisis. Furthermore, the given threats will serve to better inform and educate practitioners in the analysis and recommendations section. Watson and Hagen use past literature to pinpoint three key concerns of social media use including: the issue of recording and safety of information, the threat of online vigilantism and the danger to citizens (Watson & Hagen, 2015, p. 146).

The recording of a crisis, which is somewhat similar to the concept of sousveillance, could lead to the sharing of personal information. This could put the person in danger and also lead to “related threats including identity theft, social engineering, phishing, sabotage and malware attacks” (2015, p. 147). An example of this can be found following the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings in which “spam campaigns [took] advantage of the publicity surrounding the attacks” (2015, p. 147). This exploitation of a tragedy is something that often follows a crisis. The public shares information, which can then be used as a way for spammers and hackers to create greater havoc in the long run. There may be no logical explanation as to why this is done, but it does help practitioners to better understand the role of online trolls as they prey on the public’s willingness to share their own first-hand knowledge in a crisis. Similarly, the rise of online vigilantism is also something to safeguard against for the public at large. Crisis managers from the Boston Marathon Bombings also faced this dilemma when citizens took to Reddit to share countless photos and videos, which led to “the wrongful identification of innocent individuals” (2015, p. 148). Much of these actions created fodder for journalists, which led to erroneous reports and an all around break down of communication. This, too, presents a problem for practitioners as they look to remediate the first crisis while more problematic behavior follows.

Finally, Watson and Hagen point to the real physical danger to the public recording in a crisis. Most obviously, citizens put themselves at risk by being in places or situations that they are advised to evacuate from. Much of this is similar to a greater movement toward citizen journalism; however, there are limitations to this type of active participation in newsgathering. For example, as noted in Watson and Hagen’s study, “in some countries individuals participating in sharing and discussing the news may be at risk of being prosecuted due to national legislation” (2015, p. 148). The dangers of simply recording in a crisis may seem innocent or even helpful to the public, but as shown here, there are countless examples of a much darker undercurrent that can cause more damage to an individual and even a corporation in the long run.

Aside from personal damage to the public, an organization can also face damage to its reputation depending on the way it responds to comments in a crisis. Researchers Zamani et al. conducted a case study on a Greek Apple authorized reseller and service provider and its response to take legal action against an aggravated customer. Data was gathered using a content analysis of data collected from social media, blogs and forums and it was found that the company “was responsible for the chain of events…[and] the public was clear with regards to the aspect of responsibility, and was attributing it…on the [company]” (Zamani et al. 2015, p. 42). The company’s poor management and response to a particular situation ultimately had a hand in devaluing their credibility according to the public. The sentiment only worsened as the company “adopted a combination of attack and deny response strategies” (2015, p. 42). The inconsistent nature of responses ultimately held much more weight in the public’s mind even after they publicly apologized for their behavior online. Zamani et al. finally discusses this company’s actions as being closed off as they suppressed information and refused interaction (2015, p. 45). This example serves as a testament to the power of reputation, and how it can be lost over simple matters, such as responding to a customer in an inappropriate manner. A seemingly easy exchange turned into an organizational crisis of fairly large proportions, all thanks to the mismanagement of social media.

The Chosen Medium/Platform Matters

Crisis managers may use different tools to communicate with the public, but often times there is a preferred method of communication that is used. A study conducted by researchers Shultz et al. aimed to better understand the research gaps surrounding the effects of different media types (Shultz et al. 2011, p. 21). This was especially pertinent when attempting to understand the differences between traditional media vs. more modern platforms.

For this study, Shultz et al. invited 6,814 people to participate in an online panel. However, as this was a short study that took less than 5 minutes, and no incentives were provided, only 1,937 participants finished the study in its entirety (2011, p. 22). Participants were given a crisis situation in which they had to react to the communication examples provided. Data revealed that “individuals in the ‘Twitter + blog’ condition gave the highest score on post-crisis reputation,” which suggests that the research question about the effective use of short tweets is, in fact, successful. It is also interesting to note that in the case of secondary communication, “Twitter users were more likely to share the message than blog users and non-users of social media” and they are more willing to share the actual article rather than the blog post or tweet (2011, p. 25). Researchers suggested that it would be perhaps advantageous to provide more attention to Twitter users in a crisis situation. This research further relates to the urgent focus on Twitter in times of natural disaster, especially when attempting to benefit the public with information.

In 2012, Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on majority of the East Coast, resulting in a tremendous amount of destruction that many local economies are still trying to bounce back from today. While more hurricanes have passed through the same areas in recent years, Hurricane Sandy has an important place in disaster planning and crisis communication research. As noted, Hurricane Sandy’s devastating impact cost almost $50 billion, caused at least 147 deaths and an estimated 8.1 million homes lost power (Spence et al. 2015, p. 174). As a result of the incredible devastation, researchers aimed to “examine the Twitter content that was broadcast in the days leading up to the landfall” (2015, p. 177). The ultimate aim was to examine how information developed and the implications that followed this.

Spence et al. chose to sample 27,259 tweets with the hashtag “#sandy” through computer driven content analyses. This work yielded results that could help to inform researchers and crisis managers in the future. Interestingly, it was found that the useful information was “more available on the first two days and then [began] to dissipate” (2015, p. 180). However, the more telling results showed that there were a small number of tweets that provided people with pertinent safety information (where food, water, shelter was located, how to locate friends and family and evacuation information). It was widely found that more information was geared toward cancellations, which is helpful but impertinent when safety is the top priority. Finally, and most telling of the findings, researchers found “literally no tweets…that [contained] information concerning [healthcare] or how to care for the sick or elderly” (2015, p. 180). The lack of institution-wide tweets from organizations such as the CDC or NOAA were quite concerning as well. This suggests that Twitter is a crucial communication platform for reaching people, but it must be used to relay important information rather than solely focusing on the devastation and fear. Emotions will always run high in a crisis, but it is up to crisis managers to mitigate fear with helpful information and coping mechanisms.

John Brummette and Hilary Fussell Sisco aimed to analyze just that in their study on controllability, predictability and emotion/coping strategies throughout a crisis. They utilized “extant research on emotions and cognitive appraisal theory and coping” to better serve the integrated crisis mapping (ICM) model (Brummette & Fussell Sisco 2014, p. 91). They further used a quantitative content analysis method to examine tweets from an organization’s stakeholders over one day.

Ultimately, they coded 791 tweets, which were found to be neutral in the predictability of the organization to handle the crisis. The tweets were seemingly neutral in controllability, but “a third (37% n = 295) expressed how the organization had very little or low controllability (2014, p. 93). Finally, it was found that stakeholders most commonly expressed fear and anger and the coping strategies ranged from instrumental support to emotional venting and emotional support seeking (2014, p. 93). The researchers suggest that these “creators” or external stakeholders set the tone for how followers and the greater public may perceive a crisis. This is just one more set of research in which the findings suggest that crisis managers must provide information in times of crisis. If left without information, stakeholders may create more negative buzz because they are left in the dark.

Particular Messaging and Trustworthiness Is Paramount

Finally, as we have looked at the importance of utilizing social media properly and with the right platform, it is now pertinent to understand the role of the messaging used to communicate in a crisis. A recent 2018 online survey yielded results on the emotion behind a tweet (i.e. fear, anger, happiness, sadness, surprise etc.) to show that this has an impact on the public’s perception of its trustworthiness and usefulness. Researchers, Halse et al. conducted an online survey through the Amazon Turk system in order to study two dependent variables, perceived trustworthiness and usefulness. It was found that despite the difference in crisis type, trustworthiness and usefulness were similar. This is supported by the beneficial use of geolocational data to generate trust and the use of “provided support for victims and informational data about a disaster” (Halse et al. 2018, p. 300).

Mats Eriksson unpacks some of this messaging in his systematic content analysis of peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers. While Eriksson outlines 5 important characteristics to using social media in a crisis, the first revolved around choosing the right message for the right occasion. He explains that one set of dialogue may not be the best for a different situation, which is why he gives examples of differing organizational crises. One attempt at an apology may not fit for another situation in which a more direct explanation is needed. Much of this work depends on a crisis manager’s working knowledge of his or her own institution/organization. The need for proactive conversation and planning becomes paramount when crafting the message and then reacting to the public’s perception of what is put out. While this sounds less than scientific, there are ways to quantify past research as Eriksson suggests.

Further research on the matter can be found in a study conducted by Ward van Zoonen and Toni van der Meer on the importance of source and credibility perception in a crisis. The researchers recruited 483 participants from communication courses at the University of Amsterdam and they were given research credits for their participation (van Zoonen & van der Meer 2015, p. 377). They were given a crisis scenario and an online questionnaire “to assess source credibility, content credibility, and organizational reputation” (2015, p. 379). Results found that employees play an important part in protecting an organization’s reputation. When communicated by employees, the perception of organizational reputation was less negative than when communicated by the organization (2015, p. 383). This research suggests that messages relayed by employees have an obviously beneficial impact on not only reputation but also on credibility in the future.

IV. Analysis/Recommendations

Combatting Sousveillance

As seen in the above literature review, in seeing social media as a destructive force, it can be noted that there are several examples of crises going awry thanks to the mismanagement of social media platforms. As Veil et al. mentioned sousveillance we can now see the pervasiveness and danger of recording in a crisis situation. While it may be almost impossible to completely prevent the public from recording something, crisis managers and practitioners must work hard to take control of the processes in place. For this to happen it is crucial to have a plan in place for how to respond to a crisis and then a plan on how to react to the public’s understanding of a crisis. Managers must work to make sure that all parties involved should be seen as extensions of the company or organization that is trying to help in a crisis. This also goes for the confusion that often follows after someone posts a potentially damaging video online. Practitioners must respond to this, rather than trying to hide it from further exposure, and clarify what is happening. They must take responsibility for potentially damaging behavior or actions and then work to clarify what is being done to fix the issue. For example, in the case of a natural disaster, practitioners should be ready to see content from people outside of their organization. They must be aware of what is being shared and work to clarify the situation to the best of their ability. It is possible to use this content in a positive way; however, transparency and empathy must be guiding principles throughout this endeavor.

These actions further relate to the ones that must be taken to keep the public safe in a crisis. As seen in the Boston Marathon Bombing, trolls capitalized on sousveillance techniques and used them to misinform the public, creating havoc and bolstering unfounded information in the wake of a tragedy. Watson and Hagen discuss the public’s safety in great detail, which can be extended to aid practitioners as they also do so. A practitioner must have a keen eye for the situation, and must be willing to strike down erroneous reporting before it becomes a secondary crisis. This is where practitioners must be certain that they have a tight hold on communicating to citizen journalists who feel as if they are helping. If a practitioner sees erroneous facts going viral they must act quickly to reframe the situation. This includes using social media as a tool for explaining rather than proving someone else wrong. In the case of the Boston Marathon Bombing, many relied heavily on journalists to report what they were hearing from the police and other government officials, so it became paramount that they got the story right. While it will be tempting to discuss everything quickly, a practitioner must be aware of the potential change of information. In turn, they must work with local officials and police to communicate in a similar cadence across the board.

Much of this communication among local officials and an organization also bleeds over into the aftermath of a crisis. Whether a company is reacting to a crisis, or if it has created one, reputation and credibility will be highly scrutinized in the time that follows. More people will remember the bad choices rather than the good ones, mainly because they stand out more. As Zamani et al. described in their case study, a company can lose a considerable amount of trust by being defensive, combative and suppressive of information. Practitioners must use social media as an extension of their core values and mission. They must remember that anything said can be used against them in the time that follows. There is no way to wipe the slate clean once something is online, and nothing can be completely taken back as well. In the case of the company examined, many involved did more to wrong the customer than to ease their mind of the present situation. Instead, they created a crisis out of something that could have been handled quite easily if the responsible people had a better grasp of online etiquette and of the transparency needed when conducting oneself on social media.

Utilizing and Informing Stakeholders

As noted in the research in this section, the platform used by crisis managers truly does matter. However, this also extends to how the platform is then used to either inform or misinform stakeholders and the general public. Twitter is often seen as the go-to platform to reach the public, but this can often go awry if people are left to their own devices. It is recommended that parties responsible in mitigating a crisis go out of their way to provide helpful information in times of need. This can be seen in extremely recent examples of widespread devastation. The 2018 California wildfires took a devastating toll on communities, especially those with older populations. This was seen in Hurricane Sandy and in countless other natural disasters. The focus should be on health and safety in times of need. It is recommended that responsible parties break up their demographic space in the planning period. They must account for all people, but be sure to understand that there are those in high-risk categories that may need more help obtaining information and/or in the evacuation process. Twitter may still be the most useful tool in relaying this, but preparedness steps need to be taken so that all know how to communicate via these social channels. For example, in the future it may be advantageous to do more Q&A type tweets in which an organization reaches out to communities to see what they feel went well or went awry in the case of a natural disaster. While this is most certainly different in the case of an organizational crisis, it still will have the same overall tenets of success. Organizations must utilize the stakeholders and public to better understand their needs and feelings before a crisis arises. Much of this comes down to planning, but it also helps to understand the groups you are trying to reach. Reactionary crisis management is crucial when relaying information after a crisis, but it seems that many undermine the importance of crisis management planning.

Creating a Trusting Message

Messaging will always be important in social media no matter if there is a crisis or not. However, as suggested by the researchers in this section, the sentiment behind a message makes all the difference. The public must understand what they are being told and not made to feel as if they are left in the dark. Trustworthiness and usefulness both rank high in the minds of the people impacted by a crisis, which is why the messaging must have both. It is recommended that organizations take the time to think about the possible reactions that people could have and work to curb any negative responses. While it is impossible to account for every reaction, the public should be left feeling as if they are safe and secure following a natural disaster or a corporate crisis. Each message should be tailored to the situation, but the sentiment and overall feelings following a crisis can be seen as similar despite all else. Crisis managers must work internally to help employees understand a situation before relaying anything to the public. As seen in past research, it seems that employees’ communications bode well with public to ease frustrations and relate on a more personal level. Organizations should work harder to use real people in times of need, as a real face can serve the public better than a faceless brand. Ultimately, the goal is to relate and create a sense of trust so that people can make safe and informed decisions. Trust cannot be built without transparency and accountability, so these must also be instilled throughout communication, especially when threads are created on social media. For example, if a person is going through the updates of a situation on Twitter, they should see cohesive posts that build on past information to provide a fuller picture as time goes on. It is up to the organizations and crisis managers to make sure this happens without fail. This will take time to perfect, but this is just one more reason to better understand organizational goals, the public at large and the ways in which communication must be streamlined.

V. Conclusion

Over the years social media has proven to be an effective tool in times of crisis, but how it is used must be considered in greater detail for the future. As outline above, social media can be a somewhat destructive force in times of great turmoil. The public’s current ability to record everything as it happens puts a large strain on a crisis manager’s ability to mitigate or even deescalate a crisis. The rise of such habits make it tempting to attempt to tighten the control on a message or situation, but managers should remember that communication is key, not harboring information to ease any unwanted attention. Furthermore, the rise of Twitter as an information outlet is extremely beneficial but must be carefully considered when sharing vital safety and evacuation information. Organizations must focus on the sentiment within the post to ultimately boast life-saving information rather than a string of seemingly helpful information on cancellations or less dire matters. And finally, messaging matters, but it does differ for each situation. While practitioners and managers must utilize research, they must have a working knowledge of what their individual goals are at the end of a crisis. Our reliance on social media will most likely increase in the foreseeable future, so it is up to practitioners and crisis managers alike to lean on stakeholders, employees and the public to hold a strong presence during and after a crisis.


References

Brummette, J., & Fussell Sisco, H. (2015). Using Twitter as a means of coping with emotions and uncontrollable crises. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 89–96. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.009

Eriksson, M. (2018). Lessons for Crisis Communication on Social Media: A Systematic Review of What Research Tells the Practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(5), 526–551. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1510405

Halse, S. E., Tapia, A., Squicciarini, A., & Caragea, C. (2018). An emotional step toward automated trust detection in crisis social media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(2), 288–305. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1272618

Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, 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), 20-27.

Spence, P. R., Lachlan, K. A., Lin, X., & del Greco, M. (2015). Variability in Twitter Content Across the Stages of a Natural Disaster: Implications for Crisis Communication. Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 171–186. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1080/01463373.2015.1012219

van Zoonen, W., & van der Meer, T. (2015). The Importance of Source and Credibility Perception in Times of Crisis: Crisis Communication in a Socially Mediated Era. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(5), 371–388. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1062382

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), 110-122. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5973.2011.00639.x

Watson, H., & Hagen, K. (2015). An engaged public: Considerations for the use of social media in managing crises. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 6(2), 141–154. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1386/iscc.6.2.141pass:[_]1

Zamani, E. D., Giaglis, G. M., & Kasimati, A. E. (2015). Public Relations Crisis and Social Media: An Investigation into Extant and Prospective Consumers’ Perceptions through the Lens of Attribution Theory. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 10(2), 33–52. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.4067/S0718-18762015000200004













Comments


bottom of page