How to Respond? The Impact of Government Response on Emotions in Emergencies from the Perspective of Configuration
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Government Response
1.2. Relations between Government Response and Emotions
2. Theoretical Analysis
2.1. Content
2.2. Situation
2.3. Responder
3. Data and Method
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Manual Text Analysis
3.2.2. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
- (1)
- Outcome: emotions
- (2)
- The conditions of the content
- (3)
- The conditions of the situation
- (4)
- The conditions of the responder
4. Results
4.1. Necessity Analysis
4.2. Results Analysis
4.2.1. Local Authority
4.2.2. Functional Agency
4.3. Summarization
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Policy Implications
5.3. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tzavella, K.; Skopeliti, A.; Fekete, A. Volunteered geographic information use in crisis, emergency and disaster management: A scoping review and a web atlas. Geo-Spat. Inf. Sci. 2024, 27, 423–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). The Human Cost of Disasters: An Overview of the Last 20 Years (2000–2019). 2020. Available online: https://www.undrr.org/publication/human-cost-disasters-overview-last-20-years-2000-2019 (accessed on 10 April 2024).
- Lwin, M.O.; Lu, J.; Sheldenkar, A.; Schulz, P.J.; Shin, W.; Gupta, R.; Yang, Y. Global sentiments surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic on Twitter: Analysis of Twitter trends. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020, 6, e19447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, S.; Jobe, M.; Mathis, A. Mental health characteristics associated with dysfunctional coronavirus anxiety. Psychol. Med. 2021, 51, 1403–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodriguez-Rey, R.; Garrido-Hernansaiz, H.; Collado, S. Psychological impact and associated factors: During the initial stage of the corona virus (COVID-19) pamdemic among the general population in Spain. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 550547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yıldırım, M.; Geçer, E.; Akgü, Ö. The impacts of vulnerability, perceived risk, and fear on preventive behaviours against COVID-19. Psychol. Health Med. 2021, 26, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yip, J.A.; Levine, E.E.; Brooks, A.W.; Schweitzer, M.E. Worry at work: How organizational culture promotes anxiety. Res. Organ. Behav. 2020, 40, 100124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, M.L.; Kelliher-Rabon, J.; Hagan, C.R.; Hirsch, J.K.; Joiner, T.E. Negative emotions in veterans relate to suicide risk through feelings of perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness. J. Affect. Disord. 2017, 208, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miyoshi, T.; Nakayasu, H.; Ueno, Y.; Patterson, P. An emergency aircraft evacuation simulation considering passenger emotions. Comput. Ind. Eng 2012, 62, 746–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Wu, Y. Countering reactance in crisis communication: Incorporating positive emotions via social media. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2020, 57, 352–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghosh, S.; Ghosh, K.; Ganguly, D.; Ganguly, D.; Chakraborty, T.; Jones, G.J.F.; Moens, M.F.; Imran, M. Exploitation of social media for emergency relief and preparedness: Recent research and trends. Inf. Syst. Front. 2018, 20, 901–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bro, P. Constructive journalism: Proponents, precedents, and principles. Journalism 2019, 20, 504–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, M.; Verma, R.; Otoo, F.N.K. Emotions in leader’s crisis communication: Twitter sentiment analysis during COVID-19 outbreak. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2021, 31, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heffner, J.; Vives, M.L.; FeldmanHall, O. Emotional responses to prosocial messages increase willingness to self-isolate during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 170, 110420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiang, J.; Meng, T.; Zhang, Q. From internet to social safety net: The policy consequences of Online Participation in China. Governance 2019, 32, 531–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norris, D.F.; Reddick, C.G. Local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change. Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazard, A.J.; Scheinfeld, E.; Bernhardt, J.M.; Wilcox, G.B.; Suran, M. Detecting themes of public concern: A text mining analysis of the centers for disease control and prevention’s ebola live twitter chat. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2015, 43, 1109–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lachlan, K.A.; Spence, P.R.; Lin, X.L.; Najarian, K.; Del Greco, M. Social media and crisis management: CERC, search strategies, and Twitter content. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 54, 647–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhar, S.; Bose, I. Victim crisis communication strategy on digital media: A study of the COVID-19 pandemic. Decis. Support Syst. 2022, 161, S1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, W.; Wang, M.; Zhu, Y.C. Does government information release really matter in regulating contagion-evolution of negative emotion during public emergencies? From the perspective of cognitive big data analytics. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 498–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmann, S.; Beverungen, D.; Rackers, M.; Becker, J. What makes local governments’ online communications successful? Insights from a multi-method analysis of Facebook. Gov. Inf. Q. 2013, 30, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rickard, L.N. Pragmatic and (or) constitutive? On the foundations of contemporary risk communication research. Risk Anal. 2021, 41, 466–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Warren, G.W.; Lofstedt, R. Risk communication and COVID-19 in Europe: Lessons for future public health crises. J. Risk Res. 2022, 25, 1161–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sergent, K.; Stajkovic, A.D. Women’s leadership is associated with fewer deaths during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of United States governors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 105, 771–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynolds, B.; Seeger, M.W. Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. J. Health Commun. 2005, 10, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rana, I.A.; Bhatti, S.S.; Aslam, A.B.; Jamshed, A.; Ahmad, J.; Shah, A.A. COVID-19 risk perception and coping mechanisms: Does gender make a difference? Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 55, 102096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prati, G.; Pietrantoni, L.; Zani, B. A social-cognitive model of pandemic influenza H1N1 risk perception and recommended behaviors in Italy. Risk Anal. 2011, 31, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Freberg, K.; Saling, K.; Vidoloff, K.G.; Eosco, G. Using value modeling to evaluate social media messages: The case of Hurricane Irene. Public Realt. Rev. 2013, 39, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, R.; Harris, J.K.; Staub, M.; Bernhardt, J.M. Local health departments tweeting about Ebola: Characteristics and messaging. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2017, 23, e16–e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lwin, M.O.; Lu, J.; Sheldenkar, A.; Schulz, P.J. Strategic uses of Facebook in Zika outbreak communication: Implications for the crisis and emergency risk communication model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.J.; Cameron, G.T. Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and sadness in the publics’ response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response. Commun. Res. 2011, 38, 826–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombs, W.T. Public Sector Crises: Realizations from Covid-19 for crisis communication. Partecip. E Conflitto 2020, 13, 990–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Entman, R.M. Cascading activation: Contesting the white house’s frame after 9/11. Political Commun. 2003, 20, 415–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chong, D.; Druckman, J.N. Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2007, 10, 103–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semetko, H.A.; Valkenburg, P.M. Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. J. Commun. 2000, 50, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lecheler, S.; Bos, L.; Vliegenthart, R. The mediating role of emotions: News framing effects on opinions about immigration. J. Mass Commun. Q. 2015, 92, 812–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Meer, T.G.L.A. Organizational crisis-denial strategy: The effect of denial on public framing. Public Relat. Rev. 2014, 40, 537–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parkinson, B. Intragroup emotion convergence: Beyond contagion and social appraisal. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2020, 24, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goldenberg, A.; Gross, J.J. Digital emotion contagion. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2020, 24, 316–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Jung, K.T.; Lee, H.C. Use of gaze entropy to evaluate situation awareness in emergency accident situations of nuclear power plant. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2022, 54, 1261–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, B.K. Audience-Oriented approach to crisis communication::A Study of Hong Kong consumers’ evaluation of an organizational crisis. Commun. Res. 2004, 31, 600–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahry, N.R.; McCluskey, M.; Ling, J.Y. Risk governance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A quantitative content analysis of governors’ narratives on Twitter. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2022, 31, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, B.A. The organizational and interorganizational development of disasters. Adm. Sci. Q. 1976, 21, 378–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodin, P. Institutional (Dis) trust and online participation roles in vaccination communication as public engagement. Javn.—Public 2023, 30, 392–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, T.; Lægreid, P. Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2005, 28, 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Han, R. Cosmetic responsiveness: Why and how local authorities respond to mundane online complaints in China. J. Chin. Political Sci. 2023, 28, 187–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlæger, J.; Jiang, M. Official Microblogging and social management by local governments in China. China Inf. 2014, 28, 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, T.G.; Yang, Z.S. Variety of responsive institutions and quality of responsiveness in cyber China. China Rev. 2020, 20, 13–42. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26928110 (accessed on 5 April 2024).
- Tuominen, R.; Saari, J. A model for analysis of accidents and its application. J. Occup. Accid. 1982, 4, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, Z.; Liu, Q.; Li, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y. Construction and analysis of a coal mine accident causation network based on text mining. Process Saf Env. Prot 2021, 153, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombs, W.T.; Holladay, S.J. An exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect and crises. In The Effect of Affect in Organizational Settings; Ashkanasy, N.M., Zerbe, W.J., Härtel, C.E.J., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2005; Volume 1, pp. 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misangyi, V.F.; Greckhamer, T.; Furnari, S.; Fiss, P.C.; Crilly, D.; Aguilera, R.V. Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 255–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, K.; Crilly, D.; Greckhamer, T. Stakeholder engagement strategies, national institutions, and firm performance: A configurational perspective. Strateg. Manag. J. 2020, 41, 1869–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brashers, D.E.; Neidig, J.L.; Haas, S.M.; Dobbs, L.K.; Cardillo, L.W.; Russell, J.A. Communication in the management of uncertainty: The case of persons living with HIV or AIDS. Commun. Monogr. 2000, 67, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campos, B.; Shiota, M.N.; Keltner, D.; Gonzaga, G.C.; Goetz, J.L. What is shared, what is different? Core relational themes and expressive displays of eight positive emotions. Cogn. Emot. 2013, 27, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Waele, A.; Schoofs, L.; Claeys, A.S. The power of empathy: The dual impacts of an emotional voice in organizational crisis communication. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 2020, 48, 350–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, J.J.; Yoeli, E.; Rand, D.G. Don’t get it or don’t spread it: Comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 20222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gruda, D.; Ojo, A. Is it too late now to say we’re sorry? Examining anxiety contagion and crisis communication strategies using machine learning. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0274539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shibuya, Y.; Tanaka, H. Public sentiment and demand for used cars after a large-scale disaster: Social media sentiment analysis with Facebook pages. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1801.07004. [Google Scholar]
- Karami, A.; Shah, V.; Vaezi, R.; Bansal, A. Twitter speaks: A case of national disaster situational awareness. J. Inf. Sci. 2019, 46, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demertzis, N. Emotions in Politics: The Affect Dimension in Political Tension; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Durnová, A.P.; Hejzlarová, E.M. Framing policy designs through contradictory emotions: The case of Czech single mothers. Public Policy Adm. 2018, 33, 409–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, L.F. Martha Nussbaum: Review of political emotions: Why love matters for justice. Ethic Theory Moral Pr. 2014, 17, 1009–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Primary Category | Secondary Category | Text Example |
---|---|---|
A | Accident level | Major production accidents; especially major emergencies. |
Accident scene | Low visibility; there is a lot of toxic gas; photos and videos about the emergency scene. | |
Casualty statistics | 5 victims were found; 18 members of the team were killed. | |
Material damage | 34 collapse points; the explosion affected 16 surrounding businesses. | |
R | Conduct accident investigation | Initiate an investigation; file a case for investigation. |
Reason explanation | Illegal factory production. | |
Punish responsible person | The persons involved are under criminal detention; 5 days of administrative detention according to law. | |
M | Rescue operation | Government quickly launched rescue operations; rescue forces were dispatched to the quake zone. |
Rescue force mobilization | On-site professional strength of 300 people; all kinds of equipment, including 40 sets. | |
Describe the rescue work site | Firefighters are cleaning up the scene of the fire; pictures and videos show the rescue scene. | |
Rescue effectiveness | 31 people have been rescued; all those trapped were rescued; the scene has been cleared. | |
Follow-up reform | Carry out various forms of work safety inspection; carefully check for security hazards. | |
E | Condole and pray | Grieved; may peace be with you; |
Firmness of rescue | do everything possible; never give up hope. | |
Close relationship with the people | To protect the lives and property of the people; not a member of the public should be missed. | |
Warmth and respect | Come on; the loveliest person; salute the hero. | |
Blame firmly | Zero tolerance; severely punish according to law. | |
Resolutely rectify | Recall a painful experience. | |
Confidence | Will win; together we work. | |
Excitement | A miracle of rescue! Good news! |
Variable Name | Variable Definition | Min | Max | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Emotions | 1 = Non-negative emotion 0 = Negative emotion | 0 | 1 | |
Content | A | 1 = Yes, 0 = No | 0 | 1 |
R | 1 = Yes, 0 = No | 0 | 1 | |
M | 1 = Yes, 0 = No | 0 | 1 | |
E | 1 = Yes, 0 = No | 0 | 1 | |
Responder | Government level (GL) | 0 = County level 0.50 = Prefecture level 1 = Provincial level | 0 | 1 |
Government departments (GD) | 1 = Local authority 0 = Functional agency | 0 | 1 | |
Situation | Emergency stage | 1 = Early stage (ES) 0 = Late stage (LS) | 0 | 1 |
Emergency heat (EH) | Emergency heat scores | 60 | 86.5 |
Variable | Consistency | Coverage |
---|---|---|
A | 0.297 | 0.801 |
~A | 0.702 | 0.859 |
R | 0.137 | 0.745 |
~R | 0.863 | 0.859 |
M | 0.891 | 0.839 |
~M | 0.109 | 0.858 |
E | 0.653 | 0.847 |
~E | 0.347 | 0.830 |
GL | 0.667 | 0.849 |
~GL | 0.332 | 0.826 |
GD | 0.304 | 0.713 |
~GD | 0.696 | 0.913 |
EH | 0.490 | 0.837 |
~EH | 0.510 | 0.845 |
ES | 0.335 | 0.854 |
LS | 0.665 | 0.835 |
Agency | Code | Configurations | Row Coverage | Consistency |
---|---|---|---|---|
Local authority | 1 | ~R*M*~GL*~EH*LS | 0.123 | 0.834 |
2 | A*~R*M*E*~EH*LS | 0.023 | 0.836 | |
No difference | 3 | A* ~R*M*E*GL*~EH | 0.049 | 0.868 |
4 | ~R*M*E*GL*~EH*ES | 0.061 | 0.939 | |
Functional agency | 5 | A*E*GL*EH | 0.152 | 0.916 |
6 | A*R*M*E*GL | 0.035 | 0.841 | |
7 | A*M*E*GL*LS | 0.062 | 0.878 | |
8 | ~ R*M*~E*GL | 0.143 | 0.941 | |
9 | ~ A*~R*M*GL | 0.320 | 0.932 | |
10 | ~R*M*GL*LS | 0.261 | 0.923 | |
11 | ~A*~R*~E*GL*~EH | 0.062 | 0.937 | |
12 | ~A*~R*GL*EH*LS | 0.158 | 0.935 | |
Solution coverage | 0.644 | |||
Solution consistency | 0.900 |
Code | Configurations | Row Coverage | Consistency |
---|---|---|---|
8 | ~R*M*~E*GL*~GD | 0.143 | 0.941 |
9 | ~A*~R*M*GL*GD | 0.320 | 0.932 |
5 | M*E*GL*~GD*~EH | 0.152 | 0.916 |
11 | ~A*~R*~E*GL*~GD*~EH | 0.062 | 0.937 |
1 | ~R*M*~GL*GD*~EH*LS | 0.123 | 0.834 |
12 | ~A*~R*GL*~GD*EH*LS | 0.158 | 0.935 |
4 | ~R*M*E*GL*~EH*ES | 0.061 | 0.939 |
6 | A*R*M*E*GL*~GD | 0.035 | 0.841 |
10 | ~R*M*GL*~GD*LS | 0.261 | 0.923 |
7 | A*M*E*GL*~GD*LS | 0.062 | 0.878 |
3 | A*~R*M*E*GL*~EH | 0.049 | 0.868 |
2 | A*~R*M*E*GD*~EH*LS | 0.023 | 0.836 |
Solution coverage | 0.644 | ||
Solution consistency | 0.900 |
Responder | Early Stage | Late Stage | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low Heat | High Heat | Low Heat | High Heat | ||
Local authority | County-level | — | — | M type M-E type | — |
Prefecture-level | M-E type | — | M-E type | — | |
Provincial-level | M-E type | — | M-E type | — | |
Functional agency | County-level | — | — | — | — |
Prefecture-level | M type M-E type G type | M type | M type M-E type | M type G type | |
Provincial-level | M type M-E type G type | M type | M type M-E type | M type G type |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shi, S.; Wang, G.; Zhang, L. How to Respond? The Impact of Government Response on Emotions in Emergencies from the Perspective of Configuration. Systems 2024, 12, 183. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12060183
Shi S, Wang G, Zhang L. How to Respond? The Impact of Government Response on Emotions in Emergencies from the Perspective of Configuration. Systems. 2024; 12(6):183. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12060183
Chicago/Turabian StyleShi, Shuo, Guohua Wang, and Lu Zhang. 2024. "How to Respond? The Impact of Government Response on Emotions in Emergencies from the Perspective of Configuration" Systems 12, no. 6: 183. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12060183