Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

The role of social media in local government crisis

communications
Melissa W. Graham a, , Elizabeth J. Avery b , Sejin Park b
a
b

University of Central Oklahoma, 100 North University Drive, Edmond, OK 73034, United States
The University of Tennessee, 476 Communication Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 27 June 2014
Received in revised form 29 January 2015
Accepted 2 February 2015
Keywords:
Social media
Public relations
Government
Transparency
Crisis communication

a b s t r a c t
Using survey data collected from more than 300 local government ofcials from municipalities across the United States, this study examines social media use in a relatively unexplored
context, local governments. It specically addresses the adoption and use of social media
tools for crisis communication and social medias part in managing a crisis. Results indicate
the extent of social media use, but not the number of tools used, is positively associated
with local city ofcials assessments of their ability to control a crisis situation as well as
their overall evaluations of the strength of their responses. Implications and importance of
ndings are discussed.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Social media enable local governments to communicate important government information, extend government services,
and garner feedback and ideas about government operations with citizens (Golbeck, Grimes, & Rogers, 2010). The open,
dialogic nature of social media eliminates many of the barriers in citizen communication that governments have historically
experienced (Bertot & Jarger, 2010), and communication with constituents can be more frequent, open, and targeted. These
benets offer particular potential and opportunities for governments to communicate with citizens during times of crises.
The City of Boston utilized social media heavily to communicate with the public in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon
Bombings in early 2013. Social media usage by governments was also vital during the recent wildres in Yosemite National
Park as well as the historic ooding in Colorado to get information about the crises and safety protocols to citizens and other
interested parties. In times of crisis, social media allow governments and other organizations to communicate quickly and
effectively to reach mass publics (Kim & Liu, 2012).
A 2013 Pew Research Center report revealed that 72% of American adults utilize social networking sites, which represents
a 6% increase from the previous year (Pew Research, 2013). This number is growing exponentially and daily, and organizations
are likewise increasingly taking advantage of this trend to communicate with their publics. These overall numbers of social
networking usage and a 2013 survey on the state of the news media that identies a decline in traditional news outlets (Pew
Research, 2013) together suggest that citizens will increasingly go online for organizational information, including that from
their governments.
Social media are an important technology for disaster response, primarily because of the tools that enable open exchange
of information through conversation and interaction (Yates & Paquette, 2011). Given its communicative abilities and

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 9313200985.

E-mail addresses: mgraham12@uco.edu (M.W. Graham), ejavery@utk.edu (E.J. Avery), spark37@utk.edu (S. Park).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.001
0363-8111/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

387

contemporary pervasiveness, social media are no longer an optional channel for governments to use only to push organizational messages. As user-generated media, social media give government public relations practitioners the ability to inform
and to seek input and opinions from relevant publics (Hand & Ching, 2011) in real-time, which is especially important during
a crisis.
Despite the enormous value social media yield governments in communicating with citizens, there is scant research on
the extent to which local governments are actually using social media for crisis communication efforts. As local governments
continue to face diminishing budgets and stretched time, and less human and scal resources even for the management
of daily operations, it is imperative to reveal how social media can maximize efciency in crisis management. Given the
extraordinary growth in social media use over the past few years, it is also important to evaluate if and how governments
are using this technology to communicate with publics during crises and if and how they are incorporating it into their
crisis communication plans. This exploratory research provides an important audit of local governments use of social media
during crisis to inform future research on how social media can best be utilized across government contexts. An exploration
of the nature of current social media practices of local governments for crisis communication focuses the discussion on how
current practice can be improved. Specic research questions explore the adoption and use of social media tools for crisis
communication by local governments and the role social media play in managing a crisis.

2. Literature review
First, the role of social media in local governments is reviewed. Then, the benets of citizen engagement are explicated
to demonstrate the potential of social media in crisis management.

2.1. Social media and government

As the popularity of social media soars, the importance that governments place on social media as a communication
tool to engage citizens must rise in turn and reect active dialog with citizens as a priority (Golbeck et al., 2010). Previous
research reveals governments are adopting social media for many different purposes, including: recruiting activities (Dorris,
2008); reaching out to citizens and other publics; disseminating information to the public and sharing information across
government agencies (Chang & Kanan, 2008; Dorris, 2008); enhancing and promoting community participation (Dorris,
2008); and achieving transparency (Bertot & Jarger, 2010; Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010). Although Duhe (2014) notes
government and politics is a surging area of new media research, only one study (Graham & Avery, 2013) has focused on
local governments. While the reported benets of social media use for governments are vast, a recent national study by
Graham and Avery (2013) reveals local governments are somewhat underutilizing social media tools. Encouragingly, the
majority of local governments report using social media to some extent; however, the extent that each tool is used does
not represent active engagement with citizens through social media (Graham & Avery, 2013). Since governments are an
important information source for publics during a crisis, their engagement through social media should be more active and
reect a clear response priority in crisis communication plans.

2.2. Benets of citizen engagement

Efciency, convenience, accountability, transparency, citizen involvement, and improved trust and democracy are among
the cited benets of social media use in government (Chang & Kanan, 2008; Cromer, 2010; Dorris, 2008; Kuzma, 2010).
Through social media applications, governments can communicate more efciently with publics than with more traditional
media and are often able to save resources including time and money (Kingsley, 2010; Kuzma, 2010). Most federal government agencies have a social media presence that includes blogs, social networking sites, YouTube channels, and more
(Bertot, Jaeger, Munson, & Glaisyer, 2010). Moreover, citizens actively using social media desire tangible and interactive
communication with their governments (Lovari & Parisi, 2015).
While the majority of research regarding social media and governments focuses on the federal level, one exception is Hand
and Chings (2011) examination of Phoenix area local governments use of social media that found using social media at the
local government level seems to offer promise of increased citizen engagement, reaching citizens on a common platform,
and allowing for citizen comments (p. 379). A similar study by Bonson, Torres, Royo, and Flores (2012) that examined social
media use in local governments in Europe found that many governments have taken advantage of the opportunities social
media present and realized that by disseminating news through social media they can vastly increase audience reach at
little cost. Moreover, the main benets that social media offer the public sector are increased opportunities for engagement
with citizens and enhanced transparency (Bonson et al., 2012). Since citizen expectations are a primary consideration for
local government activities, government ofcials understandings of citizen expectations of their social media use is a strong
indicator of its usage and importance in government (Avery & Graham, 2013). Still, there is no current assessment of how
local governments are using social media for crisis communication; therefore, we ask:
RQ1.

To what extent do local governments engage social media during crisis?

388

M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

2.3. Moderators of use and reasons for engaging social media

Previous research on local governments and government agencies suggests that certain factors inuence the adoption of
social media use in organizations. As demonstrated in an analysis of local public health departments, Avery et al. (2010) found
that public information ofcers in health departments had been slower to adopt social media technologies than practitioners
in other industries; furthermore, signicant differences were discovered depending on the size of the community served by
that department. The research showed that practitioners in urban communities exhibit the highest adoption rates, followed
by suburban, large town, and rural communities. Therefore, we predict:
H1.

Larger communities will use social media to a greater extent for crisis communications than smaller communities.

Additionally, among those who used social media to disseminate health information, the most commonly used tools were
social networking sites (Avery et al., 2010). Another moderating factor on the adoption of social media use in governments is
the number of public information ofcers on staff. Local governments with more staff members devoted to communication
efforts are more likely to have a stronger social media presence than governments with smaller staffs (Graham & Avery,
2013). This nding suggests that larger communities with larger budgets and more communication personnel are more
likely to utilize social media to communicate with citizens; these disparities in engagement become more disturbing in the
face of crisis, when public safety may be at stake. To further test and extend these ndings in a government context, we ask:
RQ2.

To what extent do crisis managers report that social media improved their management of the crisis?

RQ3.

To what extent does social media use predict extent of crisis managers sense of control during a crisis?

RQ4.

To what extent did social media use predict how well the local government recovered from the crisis?

2.4. Social media and crisis communication

Digital media, and in particular social media, have been catalysts for great change in the practice of crisis communication.
However, research has only begun to analyze the role and potential of social media in crises (Jin, Liu, & Austin, 2014; Liu,
Austin, & Jin, 2011; Schultz, Utz, & Goritz, 2011; Utz, Schultz, & Glocka, 2012). The goal of crisis communication is to convey
the right information to the right people, and social media enable rapid information exchange. Mayeld (2006) describes
social media as human communication that presents characteristics of openness, participation, conversation, community,
and connectedness. The results from an American Red Cross (2011) survey reveal that Americans are increasingly reliant
on social media and mobile technologies to learn about ongoing disasters and to seek help and to share information after
emergencies. Research shows that during a crisis an audiences social media use increases (Smith, 2011), and social media
are often perceived to be more credible sources than traditional mass media (Procopio & Procopio, 2007). Both journalists
and their publics frequently rely on social media for news ideas and information (GWU & Cision, 2009; Lariscy, Avery,
Sweetser, & Howes, 2009). A recent study by Liu, Fraustino, and Jin (2015) reveals there is no single social media form
preferred for disseminating information about a crisis and that continued investment is needed in ensuring many different
communication forms are utilized.
2.5. Situational crisis communication theory
Coombs situational crisis communication theory, SCCT, is undoubtedly the most commonly used theory to examine
crisis communication and management (Coombs, 2004, 2007). In sum, SCCT suggests that an organizations crisis response
should correspond to the extent of its responsibility for the crisis and the reputational threat posed by the crisis (Coombs,
2007). Jin and Liu (2010) proposed a modication of the SCCT that incorporates social media, the social-mediated crisis
communication model (SMCC) to guide crisis managers in their social media efforts and activities following a crisis. In
particular, SMCC outlines the interactions between an organization involved in a crisis and the different types of publics
who produce and consume information about the crisis via social media (Liu et al., 2013). The rst public described in SMCC
involves people who create crisis information for others to consume and are known as inuential social media creators. The
second public in SMCC is known as social media followers and includes those who consume the inuential social media
creators crisis information. The third public identied by SMCC includes individuals who consume the informational social
media creators information indirectly, social media inactives. By identifying different publics using SMCC, crisis managers,
through monitoring social media, can know how and when to respond online. Also revealing best practices for practitioners
amidst crisis, Veil, Buehner, and Palenchar (2011) propose guidelines for organizations to follow in incorporating social
media tools in risk and crisis communication. They recommend:
1) Determine social media engagement as part of the risk and crisis management policies and approaches; 2) Incorporate social media tools in environmental scanning to listen to risk and crisis bearer concerns; 3) Engage social media
in daily communication activities; 4) Join the conversation, including rumor management, and determine best channels to reach segmented publics; 5) Check all information for accuracy and respond honestly; 6) Follow and share
messages with credible sources; 7) Recognize that the media is already using social media; 8) Remember that social

M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

389

media is interpersonal communication; 9) Use social media as the primary tool for updates; 10) Ask for help and
provide direction; and 11) Remember Web 2.0 is not a Panacea (Veil et al., 2011, p. 119).
In addition to the many crisis response strategies to select from during a crisis, communications practitioners also must
decide which social media tools are appropriate to use and how frequently they should post updates. The choices range from
social networking sites such as Facebook and Google Plus, microblogging sites such as Twitter, photosharing sites such as
Pinterest and Instagram, and video sharing sites including YouTube and Vimeo. Sometimes it might be appropriate to use
all of these to communicate during a crisis, and other times it would make more sense to focus on one or two. During the
2007 and 2008 wildres in California, Twitter was used to share information and updates with the public (Sutton, Palen, &
Shklovski, 2008). Twitter was also instrumental in sharing information quickly about the 2009 crash of U.S. Airways ight
1549. Shortly after the crash of Asiana Air ight 214 in July 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board used Twitter and
YouTube to inform the public about the investigation and share quotes and videos from the press conferences (Derner, 2013).
Facebook was the primary crisis communication tool used following a devastating earthquake that hit Haiti in 2010; images
of the devastation were quickly circulated online through Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Several social media tools were
heavily used by the American Red Cross to solicit donations to help those affected by the crisis (Morgan, 2010). In response
to the imminent threat posed by Hurricane Sandy to the Atlantic Coast, Governors, Mayors and other elected ofcials relied
heavily Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to inform citizens of threats and evacuations, and, in the aftermath relied on these
tools to get out vital updates to the public (Preston & Stetler, 2012). Increasingly organizations are incorporating social
media into their crisis response strategies and placing great importance on the ability of various social media tools to reach
targeted audience. Local governments are often on the front lines of a crisis, so this evaluation of the extent to which local
governments are utilizing social media in response to specic crisis situations and the specic social media tools they are
using is of particular importance. The crisis responses reviewed above reveal that Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are used
frequently to communicate about natural disasters and major accidents; thus, it follows that different types of crises will
necessitate varying types and extent of use of social media tools for strategic response. Therefore, the following hypotheses
are made:
H2.

The extent of social media use will vary by crisis type.

H3.

The number of social media tools used will vary by crisis type.

While the area of crisis communication and social media research is quickly developing, little empirical research exists
on the extent to which these best practices are evident in local governments use of social media for crisis communication,
but this study expands that knowledge base. As nearly one-third of online adults report using social media sites to acquire
information about government agencies or ofcials (Pew Research, 2013), it is critical to develop a broader understanding
of how governments are taking advantage of the opportunities social media offer, especially during crisis.
3. Method
3.1. Survey administration
In order to investigate local governments crisis management, a private survey research rm that specializes in local
government and public policy research administered a national survey to its database of local government ofcials. The
rm was selected based on its ability to reach the most broad and representative sample of government ofces that both
serve a wide range of population sizes and are diverse in the form of their governments (mayor, manager, commission,
etc.). Following IRB protocol, participants were sent a solicitation email that requested their participation. If they chose to
click on the survey link, participants were rst asked to read a statement of informed consent then notied that by clicking
to continue the survey they were expressing their consent. The survey data were stripped of identifying information and
entered into an SPSS le prior to being given to the researchers. Data were then entered into SPSS, cleaned, and screened.
As an incentive, participants were promised and sent an aggregate summary of data for completing the survey.
3.2. Participants
An email request for survey participation was sent to public ofcials and government employees who handle communication functions. The research rm sent the email with a cover letter from the lead researcher. The rms list is generated and
constantly updated by the research rm through direct human research seeking local government ofcials email addresses
on the Internet and, in some cases, by calling the ofce directly to request contact information. A total of 307 government ofcials participated in the survey about their crisis management. There were 228 partial completions that were not included in
this analysis, and 125 participants who started the survey but were disqualied as they did not meet criteria for participation
(e.g., did not perform a communication function, did not recall a crisis).
Job titles of participants are varied and include the following titles: public information ofcer, mayor, city administrator,
director of administration, city manager, village manager, council member, director of public safety, president of council,
village administrator, and town supervisor. The most common titles were mayor and city manager. Ages range from 28
to 85, with 11 participants (3.6%) choosing not to answer. The age mean is 55, median is 57, and mode is 62. There are

390

M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

Table 1
ANOVA results for social media use.
Factor

Dependent variables
Level of social media use

Community size
Crisis type
*
**

Number of social media used

df

2

df

2

4.81*
2.97*

2, 200
6, 198

.04
.07

5.81**
1.34

2, 283
6, 280

.03
.04

p < .05 (two-tailed).

p < .01 (two-tailed).

representatives from 44 states in the sample. Government ofcials representing population sizes from less than 5000 people
(n = 8, 2%) to 300,000 or more (n = 1, .3%) were represented in the sample, with the largest categories being populations of
10,00029,000 (n = 130, 42.3%) and 50009999 (n = 76, 25%). Forms of government include board of trustees, commissions,
council-manager/administrator/supervisor, major-councils, presidents, supervisor-councils, and village boards.
3.3. Measures
To answer RQ1, participants were asked to answer a yes/no question whether they used social media in crisis management.
In addition, the types of social media used (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) were measured with a check all that apply
question. The level of usage of social media was measured by asking On a scale of 15, with I being not at all and 5 being
great deal, did you use social media in your crisis management. The number of social media tools used was calculated by
adding the numbers of social media in the social media type question. These two questions (social media usage level and
number of social media used) were also used for testing H2 and 3.
For hypothesis testing, respondents indicated the population of their communities as one of the following: less than
5000; 50009999; 10,00029,999; 30,00049,999; 50,00099,999; 100,000199,999; 200,000299,999; 300,000 or more.
A series of questions were designed to measure crisis types. First, participants were asked to consider a crisis that they had
recently managed in their communities. Participants who could not recall a particular crisis were directed to a survey related
to general crisis communication. Those who were able to recall a crisis were asked to identify the type of crisis as one of
the following: public health, natural disaster, transportation, political, social, criminal, environmental, and other. Finally,
to insure that participants had correctly categorized the crisis, they were asked to provide detailed descriptions about the
crisis. For RQ2, 3, and 4 participants were asked for their level of agreement with the following statements on a 5-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree): (a) Social media improved our ability to manage the crisis (RQ2); (b) I felt
control during the crisis situation (RQ3); and (c) My citys post-crisis response (recovery) was strong (RQ4).
4. Results
4.1. Social media usage of local governments (RQ1)
Among 288 government ofcials, 71% (N = 205) used social during crisis while 29% (N = 83) did not. Facebook (N = 157,
53%) was the most popular social medium followed by Twitter (N = 81, 27%), blogs (N = 17, 6%), YouTube (N = 13, 5%), Google
Plus (N = 8, 3%), and other (N = 19, 6%). The level of usage of social media (i.e., On a scale of 15, with I being not at all and
5 being great deal, did you use social media in your crisis management) was M = 2.86, SD = 1.48 [1 (N = 83, 29%), 2 (N = 34,
12%), 3 (N = 63, 22%), 4 (N = 56, 19%), 5 (N = 52, 18%)]. The average number of social media used during the crisis was M = 1.37,
SD = 1.28 [0 (83, 29%, 1 (91, 32%), 2 (64, 22%), 3 (34, 12%), 4 (12, 4%), 6 (2, 1%), 7 (2, 1%)]. Finally, reported crisis types were
public health (N = 14, 5%), natural disaster (N = 200, 70%), transportation (N = 8, 3%), political (N = 15, 5%), social (N = 7, 2%),
criminal (N = 27, 9%), environmental (N = 0, 0%), and other (N = 16, 6%).
4.2. Community size and social media use (H1)
In order to test the relationships between community size and social media use (i.e., the level of social media use and the
number of social media used), the populations of cities were divided into three groups based on the number of responses
in each group [Group 1: less than 9999 (N = 81), Group 2: 10,00049,999 (N = 158), Group 3: more than 50,000 (N = 49)].
Two one-way between subjects ANOVAs were performed to identify relationships. To analyze the relationship between
community size and the level of social media use, responses from participants who did not use social media (N = 83) were
excluded from the analysis. As Table 1 shows, there was a signicant relationship between community size and the level of
usage of social media [F (2,200) = 4.81, p = .009]. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated that the mean for Group 1
(M = 3.23, SD = 1.00) was signicantly different than Group 2 (M = 3.66, SD = 1.03) and Group 3 (M = 3.89, SD = 1.00). The result
of second ANOVA was consistent with Hypothesis 1 [F (2,283) = 5.81, p = .003]. A LSD post hoc comparison was conducted

M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

391

Table 2
Standardized regression coefcients of predictors.
Predictors

Block 1
Block 2

Dependent variables

Age
Working years
Level of social media use
Number of social media used
R2 (R2 change)

*
**

Impact on crisis management

Crisis situation control

Strength of response

.09
.18*
.41**
.17*

.04
.13
.17*
.05

.11
.04
.19*
.05

.26** (.23)

.02 (.01)

.05* (.04)

p < .05 (two-tailed).

p < .01 (two-tailed).

to nd signicant differences between groups. The mean of number of social media use for Group 1 (M = .99, SD = 1.07) was
signicantly lower than the means for Group 2 (M = 1.45, SD = 1.27) and Group 3 (M = 1.71, SD = 1.50).
4.3. Social media use and crisis management (RQs 2, 3, and 4)
Three hierarchical multiple regressions explored the relationship between social media use and the crisis management of
local governments. For each dependent variable (social medias impact on crisis management, control of the crisis situation,
and the strength of governments response to crisis), the rst block that included the practitioners age and working years
was entered rst followed by the second block that included the extent of social media use and the number of social media
tools used. Table 2 summarizes the results of the regressions on dependent variables. For all three regressions, the rst block
did not account for any signicant variance in the dependent variables. However, when the second block was added to the
rst hierarchical regression, the R2 signicantly increased from .03 to .26, and both the extent of social media use ( = .41,
p < .01) and the number of social media tools used ( = .16, p < .05) were positively related to the ofcials crisis management.
The second regressions results revealed that the level of social media use was positively associated with the ofcials ability
to control the crisis ( = .17, p < .05), while the number of social media tools engaged was not. Finally, the results of the rst
regression indicate that only the extent of social media use ( = .19, p < .05) was a signicant predictor of the strength of
governments response to crisis.
4.4. Crisis type and social media use (H2 and 3)
The relationships between crisis types and social media use were tested using two one-way between-subjects ANOVAs.
There was a signicant relationship between crisis type and the level of social media usage at the p < .01 level [F (6,198) = 2.97,
p = .009]. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated that the mean for public health (N = 9, M = 4.56, SD = .73) was
different from natural disaster (N = 145, M = 3.60, SD = 1.02), transportation (N = 7, M = 3.57, SD = .98), political (N = 6, M = 3.50,
SD = 1.05), social (N = 6, M = 2.33, SD = .52), and criminal (N = 20, M = 3.65, SD = 1.04). Also, social was signicantly different
from natural disaster, transportation, political, criminal, and other (N = 12, M = 3.75, SD = 1.04). On the other hand, the second
ANOVA results showed that there was not a signicant relationship between crisis type and the number of social media used
[F (6,280) = 1.34, p = .238].
5. Discussion
What began as an exploratory review of social media use during crisis for local governments yielded compelling results
that underscore the importance of extending this work. First, results of individual hypothesis and research question testing are reviewed in turn, then we discuss overall implications for theory and practice. This work provides an important
assessment of how local governments are engaging social media amidst crisis that suggests they may lag compared to corporate and other organizational contexts. The direct implications on public safety for governments with strained resources
managing crises are particularly motivating to extend this line of inquiry.
5.1. Social media usage of local governments
Although encouraging that more than 70% of these government ofcials engage social media during crisis, this optimism
is somewhat blighted by the fact that almost one-third of their counterparts do not, and their extent of use is disappointing.
Pew Research (2013) reports that 73% of online adults use a social networking site; 71% use Facebook, and 71% use Twitter.
With government ofcials during crisis, Facebook (53%) was the most popular social medium followed by Twitter (27%);
blogs, YouTube, Google Plus, and other tools were all well under a 10% engagement rate. Yet, when reporting extent of overall
use in crisis management, the mean reported by local government ofcials (M = 2.86) reveals their use was barely greater
than the midpoint. About 30% of the sample reported using no social media tools during crisis, and, even for those who used
tools, the majority (54%) engaged 2 or fewer tools.

392

M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

In a report from the Congressional Research Service, Lindsay (2011) acknowledges the growing role of social media in
emergency preparedness and management and notes social media are the fourth most popular source for crisis information
for publics; given the rapid growth of social media just in the last three years it has presumably gone up in rank. Social media
enable rapid information exchange to mass audiences and may be an even more credible information source than traditional
mass media; they offer organizations efciency with respect to time and budget in releasing information (Kingsley, 2010;
Kuzma, 2010; Procopio & Procopio, 2007). Yet, one-third of government ofces in this study were not using social media in
their crisis management. Given the well-established benets they offer organizations, the reasons for this lack of use call for
further explanation; we turn to identied moderators of use to start to explore why.
5.2. Community size and social media use
Avery et al. (2010) note public information ofcers in health departments were slower to adopt social media technologies than their counterparts in other industries and found differences depending on the size of the community served by
that department, with rural departments lagging behind those serving larger and more urban areas. This nding led us to
hypothesize that differences would also be present according to size of population served in this more broad analysis of
ofcials managing a range of crises, from health to political scandal. Practitioners at local governments serving the smallest
communities in this sample used social media during crisis to a lesser extent overall and used fewer tools than ofcials in
the two larger population categories. Consistent with Avery et al.s (2010) ndings, this survey found that as community
size increased so did the extent of use and number of social media tools engaged during a crisis.
This nding is disconcerting and likely explained by the fact that rural ofcials are managing more strained time, human,
and nancial resources. Keim and Noji (2011) note that social media may offer important psychological benets for vulnerable
populations amidst disaster and better involve them as stakeholders in the organizations response. Victims of disaster
identify the need to contribute to improve their abilities to cope with the situation (Keim & Noji, 2011), and during a crisis
social media offer an important forum in which people can engage in dialog. These support networks may be especially critical
in rural areas where people are more isolated and, often, underserved. Local governments must reach broad audiences during
crisis, and the presence of disparities among the smaller, rural population local government ofces is troubling to that end.
In addition to the support offered these publics by social media, disparities in engagement among ofcials indicate response
protocols may not be as broadly or immediately distributed in more rural areas, which may compromise public health and
safety and, ultimately, the local government ofcials reputation.
According to Pew Research (2013), 76% of urban, 72% of suburban, and 70% of rural online adults use social networking
sites; clearly the vast majority of adults across all urbanities are using social media, and the fact that rural government
ofcials are still lagging behind their larger population counterparts is troubling. Regardless of the moderating factors of
their use, which should be explored in future research, rural local governments ofcials engagement of social media during
crisis revealed here is troubling. Social media enable participation, contribution, coping, control, and resiliency during crisis,
which may be of particular important for more isolated, vulnerable populations. Future research must inform practitioners
how to effectively and strategically engage social media during crisis even in the face of strained resources.
5.3. Crisis type and social media use
Social media use was central to crisis response in major crises such as the wildres in California (Sutton et al., 2008), the
2009 crash of U.S. Airways ight 1549 (Derner, 2013), the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and Hurricane Sandy (Preston & Stetler,
2012). Now, strategic crisis planning entails identifying which social tools to engage in response, who will manage them,
and the nature of frequency of updates, among many other considerations. As in routine organizational operations, social
media must be engaged efciently amidst crisis, with an effective plan for their use that makes them more than just tactics
but integral to strategy. Of all media channels, social media offer the most efcient method of the crisis principle of telling
it all and telling it now and telling the truthas well as sharing information broadly and fast. Prior research such as the
studies referenced above demonstrates value of social media during crisis, especially Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube during
a natural disaster and major accidents; of course, this optimism is tempered by the fact that social media can also contribute
to rumor and misinformation (Keim & Noji, 2011). But, a more nuanced understanding of social media engagement during
crisis also requires understanding of how to best match tools to a different crisis situations based on audience information
needs and use. This study takes a rst step in that direction by examining the current state of social media use during different
types of crises.
Although the number of tools did not vary by crisis type, extent of social media use did vary by crisis type. Social media
were used signicantly more for crisis communication during public health crises than for natural disaster, transportation,
political, social, or criminal crises. For social crises, social media were engaged signicantly less than during natural disasters,
transportation, political, criminal, and the other category. These results are encouraging evidence that social media are,
to some extent, being engaged strategically during crises based on perceived need; of all the types of crisis, public health
crises likely present the most widespread and imminent threats to public well-being and the most immediate informational
demands. Thus, it is positive that use rates are higher for those crisis types. Conversely, social crises would likely call for
signicantly less social media engagement, as they likely do not require much public response. The fact that practitioners

M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

393

are using social media to a greater extent depending on the type of crisis suggests strategic engagement of the tools instead
of a one size ts all crisis response model approach.
Finally, regression equations were used to evaluate if the extent of social media use, and the number of social media tools
engaged affected the impact of crisis management, control of the situation, and ofcials evaluations of the strength of their
responses. The effects of age of the ofcials and the number of years on the job were entered in the rst block of the equation
to control for the effects of those factors, which were not signicant. Both the extent of social media use and the number of
social media tools used were positively related to the extent of impact of the ofcials crisis management. Overall, it seems
that practitioners can take from this nding strong evidence that strategic use of social media in their crisis planning will
yield positive impact on and impression of their management of the situation. The extent of social media use, but not the
number of tools used, was positively associated with the ofcials assessments of their ability to control the crisis as well
their overall evaluations of the strength of their response. So in addition to impact, practitioners are also given evidence
here that crises can be better contained and managed with strategic social media use; in this case, quantity/breadth was not
prioritized over quality/depth. Engaging only one tool meaningfully is likely more effective than checking all the boxes
and using many tools but not well.
5.4. Limitations and future research
This research has limitations. One limitation of this data is that it does rely on recall of a crisis situation; however, we
asked for a recent crisis to overcome some of this threat to validity and reliability. Further, to avoid articial context testing
while reaching a broad sample, it was deemed to be the best approach. Another limitation is the threat of a desirable response
bias, especially when evaluating their own ofces performances. However, variability even in these assessments indicates
a degree of honesty and not just desirability in those assessments. Future research can use the exploratory results presented
here to test more specically the effects and audience use of different types of tools during various crisis situations to reveal
how these tools are engaged. Exploring this topic from the citizen point of view is important for future studies to ensure that
citizen desires for information during a crisis are being met. Additionally, the framework for crisis communication practices
of local governments provided by this study can be used to investigate crisis communication practices of other spheres of
government or government related entities as well as differences among users based on experience and demographics. In
the meantime, however, we have documented compelling differences in social media use across crisis types and revealed
encouraging evidence of strategic integration of social media in crisis management among local governments.
References
American Red Cross. (2011). Social media in disasters and emergencies. Retrieved from http://redcrosschat.org/2011/08/24/how-do-you-use-social-mediain-emergencies/
Avery, E. J., & Graham, M. W. (2013). Political public relations and the promotion of participatory, transparent government through social media. International
Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(4), 274291.
Avery, E., Lariscy, R., Amador, E., Ickowitz, T., Primm, C., & Taylor, A. (2010). Diffusion of social media among public relations practitioners in health
departments across various community population sizes. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 336358.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption
tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264271.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010). Social media technology and government transparency. IEEE Computer Society, 11(43), 5359.
Bertot, J. C., & Jarger, P. (2010). Designing, implementing, and evaluating user-centered and citizen-centered e-government. International Journal of Electronic
Government Research, 6(2), 117.
Bonson, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information
Quarterly, 29(2), 123132.
Chang, A. M., & Kanan, P. K. (2008). Leveraging web 2.0 in government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/les/Leveraging
Web.pdf
Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communications: Insights from situational crisis communication theory. Journal of Business
Communication, 41, 265289.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory.
Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163177.
Cromer, C. (2010). Understanding web 2.0s inuences on public e-services: A protection motivation perspective. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice,
12(2), 192205.
Derner, P. (2013 July). The NTSB utilizes social media during Asiana 214 investigation,. http://www.nycaviation.com
Dorris, M. (2008). Service transformation in government. The Public Manager, 36(4), 2528.
Duhe, S. (2014). An overview of new media research in public relations journals from 1981 to 2014. Public Relations Review.
Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8),
16121621.
Graham, M., & Avery, E. (2013). Government public relations and social media: An analysis of the perceptions and trends of social media use at the local
government level. Public Relations Journal, 7, 121.
GWU, & Cision. (2009 December). Social media & online usage study. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/ newsctr/10/pdfs/gw cision sm study 09.PDF
Hand, L. C., & Ching, B. D. (2011). You have one friend request. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 362382.
Jin, Y., & Liu, B. F. (2010). The blog-mediated crisis communication model: Recommendations for responding to inuential external blogs. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 22(4), 429455.
Jin, Y., Liu, B. F., & Austin, L. L. (2014). Examining the role of social media in effective crsisi management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, and
source on publics crisis responses. Communication Research, 41(1), 7494.
Keim, M., & Noji, E. (2011). Emergent use of social media: A new age of opportunity for disaster resilience. American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 6, 4754.
Kim, S., & Liu, B. F. (2012). Are all crises opportunities? A comparison of how corporate and government organizations responded to the 2009 u pandemic.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 24, 6985.

394

M.W. Graham et al. / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 386394

Kingsley, C. (2010 March). Making the most of social media: 7 lessons from successful cities. Retrieved from http://www.fels.upenn.edu/sites/
www.fels.upenn.edu/les/PP3 SocialMedia.pdf
Kuzma, J. (2010). Asian government usage of web 2.0 social media. European Journal ePractice, 9, 113.
Lariscy, R. W., Avery, E. J., Sweetser, K. D., & Howes, P. (2009). An examination of the role of online social media in journalists source mix. Public Relations
Review, 35(3), 314316.
Lindsay, B. R. (2011). Social media and disasters: Current uses, future options, and policy considerations. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/
crs/homesec/R41987.pdf
Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: The interplay of information form and source. Public Relations
Review, 37(4), 345353.
Liu, B. F., Fraustino, J., & Jin, Y. (2015). How disaster information form, source, type, and prior disaster exposure affect public outcomes: Jumping on the
social media bandwagon? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(1), 4465.
Liu, B. F., Jin, Y., & Austin, L. L. (2013). The tendency to tell: Understanding publics communicative responses to crisis information form and source. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 25(1), 5167.
Lovari, A., & Parisi, L. (2014). Listening to digital publics. Investigating citizens voices and engagement within Italian municipalities Facebook pages. Public
Relations Review.
Mayeld, A. (2006). What is social media? Retrieved from http://www.spannerworks.com/leadmin/uploads/eBooks/What is Social Media.pdf
Morgan, J. (2010). Twitter and Facebook users respond to Haiti crisis. BBC news (January 15). Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
americas/8460791.stm
Pew Research. (2013). Social networking use Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/media-and-technology/social-networking-use/
Preston, J., & Stetler, B. (2012 November). How government ofcials are using Twitter for Hurricane Sandy. The New York Times,. Retrieved from
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/how-government-ofcials-used-twitter-for-hurricane-sandy/
Procopio, C. H., & Procopio, S. T. (2007). Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans? Internet communication, geographic community, and social
capital in crisis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(1), 6787.
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Gritz, 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), 2027.
Smith, A. (2011). Why Americans use social media,. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/15/why-americans-use-social-media/
Sutton, J., Palen, L., & Shklovski, I. (2008). Backchannels on the front lines: Emergent uses of social media in the 2007. In Proceedings from the 5th international
ISCRAM conference Southern California wildres. Washington, DC: ISCRAM.
Utz, S., Schultz, F., & Glocka, S. (2012). Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear disaster. Public Relations Review, 39, 4046.
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), 110122.
Yates, D., & Paquette, S. (2011). Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. International
Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 613.