Predicting Public Cooperation Toward Government Actions in the Early Stages of an Influenza Pandemic in the United States: The Role of Authentic Governmental Communication and Relational Quality

Abstract

During a public health crisis, government sector is considered the natural leader for overall preparedness and management efforts. Integrating the literature from public relations and public health disciplines, this study proposes a theoretical model to predict individuals’ perceptions, communicative action, as well as their behaviors to follow the governments’ instructions in the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Linking relationship management factors and the framework of the situational theory of problem-solving, the findings of this study demonstrate that authentic communication and relational quality can help increase positive perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes desired by governments regarding pandemic management. However, our findings suggested that unproductive uses of authentic governmental communication may create adverse effects on publics’ perceptions and interpretations and thus pose potential risks, particularly when a public health issue is significantly politicized. Specifically, this study found that, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic in which the Trump administration was blamed for lack of planning and halting responses in the fight against the virus, conservatives who believe that the federal government is practicing authentic communication during the pandemic would consider the issue less important and irreverent; meanwhile, they would recognize more barriers to adopt preventive actions. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Introduction

The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), an influenza pandemic that is thought to have originated in China as early as December 2019, has been widespread in the United States since March 2020 (World Health Organization, 2020a). While scientists strive for developing vaccines for the pandemic, governments and public health officials face substantial challenges in enlisting public cooperation due to the limited information, response time, and significant health, economic, and social consequences (Madhav et al., 2018).

The decision to follow governmental instructions is not simply a personal choice but can also be an action shaped by the person’s contextual environment (Jung et al., 2013). Individuals and all other groups, such as families, communities, or companies, play an essential role in mitigating the effects of a pandemic (World Health Organization, 2009). Among the entire society, the government sector is considered the natural leader for overall preparedness and management efforts. This sector has been shown to considerably influence the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of citizens toward such an outbreak (Reynolds & Quinn Crouse, 2008). Governments at all levels have their own responsibilities and play different roles in preparing for and responding to a public health crisis (French, 2011). Therefore, this study seeks to investigate how each level of government influences public cooperation toward recommended preventive measures, especially during the early stages of a pandemic outbreak in the U.S.

Specifically, this study examines the role of authentic governmental communication and government–public relationships (GPR) in shaping public behaviors toward the pandemic. These two concepts are central in risk and crisis communication, where effective communication plays an essential role in maintaining quality relationships with publics to enhance their involvement and commitment (Ki et al., 2015). Although such notion has only been widely demonstrated in organizational crisis contexts instead of public health emergency situations, previous research in pandemic communication have acknowledged the similar idea. Public health crises necessitate government communication to ameliorate negative consequences (Chang, 2022). Particularly at the early stages of a pandemic when there are large uncertainties, effective communication, such as disseminating factual accurate information timely and openly, delivering what is known and unknown, and offering clear guidelines for preventive measures, can significantly increase public trust in government performance and lessen unnecessary fear (Reynolds & Quinn Crouse, 2008). Such argument is in line with public relation scholarship that highlights the importance of authenticity in crisis management, indicating that messages that are truthful, transparent, and consistent play a significant role in determining positive outcomes for a risk or a crisis (Sisson & Bowen, 2017). Meanwhile, trust and openness in government, the two essential dimensions of quality relationship, have also been largely found to affect public perceptions and behaviors toward a pandemic (Quinn et al., 2013). Therefore, integrating public health literature with these two concepts, this study attempts to explain individuals’ perceptions, communicative action, and behavioral responses toward a pandemic.

Adopting relationship management theory (Ferguson, 2018) and the situational theory of problem solving (STOPS) (Kim & Grunig, 2011), two widely applied theories in public relations and crisis management scholarships, this study analyzes how relationship management helps increase positive perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes desired by governments regarding pandemic management. The findings of this study will improve the theoretical understanding of how people cooperate with government actions during a public health crisis. Moreover, it will provide novel insights into the distinct roles of communication authenticity in building relationships with publics and its subsequent effects on health-related perceptions and behaviors toward a pandemic. Such insights may be valuable for practitioners in the public sector to develop and refine effective pandemic communication plans.

Literature Review

Pandemic, “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people,” is normally unpredictable, which creates significant uncertainty and anxiety among the publics (Nicoll, 2011, p. 541). Therefore, effective communication from the government is essential to assure trust in government-recommended prevention guidelines and facilitate education as well as the adoption of preventive behaviors (Quinn et al., 2013). Successful pandemic management necessitates the coordination of all levels of government, including both federal and local authorities (French, 2011), while each level of government has differing roles. French (2011) suggested that the main responsibility of the federal government is to prevent or slow viruses from entering the country, whereas the local governments focus on the implementation of interventions as well as community maintenance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government is primarily responsible for the national response to the outbreak. As courses of action vary significantly by state and city, local governments also hold considerable responsibility in pandemic management (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2020). State and local government authorities take decisive action (e.g., stay-at-home orders), standing on the front lines to control the spread of the pandemic.

Although the communication focus at each level of government differs due to different assigned tasks and responsibilities, the principle of pandemic communication and management remain the same. World Health Organization (2009, 2020b) noted in the guideline of pandemic outbreak communication that governments must disseminate accurate, complete, and easily understood information in an appropriate, timely, and transparent way, inform what is known and unknown, and offer specific recommendations for behaviors necessary to decrease risk. Effective communication can foster and maintain trust, which may expand public health knowledge about the pandemic and encourage the adoption of precautionary behaviors (Vaughan & Tinker, 2009). This guideline is consistent with the notion of authentic communication proposed by public relations scholars, in which the objective is to engage publics and reconcile the differences between a government and its publics with truthful, transparent, and consistent information (Stoker & Tusinski, 2006).

Authentic Governmental Communication

Authenticity is defined and studied in different ways across the disciplines. Most studies focused on the authenticity of public figures, but the idea of authenticity in public relations is used as a broader term including organizational behaviors. Scholars in the public relations literature have emphasized that authenticity, defined as acting “the same on the inside as one appears to be outside an organization” (Bowen, 2010, p. 579), is a key indicator of a good relationship between an organization and its publics. Bowen (2010) identified three main components of authenticity—transparency, truthfulness, and genuineness—and argued that organizations should be honest, transparent, and genuine in their actions for ethical goodness to achieve authenticity. Shen and Kim (2012) also suggested three elements of authenticity, namely, truthfulness, transparency, and consistency. Truthfulness refers to acting in accordance with the true self, where Bowen (2010) noted that organizations should be the same on the inside as they appear to be outside. Such truthful acts are manifested as a result of a critical appraisal and rich understanding of both organizations and their publics’ wants and needs (Shen & Kim, 2012). Second, transparency indicates the extent to which organizations are willing to accept responsibilities and admit their mistakes and actions. Similarly, Louden and McCauliff (2004) stated that the actual positions and responsibilities of organizations should correspond to what is shared. Finally, consistency means whether an organization’s behaviors are congruent with its values, beliefs, and rhetoric, where Molleda and Jain (2013) similarly highlighted the notion of consistency between organizations’ offering and their identity and reputation in defining authenticity. In addition, Shen and Kim (2012) noted that consistency depends on truthfulness and transparency; that is, without true and objective knowledge of itself and acknowledgment of the positive and negative consequences of self-behavior, an organization is not able to act consistently in accord with their words.

Authentic communication helps organizations to develop and manage an insulated reputation and increase credibility, which may negate the negative impact of a crisis. Thus, its role is even critical in an organizational crisis (Sisson & Bowen, 2017). Incorporating public relations perspective, this study conceptualizes authentic communication as communication by governments to be truthful, transparent, and consistent as the previous literature identified truthfulness, transparency, and consistency as key indicators of authenticity (Shen & Kim, 2012).

Quality of GPR

Following the relationship management paradigm over the past decades (Ferguson, 2018), scholars in public relations have long identified organization–public relationship (OPR) as a key outcome of public relations and communication practices (see Cheng, 2018 for a review). The concept includes four dimensions, namely, trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Trust refers to the publics’ level of confidence in and willingness to open themselves to an organization, and control mutuality indicates the degree to which an organization and its publics agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another. Commitment is defined as the extent to which an organization and its publics believe that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote. Moreover, satisfaction refers to the extent to which both parties feel favorably toward the other. The four dimensions altogether represent the relationship quality between organizations and their publics. Establishing and maintaining a quality OPR with publics have been believed to increase organizational effectiveness by helping organizations to secure public support and reduce the costs of litigation, regulation, boycotts, or lost revenue that results from bad relationships (Hon & Grunig, 1999).

The importance of authentic communication by organizations in building a favorable OPR has been well-documented in public relations research (Sisson & Bowen, 2017). Maintaining authentic relationships with publics helps organizations build trust and credibility from them, and thus, authenticity plays an important role in the development and management of corporate reputation (Sisson & Bowen, 2017). In an organizational setting, scholars have also demonstrated the positive relationship between perceived authenticity of organizational behaviors and OPR (Shen & Kim, 2012).

A similar pattern was also found in the context of GPR (Men et al., 2018). Among many types of relationship management, government public relations is relevant to public administration or public affairs (Lee, 2012). Government public relations focuses on citizens as opportunities and challenges of an effective GPR (Hong et al., 2012). Establishing and maintaining positive GPR have been suggested as effective political public relations because these lead to publics’ positive behaviors (Chon, 2019). In cultivating GPR, Men et al. (2018) particularly suggested that authentic communication practiced by political leaders is vital.

Although the relationship between authentic communication and GPR has not been examined in the context of pandemic management, scholars in public health crisis research have long acknowledged that a truthful, transparent, and consistent communication is an essential criterion for trust in the government (Vaughan & Tinker, 2009). Thus, we expected that authentic communication implemented by the government during a public health crisis will increase the quality of GPR. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:

• H1: The level of authentic governmental communication during a pandemic is positively associated with the quality of GPR.

Understanding the Publics During a Pandemic: STOPS

Along with the relationship management theory, the situational theory of problem-solving (the STOPS: Kim & Grunig, 2011) has been used as a main theoretical framework among public relations scholars to understand publics and public behaviors in diverse contexts. This theory was employed in this study to better understand publics’ perceptions and behaviors during a public health crisis and the impacts of government communication and relational quality on their understanding of such an issue. The STOPS, which is a generalized theory of the situational theory of publics (Grunig, 1997), explicates how and why individuals communicate with a given problem or an issue. These two situational theories suggested three main independent variables—problem, constraint, and involvement recognition—as individuals’ situational perceptions (Grunig, 1997). Problem recognition is defined as “one’s perception that something is missing and that there is no immediately applicable solution to it” (Kim & Grunig, 2011, p. 128). It refers to a perceptual state with varying magnitudes of a discrepancy between what one experiences and what one expects. Constraint recognition is defined as internal and external barriers or obstacles that limit one’s efforts and abilities to do something about a problematic state. Conceptually similar to self-efficacy, constraint recognition indicates whether individuals believe that they have personal efficacy to execute about problems or issues. Furthermore, involvement recognition indicates a perceived connection between the problem situation and oneself and the extended self (e.g., friends and significant others). It originated from level of involvement, the extent to which people connect themselves with a situation (Grunig, 1997). According to the STOPS, an individual with high levels of problem and involvement recognition and a low level of constraint recognition is likely to be motivated to communicate in a problematic situation. People are likely to communicate about problems or issues about which they believe is worth paying attention (i.e., problem), is connected to themselves (i.e., involvement), and is controllable by one’s abilities (i.e., constraints).

Aside from the situational perceptions identified in both theories, a growing number of studies have attempted to investigate possible antecedents to the situational perceptions to better understand publics and their communicative action (e.g., Chen et al., 2017). These factors are classified into different levels, namely, individual-level (e.g., individuals’ demographics and political interests) (e.g., Kim et al., 2012), organizational-level (e.g., OPR) (e.g., Kim & Sung, 2016), and societal-level (e.g., cultural and social contexts) (Ni et al., 2018). In this study, given the essential role of the government in handling a public health crisis, government communication and its relationships with the publics were examined as the potential antecedents of situational perceptions of such a crisis.

Authentic governmental communication and situational perceptions

During a public health crisis, government officials must provide significant communication to the uncertainty and the unique situations (Larson & Heymann, 2010). Particularly when there are large uncertainties at the early stages of the pandemic growth, governments’ crisis and emergency risk communication practices are found to play a critical role in affecting the citizens’ perceptions and reactions toward the pandemic. Honest and open communication by governments help prevent further illness and death, regain and maintain public trust, and establish public confidence in the fight against a pandemic (Reynolds & Quinn Crouse, 2008). In other words, governments’ transparent and honest responses, including information regarding what is known and unknown, are found to increase public trust, reduce unnecessary fear and anxiety, and encourage citizens’ cooperation (Chang, 2022). A truthful, transparent, and consistent communication in policy decisions and pandemic management allows the publics to understand and be familiar with the problem as well as the challenges of the pandemic (French, 2011). Such recognition allows the publics to acknowledge the importance of the issue, which encourages them to participate in the policy implementation (French, 2011). On the other hand, delayed and dishonest communication may facilitate the circulation of uncertainty and distrust, which impede the publics’ basic understanding of the public health crisis as well as their actions to avoid or reduce harm (Reynolds & Quinn Crouse, 2008). Thus, we assume that honest and timely emergency responses from the governments can make the public’s feel more concerned about the pandemic and want to take action to manage it. This capacity enhances their problem recognition perceptions.

In addition, the public’s normally take into consideration multiple sources of information as they evaluate the personal relevance and the perceived risks of a pandemic (Larson & Heymann, 2010). The authentic government allows pandemic information to be easily reachable and understandable (French, 2011), which helps broaden the publics’ knowledge about the pandemic and increase their awareness of risk situations (Quinn et al., 2013). Timely, open, and honest government communication facilitates the development of public trust and thus influences individuals’ evaluation of risks to themselves (Siegrist & Zingg, 2014). However, dishonest government may result in skepticism regarding public health emergency messages (Vaughan & Tinker, 2009). As such, individuals may underestimate the vulnerability and severity of a disease. Based on these literatures, we expect that authentic governmental communication can enhance individuals’ awareness of how the pandemic will affect their personal lives. Such recognition can make the public’s more willing to attend to the pandemic, thereby increasing their involvement recognition.

Moreover, through authentic communication, publics are able to obtain critical insights in terms of government processes and procedures during a pandemic (Vaughan & Tinker, 2009). Such awareness and knowledge regarding the actions of the government may be translated into self-efficacy about recommended preventive measures (French, 2011). Government officials who openly, authentically, and transparently discuss the decision-making process in pandemic management may be also likely to gain the support from the citizens (French, 2011). The general public may be likely to accept difficult decisions and preventive measures made by the government if the decisions were made in a reasonable, transparent, and accountable manner (Upshur et al., 2007). Specifically, a recent research, which untangles the rationales behind New Zealand’s success in the crisis challenges of COVID-19, suggested that authentic governmental leadership that follows ethical principles can offer “a shared sense of purpose” with their citizens (Wilson, 2020, p. 285). Such communication and leadership that involve honesty and concern toward publics can help reduce uncertainty and anxiety that may paralyze public reaction and divide societies (Ahern & Loh, 2020). Therefore, we assume that authentic communication regarding the decision-making processes during a public health crisis may reduce citizens’ constraint recognition in terms of preventive measure adoption.

As mentioned, the concept of authentic communication has rarely been considered as antecedents of the situational perceptions in the STOPS model. However, prior research focusing on authentic communication and pandemic management can serve as the foundation of such hypothesis development. Authentic communication plays an important role in decreasing public anxiety and distrust, which directly shape publics’ perceptions and attitudes toward a pandemic (Ahern & Loh, 2020). Thus, this study presumes that authentic communication may increase individuals’ awareness of the pandemic, risk toward their personal lives, and perceived self-efficacy of managing the issue. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed:

• H2: The level of authentic governmental communication is positively associated with publics’ problem recognition during a pandemic.

• H3: The level of authentic governmental communication is negatively associated with publics’ constraint recognition during a pandemic.

• H4: The level of authentic governmental communication is positively associated with publics’ involvement recognition during a pandemic.

Moderating role of political ideology in federal government authentic communication

While the pandemic has been widespread in the U.S., public reactions toward government responses to the outbreak have been significantly divided on the basis of individuals’ political ideology (Roberts, 2020). A recent study found that more than 80% of conservatives believed that the Trump administration’s pandemic management is good or excellent, whereas less than 20% of liberals believed so (Green & Tyson, 2020). Such polarized perceptions may be partially due to differences in political elites’ responses on the issue (Hart et al., 2020). For example, President Trump and several key conservative political figures have openly and frequently referred the pandemic as a “hoax” and downplayed the severity and the risks of the virus (Franck, 2020). This information is more likely to be disseminated by conservative media outlets. Thus, frequent viewers of right-wing media outlets were more likely to be exposed to and adopt the misinformation (Motta et al., 2020). Such findings explain why the Republicans who see President Donald Trump as the primary news source about COVID-19 strongly believed that the country has managed the pandemic as much as it could have (Green & Tyson, 2020). People in this group also say President Trump and his administration deliver accurate facts about the virus and are less likely to trust CDC and health organizations (Jurkowitz & Mitchell, 2020). These pieces of evidence are in line with the notion that political ideology significantly affects the way people perceive and react to an issue. Particularly when the pandemic has become a politically polarized issue, publics may perceive and define authentic governmental communication differently due to their political ideology, which further creates adverse effects of authenticity (Jurkowitz & Mitchell, 2020). On this basis, we examined how political ideology covaries with the way individuals perceive the authenticity of government communication affects their attitudinal reactions toward the pandemic. To compare perceptions of authentic communication and situational variables among sub-populations of self-identified conservatives, independents, and liberals, we suggest the following research question:

• RQ1: How does the relationship between the level of authentic communication by the federal government and situational perceptions (i.e., problem recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement recognition) vary depending on individuals’ political ideology?

GPR and situational perceptions

OPR quality serves as the antecedents of individuals’ situational perceptions regarding an issue or a problem that occurs within the organization (Kim & Sung, 2016; Lee, 2019; Ni, 2012). Ni et al. (2019) suggested that healthy and strong relationships with an organization may create a sense of belongings. The perceived attachment may make publics likely to engage with the organization. In addition, the close engagement may allow publics to understand the challenges the organization is currently facing and feel the obligation to help the organization in fixing the problems considering themselves as a part of the organization (Ni, 2012). Such determination can be translated into confidence in overcoming obstacles in solving the problems, thereby reducing constraint recognition (Chen et al., 2017). Finally, the sense of belongings can also make publics feel highly connected to the organization and willing to pay attention to the problems they are facing, thereby increasing their involvement recognition (Ni, 2012).

Moreover, prior national emergencies, such as 911 terrorism, Hurricane Katrina, and H1N1 pandemic, have highlighted the importance of governmental trust, a critical dimension of quality relationship, among publics. In previous studies of risk communication, trust in government during crisis situations has been widely found to predict individuals’ awareness, risk perceptions, as well as their ability to comply with the recommended preventive measures, particularly at a precarious time of a public health crisis (Fancourt et al., 2020). Although governments are not the only and solely information source among publics, the authorities are primarily responsible for disseminating information and recommended guidelines during a pandemic (Quinn et al., 2013). Trust and confidence in these political institutions can directly affect how people perceive the pandemic (Siegrist & Zingg, 2014). The Trust-Confidence-Cooperation model in risk management argues that trust in governmental leadership is necessary for publics to understand the importance of pandemic management and to comply with restrictive preventive approaches (Earle et al., 2010). In line with this argument, scholars found that lack of trust in government resulted in publics’ refusal to follow recommended preventive measures during a pandemic. For example, during the COVID-19 outbreak, the New Zealand and Taiwan Governments’ prevention success was largely attributed to their ability to establish trust and confidence among publics (Ahern & Loh, 2020; Huang, 2020). As trust in government also represents satisfaction and confidence, the other dimensions of quality relationship, in government performance among the citizens, we assume that a healthy relationship between governments and publics can lead to individuals’ positive reactions toward a pandemic.

Several scholars have identified the important role of publics’ perceived relationship with an organization in influencing their situational perceptions in the context of student–university relationship (Kim & Sung, 2016), GPR (Chen et al., 2017), employee–organization relationship (Lee, 2019), and community member–local health organization (Ni et al., 2019). Adding on this line of research, the current study expects that the relational quality publics hold with a government may make them likely to tune in to government work regarding pandemic management, feel connected with such work, and perceive obligation and confidence to help fix potential problems among such work. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed:

• H5: The quality of GPR is positively associated with publics’ problem recognition.

• H6: The quality of GPR is negatively associated with publics’ constraint recognition.

• H7: The quality of GPR is positively associated with publics’ involvement recognition.

Outcomes of Situational Perceptions: CAPS and Preventive Measures

The STOPS suggested that communicative actions in problem-solving (CAPS) is the key outcome of individuals’ situational perceptions (Kim & Grunig, 2011). That is, individuals who are situationally motivated tend to actively acquire, select, and transmit information about a given problem/issue. Six communication behaviors are conceptualized under three dimensions: information acquisition, selection, and transmission (Kim & Grunig, 2011). First, information acquisition includes information seeking (active search for relevant information) and attending (passive attention to information when it is given). Information selection consists of information forfending (avoiding certain types of information) and permitting (passively accepting any types of information). Finally, information transmission includes information forwarding (actively and voluntarily providing information) and sharing (willingness to give information when being asked). Kim and Grunig (2011) and Kim and Krishna (2018) noted that active and passive communication behaviors are not mutually exclusive; rather, individuals engage in both behaviors. This study focuses on active dimensions in CAPS, namely, information seeking, for fending, and forwarding, in conceptualizing individuals’ active communicative actions. Previous studies have documented the positive effects of individuals’ situational perceptions on their active communication behaviors in various contexts, such as health (e.g., Li, 2020), socio-political (e.g., Chen et al., 2017), and organizational (e.g., Lee, 2020) issues. In line with these prior works that applied the STOPS, we assume that situational perceptions regarding a public health crisis may affect individuals’ communicative action, particularly active information behaviors. Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed:

• H8: The level of problem recognition is positively associated with publics’ level of engagement in active CAPS.

• H9: The level of constraint recognition is negatively associated with publics’ level of engagement in active CAPS.

• H10: The level of involvement recognition is positively associated with publics’ level of engagement in active CAPS.

Communicative action has long been considered in the fields of health and persuasive communication as a prerequisite factor for the development of certain behaviors. People expose themselves to information about an issue, a situation, or other people and “make decisions and formulate judgements about these entities” (Chaiken et al., 1989, p. 239). A rational decision-maker with sufficient health information is empowered to adjust his/her behavior accordingly. Although the STOPS was originally developed to predict communicative (e.g., information seeking) rather than noncommunicative (e.g., preventive measures) behaviors, the theory is applicable for predicting a person’s likelihood to engage in actual behavior (e.g., Li et al., 2019). Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

• H11: The level of engagement in CAPS is positively associated with publics’ the level of engagement in preventive measures.

Method

Sample and Participants

An online survey was administered on an online resource known as human intelligence tasks on Amazon Mechanical Turk to participants in the U.S. in early April 2020, when COVID-19 began to severely affect the country. Respondents participated in the research project in exchange for a small payment of 1 dollar. This study employed Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for participant recruitment because of its national reach and the diversity represented in the population. MTurk is a web-based platform that helps connect researchers to a large pool of interested potential research subjects who complete an online survey with the privacy of their personal computers (Paolacci et al., 2010). Previous studies have demonstrated that the demographics of participants on MTurk are more diverse than the population representation found in samples drawn in traditional survey research (Buhrmester et al., 2018).

In total, 545 individuals began the survey, but 43 participants did not complete the questionnaire or did not pass the attention check questions, and thus, were excluded from the final data analysis, resulting in a final sample of 502 participants. Half of the participants were male (n = 251) and the average age was 36.6. Among the 502 participants, 73% were Caucasian (n = 365), followed by 13% of Black or African American (n = 67), 8% of Hispanic or Latino (n = 42), 4% of Asian or Asian American (n = 19), 1% of American Indian or Alaska native (n = 4), and 1% of the respondents (n = 5) reported others. This sample collected through MTurk represented the general population of the U.S. in terms of age, gender, and race/ethnicity.¹ In terms of education level, 81.3% of the participants (n = 408) had at least a bachelor’s degree or higher. Of the participants, 25% (n = 125) indicated that someone around them has tested positive for COVID-19. With regard to political ideology, 43.8% were liberal (from liberal to slightly liberal: n = 220), 23.5% were moderate (n = 118), and 32.7% were conservative (from conservative to slightly conservative: n = 164).

Measures

All items used in the current study were adopted from previous literature. A 5-point Likert scale was used for all items, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The complete question items can be found in Supplemental Appendix.

Authentic governmental communication was measured with seven items adopted from Shen and Kim (2012) in terms of the response to COVID-19 by the following two types of governments, namely, federal government and local government (i.e., state and local officials. The mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach’s alpha value of authentic communication by each level of governments are M_{federal government} = 3.27, SD_{federal government} = 1.14, α = .93 and M_{local government} = 3.53, SD_{local government} = 0.88, α = .87, respectively.

The quality of GPR was measured with 12 items adapted from Hon and Grunig (1999) in terms of publics’ perceptions during the pandemic. CFA results showed that the two-factor model has a good model fit for both types of GPR, providing evidence of its construct validity. The mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach’s alpha value of GPR at each level of governments, including federal government and local government, are M_{federal government} = 3.41, SD_{federal government} = 0.92, α = .89 and M_{local government} = 3.43, SD_{local government} = 0.85, α = .85, respectively.

Items used to measure variables from the STOPS framework were adapted from Kim and Grunig (2011) and Kim et al. (2012). Problem recognition was measured with three items (M = 4.15, SD = 0.70, α = .84). Constraint recognition was measured with three items (M = 3.97, SD = 0.68, α = .79). Items were reversed to represent the variable. Involvement recognition was measured with three items (M = 3.75, SD = 0.77, α = .76). Active communicative action in problem solving was measured with nine items (M = 3.87, SD = 0.65, α = .83), including three sub-dimensions: information forfending (three items, α = .83), forwarding (three items, α = .76), and seeking (three items, α = .81). CFA results also showed that the two-factor model has a good model fit for both models, providing evidence of its construct validity. Precautionary behaviors in response to COVID-19 was measured with six items (M = 4.13, SD = 0.65, α = .84). Finally, individuals’ demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and education level, and political ideology were included as covariates to control for possible confounding factors.

Data Analysis

First, the reliability of the measurement items for all constructs used in this study was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. Next, we used a two-stage procedure of structural equation modeling (SEM) approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), using the Mplus program, to test the hypotheses suggested in this study. Two structural models were assessed focusing on two types of government communication practices and relationships with publics, including federal government (i.e., The President and the White House) and local government (i.e., state and city government), respectively. The following criteria was adopted to evaluate the model fit: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08; comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.90; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) > 0.90 (Hair et al., 1998), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1998).

Results

The results of CFA demonstrated reasonable model fits for the measurement models (See Supplemental Appendix). All the factor loading values were significant and above the threshold value of 0.5, providing support for convergent validity of the measurement model (Stevens, 2012). The researchers thus proceeded to test the structural models. As the hypothesized models fit the data well on the basis of the cutoff values, Figure 1 depicts the final model.

Figure 1.

Results of the conceptualized model.

Model 1: Federal government: χ²(653) = 1804.14; RMSEA = 0.06 [0.05, 0.06]; CFI = 0.92; SRMR = 0.06.

Model 2: Local government: χ²(653) = 1744.97; RMSEA = 0.06 [0.05, 0.06]; CFI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.05.

*p < .05 . **p < .01 . ***p < .001.

Government Communication and Relationship Management

H1 stated that authentic governmental communication practices during a public health crisis would positively predict the quality of GPR. A significant relationship was found in both models, indicating that authentic communication practices by federal government and local government both positively predicted the quality of its relationships with publics (b = 0.38, p < .001; b = 0.28, p < .001, respectively). H1 was supported.

Government Communication and Situational Perceptions

H2 predicted that authentic communication would positively predict levels of problem recognition. The hypothesis was supported in the model of local government (b = 0.14, p < .001). Namely, authentic communication practices by the local governments predicted the problem recognition of the pandemic. However, a counter–hypothetical relationship was found in the model of the federal government, indicating that authentic communication by the federal government negatively predicted individuals’ problem recognition of the pandemic (b = −0.34, p < .001). Thus, H2 was partially supported. H3 predicted that authentic communication would negatively predict levels of constraint recognition. The hypothesis was supported in the model of local government (b = −0.14, p < .01). Authentic communication practices by the local governments predicted the constraint recognition of the pandemic. However, a counter–hypothetical relationship was found in the model of the federal government, indicating that authentic communication by the federal government positively predicted individuals’ constraint recognition of the pandemic (b = 0.12, p < .01). Thus, H3 was partially supported. H4 predicted that authentic communication would positively predict levels of involvement recognition. The hypothesis was supported in the model of local government (b = 0.17, p < .01). Authentic communication practices by the local governments predicted the involvement recognition of the pandemic. However, a counter–hypothetical relationship was found in the model of the federal government, indicating that authentic communication by the federal government negatively predicted individuals’ involvement recognition of the pandemic (b = −0.29, p < .001). Thus, H4 was partially supported.

The Moderating Role of Political Ideology in Federal Government Authentic Communication

PROCESS macro (Model 1) was performed to test the moderating effects of political ideology on authentic communication and situational variables. Given political ideology is a multi-categorical variable, the three types of ideology were dummy coded with conservatives designated as the reference category. RQ1 explores how political ideology interferes the relationship between perceptions of authentic governmental communication and situational reactions (i.e., problem recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement recognition). Probing the interaction, it seems that, compared to liberals and independents, conservatives who perceive a high degree of authentic communication would hold lower problem recognition (b = −0.28, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.46, −0.11] for Independents vs. Republicans; b = −0.29, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.42, −0.15] for Liberals vs. Republicans). Similar effects of political ideology were found for the relationship between authentic communication and involvement recognition (b = −0.16, p < .01, 95% CI [−0.25, −0.07] for Independents vs. Republicans; b = −0.23, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.38, −0.08] for Liberals vs. Republicans). On the other hand, compared to liberals and independents, conservatives who perceive a high degree of authentic communication would hold greater constraint recognition (b = 0.21, p < .001, 95% CI [0.09, 0.39] for Independents vs. Republicans; b = 0.22, p < .001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.42] for Liberals vs. Republicans).

In order to more closely examine the meaning of the different interactions based on political ideology, we plotted the standardized predicted values of problem recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement recognition by authentic communication and ideology (see Figure 2). Among those conservatives, as the perceptions of authentic communication increases, their problem recognition and involvement recognition perceptions regarding the pandemic decrease whereas their constraint recognition increases. In other words, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic in which the Trump administration was blamed for lack of planning and halting responses in the fight against the virus, conservatives who believed that the federal government was communicating the pandemic issue with the sense of authenticity would be less likely to recognize the severity or the personal connection with the pandemic and more likely to perceive barriers to adopt protection measures.

Figure 2.

Two-way interaction involving political ideology moderating the relationship between perceived federal government authentic communication and situational perceptions.

GPR and Situational Perceptions

H5 stated that the quality of GPR would positively predict levels of problem recognition. The hypothesis was supported in both models (federal government: b = 0.37, p < .001; local government: b = 0.17, p < .01). The relationship quality among both types of governmental agencies and publics predicted the problem recognition of the pandemic. Thus, H5 was supported. H6 stated that the quality of GPR would negatively predict levels of constraint recognition. The hypothesis was supported in both models (federal government: b = −0.21, p < .001; local government: b = −0.14, p < .01). The relationship quality among both types of governmental agencies and publics predicted the constraint recognition of the pandemic. Thus, H6 was supported. H7 stated that the quality of GPR would positively predict levels of involvement recognition. The hypothesis was supported in both models (federal government: b = 0.22, p < .001; local government: b = 0.16, p < .01). The relationship quality between federal government and publics and between the local government and publics predicted the involvement recognition of the pandemic. Thus, H7 was supported.

Situational Perceptions, CAPS, and Preventive Measures

H8 hypothesized that levels of problem recognition would positively predict levels of active communicative action. The hypotheses were supported in both models (federal government: b = 0.27, p < .001; local government: b = 0.34, p < .001). H9 hypothesized that levels of constraint recognition would negatively predict levels of active communicative action. The hypotheses were supported in both models (federal government: b = −0.12, p < .01; local government: b = −0.17, p < .01). H10 hypothesized that levels of involvement recognition would positively predict levels of active communicative action. The hypotheses were supported in both models (federal government: b = 0.41, p < .001; local government: b = 0.38, p < .001). H11 predicted that active communicative action would positively predict precautionary behaviors. The hypothesis was supported in both models (federal government: b = 0.35, p < .001; local government: b = 0.38, p < .001). Namely, individuals’ active communicative action would positively predict their precautionary behavior adoption.

Discussion

This study examined how authentic governmental communication and its relationship with publics can shape individuals’ situational perceptions and their problem-solving actions at the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. Results of an online survey showed that authentic communication by governments (e.g., federal and state/local governments) can foster GPR, thereby increasing publics’ problem and involvement recognitions and reducing constraint recognition toward a public health crisis. Such recognitions about the issue motivated publics to participate in active communication behaviors, thus encouraging their preventive measures adoption for COVID-19. The effect of authentic governmental communication on individuals’ situational perceptions, particularly at the federal level, though, varied according to the current administration’s actions against the pandemic as well as individuals’ political ideology. Amidst the COVID-19 outbreak, the Trump administration’s pandemic management and communication was criticized for violating the principles of public health, neglecting medical advices, and disregarding transparency (Hatcher, 2020). Our study suggested that authentic leadership in the federal administration may be unproductive and create adverse effects when the specific government shows little or no concern over the pandemic. This consequence may be amplified when the pandemic is politically polarized. This study provides important theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical Implications

This study advanced the theoretical framework of the STOPS in two ways: applying the theoretical model to a new context (i.e., pandemic management) and identifying organizational-related antecedents to situational perception formation and behavioral changes among publics. First, this study was one of the few that applied the STOPS in the context of a public health crisis (e.g., Chon & Park, 2019). The findings from the SEM suggested that the STOPS model may be useful in guiding future intervention and prevention efforts to encourage citizens to adopt precautionary actions when facing an influenza pandemic. Consistent with the tenets of the STOPS, people who recognized the severity of the pandemic, identified few barriers to manage the pandemic, and saw strong personal connections to the pandemic likely proactively engage in communication behaviors. Thus, their engagements in precautionary actions increase.

Aside from the support to the original propositions from the theory, this study further identified the role of two organizational factors demonstrated to affect public health crisis communication within the STOPS model. The theory has acknowledged that exploring possible antecedents is essential in shaping people’s situational perceptions of an issue (Ni, 2012). The majority of studies that attempted to add antecedents to the situational variables have emphasized on individual characteristics, such as personal attitudes, cultural identity, or political interests (e.g., McKeever, 2013). However, scholars suggested that organizational factors, such as the relational quality between organizations and their publics, may also serve an influential role in forming individuals’ perceptions and cognitive, which in turn may influence publics’ communication behaviors (Lee, 2019). With regard to public health crisis management, all organizational sectors of society should be involved in communication and response, but governments are considered the expected organization and leader for overall management efforts (World Health Organization, 2009). This study found that governments play important roles in helping their citizens understand the pandemic, in particular with their authentic communication practices and healthy relationships with the citizens.

The WHO pandemic communication guidelines suggested that effective communication of the government serves as the foundation of pandemic management (World Health Organization, 2020b). The guidelines mentioned several criteria for effective pandemic communication, such as transparency and truthfulness, which are all essential elements of authentic communication (Shen & Kim, 2012; Stoker & Tusinski, 2006). Thus, this study adopted the concept from public relations literature and investigated its role within the situational model. Results showed that authentic communication practices by the local government serve as an influential antecedent that predicts individuals’ perceptions, information behaviors, and preventive action regarding the pandemic. Moreover, extensive research in public health crisis management has also acknowledged the importance of institutional trust (Cairns et al., 2013). This study went beyond institutional trust by adopting the concept of GPR given that trust is an element of relational quality. The findings suggested that, regardless of the type of governmental institutions, the relationship between governments and their citizens can influence publics’ perceptual and cognitive thinking about the pandemic.

Notably, authentic communication practices by the federal government were negatively related to individuals’ problem and involvement recognition but positively related to their constraint recognition. Federal government communication with authenticity would lead to less awareness of the pandemic, greater perceptions of difficulties in dealing with the pandemic, and less personal connections with the pandemic. We expected that authentic communication by the federal government should garner the public attention toward the pandemic and empower publics to manage it. However, these counter–hypothetical patterns might be explained by the political polarization phenomena over the pandemic as shown in our findings demonstrating political ideology as an influential moderator and also by existing public polls (Green & Tyson, 2020). The polarization of public views on the COVID-19 pandemic management along politically ideological lines has been widely acknowledged (Roberts, 2020). Publics attempt to interpret and manage COVID-19-related information in ways that align with their political loyalties (Roberts, 2020), which may make them more tolerant of misinformation (Weeks et al., 2019). Research indicated that President Trump’s conversational style with heavily emphasized political incorrectness arguments have helped him cultivated the impression of authenticity among his supporters (Theye & Melling, 2018). As such, we could assume that certain groups of people may consider the conspiracy theories of the pandemic disseminated from the federal leadership as authentic information and thus downplay the threats of the pandemic (Calvillo et al., 2020). Indeed, our moderation findings supported such an assumption, indicating that, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic in which the Trump administration was blamed for a lack of planning and halting responses in the fight against the virus, conservatives who considered the federal government is practicing authentic communication during the pandemic would consider the problem less important and irreverent to themselves; meanwhile, they would recognize more barriers to adopt actions to avoid the virus. On the other hand, ideological liberals and independents who believe that the federal government is open, transparent, and consistent during the pandemic would be more likely to acknowledge the importance of the issue as well as the self-efficacy to protect themselves. This suggest that, while there is likely a general disposition among publics that federal government authentic communication is important to cultivate individuals’ positive reactions toward the pandemic, it is a tendency that can be overcome with individuals’ political loyalty to the incumbent office. These empirical evidences highlighted the impact of political polarization on people’s interpretation and adherence to public health guidelines during a public health crisis (Quinn et al., 2013).

Moreover, we also conducted a mediation test in which relational quality serves as a mediator between authentic communication by the federal government and situational perceptions to further demonstrate this assumption. The results showed that relational quality serves as a mediator that reinforces the effects of authentic communication by the federal government on situational perceptions (b = 0.25, p < .001, 95% CI [0.17, 0.34]). Authentic communication practices by the federal government may only work positively on citizens’ understanding of the pandemic when they perceive a healthy relationship with incumbent leadership in the White House. These results signify that the federal leadership not only has to deliver pandemic-related information in an authentic manner but also must establish trust among publics, allow them to agree who has the rightful power to influence, persuade them that the relationship is worth maintaining, and guarantee the sense of satisfaction toward the government. Without the healthy and trustful relationships between the incumbent office and publics, authentic communication may pose adverse effects on citizens’ perceptions toward the pandemic. This finding reinforced the importance of trust and relational quality in public health crisis communication and management (Chon & Park, 2019).

The findings of the current study also contribute to the extant public relations literature. Cultivating a quality relationship is a key for effective political public relations as a part of the relationship management paradigm (Seltzer & Zhang, 2011). This study added another critical antecedent of GPR, perceived authenticity, in the context of a global pandemic, building on the literature of relationship management in government communication (e.g., Yang, 2018). Findings suggest that when the government communicates in a truthful, transparent, and consistent manner during a public health crisis, publics are likely to trust, be satisfied with, feel committed, and mutually influenced one another in a relationship with the government.

The effectiveness of authenticity in fostering relationship has been demonstrated in previous literature (e.g., Shen & Kim, 2012). However, this finding is among the first empirical efforts to suggest the effectiveness of authenticity as a primary indicator of effective governmental communication in a crisis situation. In addition, authenticity is a critical predictor of publics’ positive and negative information sharing behaviors about an organization (Shen & Kim, 2012). Thus, this result further indicates that the government’s authentic communication efforts about a crisis have greater potential to make positive information created and distributed among publics and reduce negative information circulated. Therefore, the crucial role of governmental authenticity during a public health crisis is demonstrated as one of the effective relationship cultivation strategies with publics.

However, our findings also signify the potential risk of adverse authentic governmental communication, in particular when the issue is highly politically polarized and involved conspiracy theories disseminated by the political elites. Political ideology and leadership style may pose significant relative influences on how individuals define and perceive the sense of governmental authenticity. Future research can incorporate the concepts of conspiratorial endorsement or belief in misinformation. As such, we may be able to unveil how people with different political loyalties define authenticity when it comes to a politicization of public health crisis. Moreover, the definition of authenticity may also change depending upon the current administration’s actions against the pandemic. When authentic leadership in administrations practice unproductive use of authentic communication or downplay the severity of a pandemic, adverse effects may occur as our counter-hypothetical findings have shown in H2 to H4. Thus, future studies can apply the current proposed model to a different government administration to verify whether such adverse effects may happen when the government leadership manages a pandemic in a different approach.

Practical Implications

The findings of this study also provide important insights for guiding future preparation, communication, and management for similar public health crises and other emerging diseases. First, this study highlighted the importance of authentic communication practices by different levels of government institutions. Such practices influence publics’ understanding of the pandemic and the consequent behavioral responses. Although the values of timely and transparent communication practices have been significantly emphasized in public health crisis management, the guideline did not clearly define such practices with specific theory support (World Health Organization, 2020b). Adopting the definition of authentic communication from public relations literature equips public health officials and practitioners with measures and principles of such communication practices. However, it is also crucial to distinguish between productive ones from unproductive uses of authentic communication. Authentic governmental communication is generally considered as a positive communication approach in crisis situations. For example, public health authorities and governments were found to be an effective channel for disseminating factual information, such as the need for social distancing and the threats of the pandemic (Thelwall & Thelwall, 2020). However, our findings showed that authentic communication may pose adverse effects when individuals blindly follow the leadership that endorses conspiracy theories and disseminates misinformation. It is important to acknowledge that citizens are not all similar in their characteristics and their potential to react. In line with multiple recent studies (e.g., Lee et al., 2020), this study suggested that political ideology may blur the line of what are facts and what are fictions and thus create adverse effects of authenticity. Therefore, particularly when a public health issue is politicalized, it is essential to combat the conspiracy theories and misinformation delivered from the governmental leadership, which may help cultivate the sense of real authenticity. Such recognition may help governments and public health authorities better prepare for conversations with publics with different political loyalties during a pandemic.

In addition to authentic communication practices, GPR at all levels may also affect publics’ perceptions about the pandemic, indicating the importance of building healthy relationships between governmental institutions and its publics regularly. Trust in government is the key to containing the pandemic (Cairns et al., 2013). However, our findings suggested that relational quality, a comprehensive concept that includes not only trust but also other healthy relationship criteria—control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction—can also better equip governments to manage a public health crisis. Trust in governments may not serve as the only relationship element that affects publics’ responses to pandemic management when the political ramifications of the pandemic are inevitable. One may trust the authority but not willing to commit to the relationship or feel satisfied with the institutions. Thus, the inclusion of relationship management concepts from the field of public relations may help governments better establish healthy relationships with their citizens, thereby increasing their abilities to enlist public cooperation during a public health crisis.

Finally, through the application of the STOPS, public health officials are informed of the possible antecedents of communicative actions and behavioral changes of publics. One likely acquires, forfends, and forwards related information and thus adopt preventive measures when he or she recognizes the severity of the pandemic, few difficulties to their engagement in dealing with it, and the personal connection with it. In conclusion, governments may obtain public cooperation through increasing their comprehensive understanding of the pandemic with authentic communication and a healthy relationship with the citizens.

Limitations and Future Studies

This study has some limitations. First, the data collection was conducted at one specific point. However, circumstances often considerably vary throughout a pandemic, and publics’ need for communication content and delivery from different levels of governmental institutions may also change. As this study was conducted at the early stages of the pandemic, future research is encouraged to conduct a longitudinal study throughout the pandemic outbreak to observe the role of governments at all levels in pandemic communication and management. Findings may vary at the later stages of the pandemic when misinformation and conspiracy theories endorsed by the governments significantly dismissed, when other countries have successfully managed the pandemic, or when such a public health crisis is completely turned into a political agenda. Second, this study attempted to understand individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors toward pandemic management based on a real influenza pandemic outbreak. However, considering the uniqueness of every pandemic, future research may apply the theoretical model to other public health crises to verify its generalizability. Finally, cultural values and leadership styles have been found to explain the significant differences in the perceptions and actions of people during the pandemic (e.g., Chang, 2022). Predicting people’s reactions toward a pandemic through government communication and relational quality within a single country may not be enough to unveil the role of government in pandemic management. Cross-culture or cross-country research design with examined variables in the current study will be a promising topic of future studies.

Author Biographies

Jo-Yun Li (PhD, University of South Carolina, 2018) is an assistant professor in the Department of Strategic Communication at the University of Miami. Her primary research interests are public relations and health communication with a focus on the strategic planning, application, and evaluation of communication campaigns that mobilize publics and facilitate health education, promotion, and social equality.

Yeunjae Lee (PhD, Purdue University, 2018) is an assistant professor in the Department of Strategic Communication at the University of Miami. Her research interests include employee communication, internal issue management, relationship management, and public behaviors.