From panic to banter
How do routine government releases and clarifications cause unexpected public opinion crisis—An analysis of public opinion toward a release by Chinese Ministry of Commerce encouraging the storage of necessities
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19188201 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Qi Sun (0000-0003-2222-6505, School of Public Administration South China University of Technology Guangzhou Guangdong China), Juan Chen (0000-0002-1038-4162, School of Journalism and Communication South China University of Technology Guangzhou Guangdong China, corresponding author), Shunheng Gao (School of Literature and Media Guangxi Normal University for Nationalities Chongzuo Guangxi China) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2024-01-13 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0966-0879 • E-ISSN: 1468-5973 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1468-5973.12530 |
| OpenAlex | W4390838263 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 84 |
This research explored why a routine government notice caused a series of unexpected public opinion crises. We used K‐means clustering and Baidu Application Programming Interface Gateway to analyse 12,478 comments from Sina Weibo on Chinese Ministry of Commerce's release to encourage people to stock up necessities. Results show that even government's routine notice releases are regular events with relatively low objective risk, but in practice, how the government releases information and makes clarification would significantly infect public risk perception and emotion. First, ambiguous government releases magnify existing risks, especially during sensitive times, and resulting in heightened uncertainty, public risk perception and spread of negative emotions, therefore, lead to heated public discussion. Second, timely and effective clarifications can lower public risk perception as well as lead to positive emotions, although public banter may come along and generate another round of online public opinion within a short time. Our work answers why regular events would cause unexpected public opinion from the perspective of government behaviour, illustrates the dynamic interaction between government and online public opinion and can inform public policy aimed at more efficient communication with the public
Business · Dissenting opinion · Notice · Perception · Political science · Politics · Public opinion · Public relations · Public trust · Risk perception · Law · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Psychology · Public Relations and Crisis Communication
The impact of social media on risk perceptions during the Mers outbreak in South Korea
Crises and Crisis Management
Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication as an Integrative Model
Associations of risk perception of Covid-19 with emotion and mental health during the pandemic
Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of Covid-19
Propagation Model of Panic Buying Under the Sudden Epidemic
Traversing the storm
Multiple public spheres of Weibo
A comparative analysis of experienced uncertainties in relation to risk communication during Covid19
Comparative studies of risk perception
Communication, Organization, and Crisis
Afraid, angry or powerless? Effects of perceived risks and trust in responsible parties on emotions towards gasquakes in the Netherlands
Nuclear energy, responsible risk communication and moral emotions
The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits
The public need to know
Problem Solving in Social Interactions on the Internet
Modeling Network Public Opinion Propagation with the Consideration of Individual Emotions
Opinion Dynamics and Collective Risk Perception
Anticipated Communication and Mass Media Information-Seeking
Crises and Crisis Management
Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |