State-level politicization of crisis communication on Twitter during COVID-19: Conceptualization, measurement, and impacts

The political dimension of crisis communication remains understudied in public administration. We defined the politicization of government crisis communication as the employment of politics-oriented communication strategies in crisis messaging. We further examined the state-level politicization occurring during COVID-19 and its influence on public engagement and policy compliance. We applied machine learning algorithms to analyze 43,642 Twitter messages posted by fifty US state governors, assessing the extent to which these governors politicized crisis communication. We compiled data from multiple sources to explore the influence of communication politicization on public engagement and compliance behaviors. While most governors showed major concerns regarding reputation and blame, their level of politicization and selection of communication strategies varied. Increased levels of communication politicization discouraged the public's online engagement and policy compliance. Excessive levels of political consideration could undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of government crisis communication, and thus an examination of their relationship was essential.

How to Build Confidence in Vaccines

Despite overwhelming evidence of vaccine effectiveness in preventing serious vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs), lack of confidence in vaccines is a major threat to the prevention and control of VPDs and antimicrobial resistance globally. Vaccine hesitancy and antimicrobial resistance are inter-related, with high levels of vaccination uptake being a vital pillar of antimicrobial stewardship. Parallel with the COVID-19 pandemic, another 'infodemic' of uncertainty, misunderstanding, lack of trust and loss of confidence in vaccines unfolded. While regulatory authorities are mandated to ensure the safety, efficacy and quality of all approved vaccines, public confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness is compromised by social media reports, falsely blaming vaccines for serious adverse events following immunisation. Hence, transparent public communication and education on vaccine safety;the risk-benefit balance;and causality assessment outcomes, are essential. A key factor in this context is people's perception of risk, especially where the fear of vaccines has replaced the fear of a VPD. Understanding the factors driving vaccine hesitancy and moving people from the point of being hesitant to the point of accepting vaccination, requires collective multi-pronged strategies from all levels of society, including political, social, religious and educational role players. Targeted approaches should be evidence-based, context-specific, culturally sensitive and tailored for the community, integrating individual, social and environmental factors. While healthcare professionals are the public's most trusted source of information for vaccination decision- making, they are not immune against believing misinformation and developing vaccine hesitancy. Consequently, they must be empowered with the necessary knowledge, skills and confidence to respond appropriately to questions and persuade the public to demand vaccination for themselves and their children. This presentation will focus on strategies to build vaccine confidence and acceptance, promote trust in the healthcare system, and address fears about the consequences of vaccination, aimed at driving vaccine uptake and preventing antimicrobial resistance.Copyright © 2023

Covid-19 and the 2020 presidential election

Whether deserved on not, US Presidents often receive the blame or the credit for the nature of the economy and direction of the country. Therefore, the status of the economy and the country in an election year can be a very important factor in election success for an incumbent President (or his party if an incumbent is not running). This is especially true in ‘battleground states' due to the presence of the Electoral College system where Presidential candidates need only win different combinations of states in order to become President. However, the 2020 Presidential election was vastly different from past election cycles in that an additional variable, COVID-19, was added to the decision calculus of voters. Eventually, the 2020 election came down to the extremely slim margins in three states (Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin) and thin margins in two others (Pennsylvania and Michigan). This paper shows that deaths from COVID-19 at the county level played a small role in demotivating voters to turnout in 2020 to cast their vote for Joe Biden as President. In other words, without Covid-19, President Trump's losses within these five states would have been even larger.

COVID-19 pandemic: Ghana and the geographies of blame.

The emergence and the rapid spread of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) have resulted in a global public health crisis. The debilitating social and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable societies has given rise to questionings, blames, and accusations about how the pandemic has been managed at the national level. This study uses the concept of 'Geographies of blame' to investigate how the national government, citizenry and other stakeholders have blamed each other for the rise in COVID-19 cases in Ghana. The study employs a qualitative research approach and administered 45 online surveys to the residents of Accra Metropolis, Ghana, that inquired about who is to be blamed for the rising COVID-19 cases in Ghana. Our results revealed that while the government of Ghana must share the blame due to how they poorly handled the pandemic, the citizens are more to blame for the spread and continued increase of the COVID-19 cases in the country. Based on the results, the study highlights the need for a pro-active and continuous analysis of the 'babel of blame' as a useful guide to create public awareness and help governments develop and implement strategic plans to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fear of covid-19, stress and coping strategies among nurses during the covid-19 pandemic's second wave: A quasi-intervention study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and its related consequences caused a higher risk of mental health problems for nurses. Hence, this study aims to reduce the level of fear and stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic and promote active coping among Egyptian nurses. Method(s): This quasi-intervention study was conducted on 125 nurses working at Benha's University hospitals, who were selected by a systematic random sampling technique within the time interval of March 2021 to July 2021. The study was conducted using the fear of COVID-19 scale, the stress scale of depression, anxiety and stress scales, and the Brief (COPE) inventory scale. Result(s): The mean ages of the studied nurses were 36.70 +/- 9.50. Almost half of the studied nurses were males and married. Before the intervention, 47.2% of nurses had severe stress levels while 82.4% had a high level of fear of COVID-19. Experience years, type of department, and worries about vaccine side effects were the predictors of the fear of COVID-19. A significant difference (p =.000) was found between both mean stress and fear scores pre-intervention (15.27 +/- 5.47 and 25.56 +/- 6.13) and post-intervention (4.87 +/- 2.14 and 11.92 +/- 2.43). The most prevalent coping strategies among nurses before the intervention were self-distraction (5.03 +/- 1.53), followed by behavioral disengagement and self-blaming. However, after the intervention, religion was found to be the utmost coping mechanism (6.12 +/- 1.17), followed by positive reframing and acceptance. Conclusion(s): The majority of the nurses in the study reported a significant fear of COVID-19, and around half of the nurses had severe stress as a result. After the intervention, the stress and fear scores were reduced by half or even less. Age, longer work experience, and worries about the vaccine were the predictors of fear of COVID-19. The coping strategies used after the intervention shifted toward active coping strategies.Copyright © 2023 Omar et al.

Blame the pandemic: Buffering the association between stress and relationship quality during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique climate for examining the links between stressful conditions and couples' relationship well-being. According to theories of stress spillover, stressors originating outside the relationship, such as work stress and financial uncertainty, often undermine relationship quality. However, if individuals can easily attribute their problems to the stressful circumstances, their relationship may be more resilient. Given the salience of the pandemic, the current study used two waves of 14-day daily diary data collected from 191 participants to examine whether blaming the pandemic for problems may reduce stress spillover. We also expected the buffering effect of pandemic blaming attributions to wane as stressful conditions persisted and continued to tax partners' coping resources. Multilevel modeling confirmed that women, but not men, who were more blaming of the pandemic exhibited reduced stress spillover during the COVID-19 outbreak;notably, this buffering effect did not weaken over time. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Why do we vent our emotions and blame others during the coronavirus pandemic? The role of emotional clarity in the United States and South Korea

People have been experiencing more negative affect (NA) during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic than prior to its onset. This may increase instances of people venting their emotions and blaming others to relieve the flood of unregulated NA. This study examined individuals' venting and blaming processes within the context of the pandemic and explored the mediating role of emotional clarity across cultures. We conducted an online survey with 210 and 197 participants from the US and South Korea, respectively. The results of the moderated mediation analysis showed that individuals' NA during the pandemic significantly affected their venting and blaming via emotional clarity among US participants. This finding implies that when people in individualistic cultures do not fully understand their emotions, they are more likely to vent to or blame others. This can serve as a potential risk factor for hate crimes during the pandemic. Conversely, the mediation effect of emotional clarity was not significant among South Korean participants, suggesting dissimilar roles played by emotional clarity in individualistic versus collectivistic cultures in managing NA. © 2023 Fundacion Infancia y Aprendizaje.

Why do we vent our emotions and blame others during the coronavirus pandemic? The role of emotional clarity in the United States and South Korea (¿Por qué ventilamos nuestras emociones y culpabilizamos a otras personas durante la pandemia del coronavirus? El rol de la claridad emocional en los Estados Unidos y Corea del Sur)

People have been experiencing more negative affect (NA) during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic than prior to its onset. This may increase instances of people venting their emotions and blaming others to relieve the flood of unregulated NA. This study examined individuals' venting and blaming processes within the context of the pandemic and explored the mediating role of emotional clarity across cultures. We conducted an online survey with 210 and 197 participants from the US and South Korea, respectively. The results of the moderated mediation analysis showed that individuals' NA during the pandemic significantly affected their venting and blaming via emotional clarity among US participants. This finding implies that when people in individualistic cultures do not fully understand their emotions, they are more likely to vent to or blame others. This can serve as a potential risk factor for hate crimes during the pandemic. Conversely, the mediation effect of emotional clarity was not significant among South Korean participants, suggesting dissimilar roles played by emotional clarity in individualistic versus collectivistic cultures in managing NA. (English) [ FROM AUTHOR] RESUMEN Las personas han estado experimentando más afectos negativos (AN) durante la enfermedad del coronavirus 2019 que antes de su aparición. Esto puede aumentar los casos de personas que ventilan sus emociones y culpabilizan a los demás para aliviar el flujo de afectos negativos (AN) no regulados. Este estudio analizó los procesos de ventilación emocional y culpabilización de los individuos en el contexto de la pandemia, y estudió el rol mediador de la claridad emocional entre culturas. Realizamos una encuesta online con 210 y 197 participantes de Estados Unidos y Corea del Sur, respectivamente. Los resultados del análisis de mediación moderada mostraron que los AN de los individuos durante la pandemia afectaron significativamente su forma de ventilar sus emociones y culpabilizar a través de la claridad emocional entre los participantes de los Estados Unidos. Este hallazgo implica que cuando las personas de culturas individualistas no conocen plenamente sus emociones, tienen más probabilidades de ventilarlas o de culpabilizar a otros. Esto puede servir como un factor de riesgo potencial para delitos de odio durante la pandemia. Y a la inversa, el efecto de mediación de la claridad emocional no fue significativa entre los participantes de Corea del Sur, lo que sugiere que los roles de la claridad emocional no son similares en las culturas individualistas y en las culturas colectivistas a la hora de gestionar los AN. (Spanish) [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Revista de Psicologia Social is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Learning from Incidents

Introduction Butterfly ward and Caterpillar outpatients within the International and Private Care division at Great Ormond Street Hospital look after children needing a wide range of specialty services including haematology, oncology, bone marrow transplant, immunology, gene therapy, and thymus transplant. It has been a longstanding practice within the division to ensure the delivery of high-quality patient care using collaborative efforts when reviewing incident reports. Methods To strengthen this partnership, we have continued weekly Datix Review Meetings (DRMs) through the coronavirus pandemic. Our aim is to discuss as a multidisciplinary team (MDT) 1 to 2 incidents per week followed by identifying specific learning objectives. Virtual meetings are led by Butterfly ward manager or matron with participation from the ward consultant, pharmacists, ward doctors, nurses in charge, and practice education team who facilitate the distribution of learning. Knowledge disseminated across the MDT takes the form of meeting notes linking to Trust policies, 'Take 3' measures and bite-sized education at safety huddles, 1:1 teaching sessions with ward staff, other written resources, and tailored local inductions. Results Weekly DRMs have contributed to increased patient safety in our clinical areas. It has increased patient satisfaction with positive comments from Friends and Family forms. We have seen better teamwork and communication across the MDT as it has allowed for the sharing of cohesive working strategies, including MDT presence at safety huddles. We have also received positive feedback when onboarding new staff due to the tailored education provided. Discussion & Conclusion Weekly DRMs have promoted discussing incidents without engaging in blame culture. This initiative has put patient safety at the forefront of our practice by strengthening both collective partnerships and individual teams. Ongoing work is being done to drive education in proactive ways with the aim to reduce the number of incidents within our directorate.

The Policy Blame Game: How Polarization Distorts Democratic Accountability across the Local, State, and Federal Level

Democratic accountability relies on voters to punish their representatives for policies they dislike. Yet, a separation-of-powers system can make it hard to know who is to blame, and partisan biases further distort voters' evaluations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, precautionary policies were put into place sometimes by governors, sometimes by mayors, and sometimes by no one at all, allowing us to identify when voters hold out-party versus in-party politicians responsible for policies. With a survey spanning 48 states, we test our theory that attitudes toward policies and parties intersect to determine when selective attribution takes place. We find that as individuals increasingly oppose a policy, they are more likely to blame whichever level of government is led by the out-party. This is most pronounced among partisans with strong in-party biases. We provide important insight into the mechanisms that drive selective attribution and the conditions under which democratic accountability is at risk.

The unsanitary other and racism during the pandemic: analysis of purity discourses on social media in India, France and United States of America during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The global rise of populism and concomitant polarizations across disenfranchised and marginalized groups has been magnified by so-called echo chambers, and a major public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic has only served to fuel these intergroup tensions. Media institutions disseminating information on ways to prevent the propagation of the virus have reactivated a specific discursive phenomenon previously observed in many epidemics: the construction of a defiled 'Other'. With anthropological lenses, discourse on defilement is an interesting path to understand the continuous emergence of pseudo-scientific forms of racism. In this paper, the authors focus on 'borderline racism', that is the use of an institutionally 'impartial' discourse to reaffirm the inferiority of another race. The authors employed inductive thematic analysis of 1200 social media comments reacting to articles and videos published by six media in three different countries (France, United States and India). Results delineate four major themes structuring defilement discourses: food (and the relationship to animals), religion, nationalism and gender. Media articles and videos portrayed Western and Eastern countries through contrasting images and elicited a range of reaction in readers and viewers. The discussion reflects on how borderline racism can be an appropriate concept to understand the appearance of hygienic othering of specific subgroups on social media. Theoretical implications and recommendations on a more culturally sensitive approach of media coverage of epidemics and pandemics are discussed.

How are we going to treat Chinese people during the pandemic? Media cultivation of intergroup threat and blame.

This study integrates cultivation and intergroup threat theories to examine media cultivation effects during the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that U.S. media have consistently portrayed China as a threat and target of blame. The cultivation of media has thus resulted in perceived threat of and blame on Chinese people for the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of a cross-sectional survey in two samples (MTurk: N = 375; college: N = 566) showed that the amount of media consumption predicted stronger perceptions that Chinese people were a health threat, and also predicted blame on Chinese people for the COVID-19 outbreak. Threat perception and blame were further associated with support of media content that derogated China, stronger intentions to attack, and weaker intentions to help Chinese people. The findings have profound implications for intergroup threat and cultivation research, and practical importance for intergroup relations, especially when the global community finds itself in a public crisis.

Stopping the Spread: How Blame Attributions Drive Customer-to-Customer Misbehavior Contagion and What Frontline Employees Can Do to Curb It

Service encounters nowadays are increasingly characterized by customer-to-customer (C2C) interactions where customers regularly become targets of other customers' misbehavior. Although previous research provides initial evidence of the contagiousness of such C2C misbehavior, it remains unclear whether, how, and why C2C misbehavior spreads when frontline employees (FLEs) are involved and what FLEs can do to curb it. Two online and one field experiment in the context of co-working and transportation services reveal that FLE-directed blame attributions drive the spread of C2C misbehavior while perpetrator-directed blame attributions reverse it. These blame attributions are greater the more severely customers judge other customers' misbehavior. Findings further rule out alternative contagion mechanisms (social norms and emotional contagion) and show that contagion spills over to C2C misbehavior unrelated to the initial transgression. By specifying how contagion unfolds and by explicating the central role blame attributions play in C2C misbehavior contagion, this research uncovers its social dynamics, thus extending existing theory on customer misbehavior and attribution theory in multi-actor settings. Managerially, this research provides FLEs with explicit guidance on what they should do (personalized FLE interventions delivered either in person or remotely) and avoid doing (disapproving looks, FLE service recovery) when faced with C2C misbehavior. © The Author(s) 2023.

Offensive, hateful comment: A networked discourse practice of blame and petition for justice during COVID-19 on Chinese Weibo

Using data from user comments to the official social networking account of the Hubei Red Cross Foundation on a participatory web platform, this study attends to the offensive and hateful comments produced by ordinary Internet users to blame the elite authorities for their malfeasance in managing the donation during the COVID-19 in China. Drawing on Discursive Psychology, we focus on the rhetorical strategies that users employ to legitimise their actions as well-founded evidential blame against a norm-breaking act rather than radical extremist speech. The associated hatred among discussants are moral, social judgements. That said, hate speech also helps construct the moral standards of a normalised society. [ FROM AUTHOR]

Blame avoidance in hard times: complex governance structures and the COVID-19 pandemic

This article investigates how governments shift blame during large-scale, prolonged crises. While existing research shows that governments can effectively diffuse blame through ‘fuzzy' governance structures, less is known about blame diffusion patterns during severe crises when citizens widely expect governments to assume leadership. The article develops expectations on how blame diffusion patterns – consisting of blame-shifting onto lower-level government units, citizens and experts – look and differ in fuzzy governance structures (the political courant normal) and in consolidated governance structures (when governments are called on to consolidate responsibility). The article then tests this theoretical argument with a within-unit longitudinal study of the blame diffusion patterns employed by the Swiss Federal Council (FC) during press conferences held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The period under analysis (March–December 2020) is divided into three phases characterised by different governance structures due to the FC's enactment of emergency law. The analysis reveals that blame diffusion patterns vary considerably across phases and that blame spills out of the political system when fuzzy governance structures ‘lose their bite'. These findings are relevant for our understanding of democratic governance under pressure.

CSR crises from the consumers' perspective: a multidimensional typology and future research agenda

Purpose>The purpose of this paper is to develop a multidimensional corporate social responsibility (CSR) crisis typology from the consumers' perspective and to provide an agenda for future research.Design/methodology/approach>Basic content-related dimensions for characterizing CSR crises from the consumers' perspective are derived from a review of relevant static crisis typologies. Different types of consumer responses to negative CSR information are derived from various theoretical approaches. Dynamic process models of corporate crises are reviewed to assign various types of consumer responses to different crisis phases. Linking both static and dynamic approaches leads to a comprehensive consumer-oriented typology of CSR crises that is illustrated with examples.Findings>A CSR crises typology is developed based on three consumer-related dimensions: the extent to which the company is attributed blame by consumers;the amount of perceived damage potential;and the perceived CSR relevance of the crisis situation. The combination of these dimensions results in eight different crisis types. For each of these crisis types, different forms of consumer responses are assigned that prevail in the so-called potential, latent and manifest crisis phase.Research limitations/implications>Future research could address the empirical review of the crisis typology presented, its refinement by considering various consumer and stakeholder segmentation approaches and the advanced dynamic analysis of CSR crises by including stakeholder characteristics that impact the diffusion of CSR-related negative publicity.Practical implications>The results of this paper support early crisis detection and effective crisis management by identifying relevant target variables for crisis communication.Originality/value>The typology developed enables a broad spectrum of CSR crises to be classified, including those that have been neglected in previous systematization approaches, such as CSR-related tensions, general sustainability crises and product-harm crises. Due to its theoretical foundation, this paper also contributes to a clearer demarcation of existing CSR crisis constructs.

Accepting Moral Luck and Taking Responsibility in Public Health Crises.

We see cases of moral luck arising in recent times, as we face the uncertainties of provisional rules for navigating the coronavirus pandemic. How should we respond to rule-breakers, and how should they view themselves, when they cause harm inadvertently? Although some argue that guilt is unnecessary for any harm that may result from luck, this paper takes moral luck seriously and encourages consideration of the benefits to be achieved by expressions of self-blame amidst troubling circumstances, from pure accidents to how we live during pandemics. It argues that rule-breakers in public health crises show us the importance of taking responsibility for our actions.

Pandemic Rule-Breakers, Moral Luck, and Blaming the Blameworthy.

This paper takes under consideration a piece by Roger Crisp in which he questions what the problem of moral luck can teach us about COVID-19 lockdown rule-breakers. Taking the position that although such rule-breakers might seem to be new examples of moral luck, Crisp ends up denying the existence of moral luck and argues that moral luck is an outdated notion in so far as it relies on other questionable aspects of morality, that is, retributivist punishment and blame. Although the author agrees with Crisp that pandemic rule-breaker cases are putative examples of resultant moral luck, he proposes that Crisp has misconstrued what moral luck is and the paper examines in detail what he sees as the numerous problems with Crisp's claims. The author concludes that Crisp's analysis of pandemic rule-breaking does not shed any new light on the moral luck debate, and the difficult questions of luck, moral responsibility, and desert are not so easily resolved.

The Anti-Restrictions Movement and the Populist Counterpublics in Denmark

Despite less restrictive governmental Covid-19 measures than in other European countries, Denmark also witnessed the rise of mobilisations against vaccine measures and corona-related restrictions. While most protests did not assemble many participants, nor garnered much media attention, the anti-restrictions scene consists of a vast and diverse array of activists and organisations united in the call for less governmental intervention in the freedoms of the citizens, as also witnessed elsewhere across the globe. We conceptualise the anti-restrictions groups as 'populist counterpublics', since the counterdiscourses emerging from the Covid-19 measures deepen the antagonist divide between the ordinary people and the elites. We focus on three of the most prominent groups: Men in Black (MIB), the Freedom Movement's Joint Council (FBF), and Earth Freedom Knowledge 21 (JFK21). By analysing arenas and frames, we show how the Danish anti-restrictions movement uses the diagnostic frames of totalitarian government and global complot to blame the Danish government and international elites, and the prognostic frames of power and rights to the people and individual freedom as solutions to the articulated problems. Although these groups employed similar frames and enemy constructions, they failed in promoting internal alliances and in shaping a new and accepted idea of who makes up 'the people', leading to a limited level of public support for their cause.

COVID-19-related stigma among the non-infected general population from Iran

Introduction: COVID-19-related stigma has been raised as a crisis since the beginning of the pandemic. We intended to develop a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure COVID-19-related stigma, attributed by the non-infected general population, and applied it in Tehran from September to October 2020. Objective(s): This study measures the COVID-19-related stigma attributed by the non-infected general population using a valid and reliable questionnaire specific to COVID-19-related stigma. Method(s): A preliminary questionnaire with 18 items was developed. The score ranged from 18 to 54 while the higher score indicating a higher level of COVID-19-related stigma. Out of 1064 randomly recruited Tehran citizens without a history of COVID-19 infection, 630 participants, who completely responded to the questions on a phone call, entered the study. Result(s): The content validity was established with a scale content validity index of 0.90. Item CVI and Item content validity ratio were higher than 0.78 for all items. Internal consistency was confirmed with Cronbach's alpha of 0.625. Exploratory factor analysis revealed seven latent variables, including "blaming and penaltyseeking behavior", "social discrimination", "dishonor label", "interpersonal contact", "spreading rumors and myths", "overvalued idea", and "apathy toward the patients". The mean (SD) of the score was 25.1(4.71) in our study. 86.8% of participants reported a low level of stigma with a score below 31. 13.2% of them demonstrated a moderate level of stigma, and none of the participants showed a high level of stigma. Conclusion(s): we found a low level of stigmatizing thoughts and behavior in Tehran, which may be due to social desirability bias.