Can Government Public Communications Elicit Undue Trust? Exploring the Interaction between Symbols and Substantive Information in Communications

Abstract

Effective public communications have been proposed as a remedy for citizens’ distrust in government. Recent studies pointed to the emotional effect of symbolic elements, entangled in government public communications (e.g., logos, images, and celebrities). Still, they did not examine the interaction between these symbols and the substantive information in communications about bureaucracies’ performance and policies. Exploring this interaction is important for understanding the theoretical mechanisms underlying the effect of symbolic communication on citizens’ trust. Also, it is essential to assess symbols’ potency to unduly compensate for unfavorable or logically unpersuasive information, and enable public organizations to escape justified public criticism. Building on the social psychology Elaboration Likelihood Model, I theorize that symbols may increase citizens’ trust by conducing citizens to pay less attention to logically unpersuasive information, and thus offsetting its negative effect. I test this indirect mechanism via a large survey experiment, focusing on the Israeli Environment Protection Ministry. The experimental results support the research hypotheses and suggest that the effect of symbolic elements is stronger when communications include logically unpersuasive information. I discuss the implications of these findings for democratic responsiveness and accountability.

Does the Medium Matter? Linking Citizens’ Use of Communication Platform for Information about Urban Policies to Decision to Trust in Local Government

“…The impact of citizens' use of the offline medium on their levels of satisfaction with government information provision is likely to differ from that of the online medium due to different characteristics of the two mediums. Specifically, while factors such as selective media exposure theory are also present in the offline medium [52,57], selective media exposure likely to be much less pronounced on this medium due to greater barriers to popular participation and limitations regarding the diversity of information disseminated [58].…”

The emotive effect of government branding on citizens' trust and its boundaries: Does the personal relevance of the policy issue matter?

“…Normatively, we expect citizens in a democratic society to form their opinions about their government based on critical thinking, rather than on unconscious emotive responses. A yet more serious concern regards the potency of government branding to compensate for organizations' poor performance, poorly planned policies and logically unpersuasive explanations, as indicated by previous studies (Alon‐Barkat and Gilad ; Alon‐Barkat ). Congruently, it can yield a misalignment between citizens' positive view and the ‘real world’, which would undermine governments' democratic accountability and responsiveness.…”

“…Public administration scholarship has shown a growing interest in public sector branding and its potency to influence citizens' perceptions and direct their behaviour (Eshuis and Klijn 2012; Sataøen and Wæraas ; Marland et al ). Congruently, recent empirical studies established that symbolic brand elements entangled in government communications (e.g., agency names, logos, colours and figures) can have a positive emotional effect on citizens, which leads them to view public organizations and their policies and services more favourably (Marvel ; Karens et al ; Alon‐Barkat and Gilad ; Teodoro and An ; Alon‐Barkat ). This growing scholarly interest corresponds with the overall increase in the use of branding practices by public sector organizations over the past decade or so, in part due to the expansion of digital communication and social media (Mergel and Bretschneider ; Mickoleit ).…”

“…The methodological aspects which are relevant for examining the additional hypotheses are described in Alon‐Barkat ().…”

A reputation for what, to whom, and in which task environment: A commentary

“…Likewise, Capelos (2010) finds that citizens adjust their policy evaluations in response to “gut‐level” affective shortcuts. Alon‐Barkat (2019) observes that symbolic elements in government communication (peripheral route) distract citizens from systematically scrutinizing government communication with regard to its logical persuasive quality (central route processing).…”