2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

7
295
2
13

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 421 publications
(317 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
7
295
2
13
Order By: Relevance
“…People did not fully understand what had happened or what impact it would have for them personally (Jung, 2012). Many researchers concluded that the news of the meltdown had a devastating impact (Li et al, 2014;Ng and Lean, 2012;Pierpoint, 2011;Utz et al, 2013), generating widespread fear among the public in the absence of accurate authorized information.…”
Section: Pre-studymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…People did not fully understand what had happened or what impact it would have for them personally (Jung, 2012). Many researchers concluded that the news of the meltdown had a devastating impact (Li et al, 2014;Ng and Lean, 2012;Pierpoint, 2011;Utz et al, 2013), generating widespread fear among the public in the absence of accurate authorized information.…”
Section: Pre-studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the incident, the Japanese government sought to calm the public (Utz et al, 2013). However, the international news media reported that withholding information made it difficult to accurately report radiation levels, and people questioned whether the government was telling the truth or covering up potential risks (Li et al, 2014).…”
Section: Pre-studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this regard, models and theories-such as planned participatory behavior, reasoned action, human interaction, Coombs' situational crisis communication theory, risk communication approaches, and the social-mediated crisis communication model-were used (see, e.g., Chakravartty & Downing, 2010;Cooley & Jones, 2013;Freberg & Palenchar, 2012;Liu, Jin, & Austin, 2013;Stephens, Malone, & Bailey, 2005). Systemic approaches, such as those applying networked crisis communication theory and socioeconomic knowledge and participation gaps, appeared less often than did constructivist perspectives, such as those focusing on framing theory and the construction of meaning (see, e.g., Bressers & Hume, 2012;Hamdy & Gomaa, 2012;Martin, 2013;Utz, Schultz, & Glocka, 2013). The functionality of social media services, for example, in context with crowd sourcing, emergency management tools, and the question of channel complementarity, rarely was broached in the research material (see, e.g., Jung & Munehito, 2012).…”
Section: Content Analysis Of Academic Texts In the Area Of Crises Andmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The importance of media communication has been highlighted during all the historical nuclear emergencies (Perko, 2011) and the recent disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has shown that there are still gaps to be filled in nuclear and radiological preparedness communication (Utz et al, 2013). All people, even those who are not directly affected, have the right to receive accurate information so they can make informed decisions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Today mass media can intensify or downplay a nuclear risk (Kasperson and Kasperson, 2005), they allow rapid dialogue among users (Utz et al, 2013) and public engagement (Ng and Lean, 2012). Therefore, implementation of media communication in the emergency management plan requires clear recommendations, practical advice as well as an experienced and dedicated team to be successful.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%