An Examination of Organizational Messages during the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Risk Communication and Social Support Frameworks

Main Article Content

Wenjing Xie, PhD Amanda D. Damiano


Background: The COVID-19 virus continues to plague the world, though not at its alarming rate at the peak of the pandemic in 2020-2021. Throughout that time, a great deal of organizational messages were disseminated to audiences in response to the virus.

Aims: This study examined organizational messages in the United States about COVID-19 between March and September 2020. The purpose of the project was to identify patterns in these organizational messages to identify where messaging can be improved to better support the public when contending with health emergencies.

Method: A total of 106 organizational messages were assessed (N = 106) through risk communication and social support lenses.

Results: It was found that the organizational messages provided informational, instrumental, and emotional support. Organizational messages tended to frame risks as low hazard and low outrage. Strategies involving both rational and emotional appeals were used. The most frequently promoted preventive behavior was social distancing. It was found that different organizations promoted preventive behaviors differently, specifically government using their messages to promote wearing face coverings more than other industries.

Conclusions: Not only does this project fill a research gap, it also serves a practical function, as the findings can be presented to organizations as helpful information for the development of a comprehensive communication strategy during a public health situation.

Article Details

How to Cite
XIE, Wenjing; DAMIANO, Amanda D.. An Examination of Organizational Messages during the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Risk Communication and Social Support Frameworks. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 8, aug. 2023. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 02 oct. 2023. doi:
Research Articles


1. Bovee CL, Arens WF. Contemporary Advertising. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin; 1992.

2. Cutlip SM, Center AH, Broom GM. Effective Public Relations. 9th ed. Pearson; 2006.

3. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Summary. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published 2020. Accessed July 1, 2023. ncov/summary.html.

4. Coronavirus. Johns Hopkins Medicine. Published 2023. Accessed July 1, 2023.

5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Published November 2018. Accessed July 1, 2023.

6. Adelman MB. Cross-cultural adjustment: A theoretical perspective on social support. Int J Intercult Relat. 1988;12:183-204.

7. Shigemura J, Ursano RJ, Morganstein JC, Kurosawa M, Benedek DM. Public responses to the novel 2019 coronavirus (2019‐nCoV) in Japan: Mental health consequences and target populations. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74(4):281.

8. Torales J, O’Higgins M, Castaldelli-Maia JM, Ventriglio A. The outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020;66(4):317-320.

9. Sharma M, Yadav K, Yadav N, Ferdinand KC. Zika virus pandemic—Analysis of Facebook as a social media health information platform. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(3):301-302.

10. Fung IC, Duke CH, Finch KC, Snook KR, Tseng P, Hernandez AC, Gambhir M, Fu K, Tse ZTH. Ebola virus disease and social media: A systematic review. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44(12):1660-1671.

11. Avery EJ. Public information officers’ social media monitoring during the Zika virus crisis, a global health threat surrounded by public uncertainty. Pol Sci. 2017;43(3):468-476.

12. Keelan J, Pavri V, Balakrishnan R, Wilson K. An analysis of the human papilloma virus vaccine debate on Myspace blogs. Vaccine. 2010;28(6):1535-1540.

13. Southwell BG, Dolina S, Jimenez-Magdaleno K, Squiers LB, Kelly BJ. Zika virus-related news coverage and online behavior, U.S., Guatemala, and Brazil. Emer Infect Dis. 2016;22(7):1320-1321.

14. Chandrasekaran N, Gressick K, Singh V, Kwal J, Cap N, Koru-Sengul T, Curry CL. The utility of social media in providing info on Zika virus. Cureus. 2017;9(10).
15. Chung JE. A smoking cessation campaign on Twitter: Understanding the use of Twitter and identifying major players in a health campaign. J Health Commun. 2016;21(5):517-526.

16. Reynolds B, Seeger MW. Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. J Health Commun. 2005;10(1):43-55.

17. Waters RD, Williams JM. Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: Analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter. J Public Aff. 2011;11(4):353-363.

18. Fischhoff B, Downs JS. Communicating foodborne disease risk. Emer Infect Dis. 2001;3(4).

19. Coulson NS. Receiving social support online: An analysis of a computer-mediated support group for individuals living with irritable bowel syndrome. CyberPsychol Behav. 2005;8(6):580-585.

20. Drentea P, Moren-Cross J. Social capital and social support on the web: The case of an internet mother site. Soc Health Ill. 2005;27(7):920-943.

21. Ellison N, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2007;12:1143-1168.

22. Mo PKH, Coulson NS. Exploring the communication of social support within virtual communities: A content analysis of messages posted to an online HIV/AIDS support group. CyberPsychol Behav. 2008;11(3):371-374.

23. Qian Y, Mao Y. A content analysis of online social support behaviors of overseas Chinese prenatal and postnatal women. China Media Res. 2010;6(4):43-55.

24. Walther J, Boyd S. Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In: Lin CA, Atkin D, ed.
Communication Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses. Hampton Press; 2002:153-188.

25. White M, Dorman S. Receiving social support online: Implications for health education. Health Educ Res. 2001;16(6):693-707.

26. Zhao J, Han H, Zhong B, Xie W, Chen Y, Zhi M. Health information on social media helps mitigate Crohn's disease symptoms and improves patients’ clinical course. Comput Human Behav. 2021:115.

27. Covello VT. Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication research. Ann Int Commun Assoc. 1992;15(1):359-373.

28. Lundgren RE. Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. Battelle Press; 1994.

29. Sandman PM. Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. American Industrial Hygiene Association. 1993. Accessed July 1, 2023,

30. Sandman PM. Risk communication: Facing public outrage. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 21-22. 1987. Accessed July 1, 2023.

31. Lachlan K, Spence PR. Communicating risks: Examining hazard and outrage in multiple contexts. Risk Anal. 2010;30(12):1872-1886.

32. Damiano AD, Allen Catellier JR. A content analysis of Coronavirus tweets in the United States just prior to the pandemic declaration. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. Published August 20, 2020. Accessed July 1, 2023.

33. Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973;78(6):1360-1380.

34. Gudykunst WB. An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective
communication: Making the mesh of the net finer. In: Gudykunst WB, ed. Theorizing About Intercultural Communication. Sage; 2005:281-322.

35. Kim YY. Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation. Sage Publications; 2005.

36. Kessler RC, Price RH, Wortman CB. Social factors in psychopathology: Stress, social support, and coping processes. Annu Rev Psychol. 1985;36:531-572.

37. Helgeson VS. Two important distinctions in social support: Kind of support and perceived vs. received. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1993;23:825-845.

38. Kaplan RM, Hartwell SL. Differential effects of social support and social network on physiological and social outcomes in men and women with type II diabetes mellitus. Health Psychol. 1987;6(5):387-398.

39. Turner J, Grube J, Meyers J. Developing an optimal match within online communities: An exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. J Commun. 2001;51(2):231-251.

40. Weinburg N, Schmale J. Online help: Cancer patients participate in a computer-mediated support group. Health Soc Work. 1996;21(1):24-32.

41. Time. Top 10 Public-Service Announcements. Published 2016. Accessed July 1, 2023.,28804,1920454_1920455_1920431,00.html

42. Kim J. The institutionalization of YouTube: From user-generated content to professionally generated content. Med Cult Soc. 2012;34(1):53-67.

43. Aristotle. The Rhetoric of Aristotle. Cooper L, trans. Appleton Century Crofts: 1932.

44. Lerman AE. Good enough for government work: The public reputation crisis in American (and what we can do to fix it). The University of Chicago Press; 2019.
45. Mettler S. The Government-Citizen Disconnect. Russell Sage Foundation; 2018.

46. Kulkarni A Impact of endorser and message appeal on the success of an online AIDS PSA. Unpublished master’s thesis. 2009.

47. Perse EM, Nathanson AI, McLeod DM. Effects of spokesperson sex, public service announcement appeal, and involvement on evaluations of safe-sex PSAs. Health Commun. 1996;8(2):171-189.

48. Slater MD. Drinking and driving PSAs: A content analysis of behavioral influence strategies. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 1999;44(3):68.

49. Myrick JG. Oliver MB. Laughing and crying: Mixed emotions, compassion, and the effectiveness of a YouTube PSA about skin cancer. Health Commun. 2015;30(8):820-829.

50. Wang CL. Gender differences in responding to sad emotional appeal: A moderated mediation explanation. J Nonprof Pub Sec Mark. 2008;19(1):55-70.

51. Weber K, Dillow MR, Rocca KA. Developing and testing the anti drinking and driving PSA. Commun Quart. 2011;59(4):415-427.

52. Hannon PA, Hammerback K, Garson G, Harris JR, Sopher CJ. Stakeholder perspectives on workplace health promotion: a qualitative study of midsized employers in low-wage industries. Am J Health Promot. 2012;27(2):103-110.