honors college at the college of charleston€¦ · running head: crisis communication on college...

Running head: CRISIS COMMUNICATION ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES 1

Spreading the Word: Crisis Communication on College Campuses

An essay submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for graduation from the

Honors College at the College of Charleston

with a Bachelor of Arts in

Communication

BECCA STARKES

MAY 2016

Advisor: Amanda Ruth-McSwain, Ph.D

Secondary Reader: Jenifer Kopfman, Ph.D

CRISIS COMMUNICATION ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES 2

Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 Chapter 2: Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 10

Types of Crises ........................................................................................................................ 10 Crisis Communication ............................................................................................................. 11 Campus Crisis Management .................................................................................................... 15 Information-Seeking Behavior ................................................................................................. 17 Role of Media Channels in Crisis Communication ................................................................. 18

Chapter 3: Methodology .............................................................................................................. 24

Participant Selection and Data Collection .............................................................................. 25 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 4: Results ........................................................................................................................ 29

Sample Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 29 Frequency of Media Channel Usage During Crisis ................................................................. 30 Attitude Toward Media Channels During Crisis .................................................................... 31 Cross-tabulations for Select Variables .................................................................................... 33

Chapter 5: Discussion .................................................................................................................. 35 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................... 35 Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 38 Recommendations for Practice and Future Research ............................................................. 39

References .................................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A: Informed Consent Forms ........................................................................................ 49 Appendix B: Survey Instrument .................................................................................................. 51 Appendix C: Interview Guide ...................................................................................................... 56


Abstract

This study investigates crisis communication on college campuses. Specifically, the researcher

examined what media channels students use to obtain information during emergency situations

on or near campus. Using the crisis communication principles developed by Coombs as well as

Media Dependency Theory and Uncertainty Reduction Theory as a guide, a quantitative survey

was employed to establish a broad foundation of information on the topic. A total of 150 surveys

were completed by students at a mid-sized Southeastern university. Findings indicated that

students often use the campus emergency alert system in crisis situations as well as third-party

social media accounts and word-of-mouth communication. Though not as frequently accessed,

television news was also viewed as a credible source of crisis information. These findings

indicate the complementarity of both traditional and new media sources during crisis. Additional

discussion and recommendations for practice are provided along with suggestions for future

research in crisis communication.

Keywords: crisis communication, information-seeking behavior, colleges and universities


Chapter 1: Introduction

It seems that every week there is a new crisis—whether an emergency situation or a

scandal—on or near a U.S. college or university campus. Just in the past year, a short list of

major events includes fatal shootings at the University of South Carolina, Delta State University,

and Umpqua Community College, several bomb threats, and various natural disasters and

emergency weather situations. With any number of natural or man-made crises possible, colleges

and universities must be prepared to protect and inform their students, faculty, and staff at a

moment’s notice. As John Cavanaugh, former University of West Florida president, aptly said:

“It is not a matter of whether a disaster or emergency scenario will confront a campus but when”

(Cavanaugh, 2005, p. 49).

Incidents over the last 15 years demonstrate the importance of faculty and staff

preparedness for campus emergencies and/or crises. While many incidents occur on a local level

impacting small groups of people, some campus emergencies involve national security threats.

Many people do not think of the events on September 11, 2001 as part of a campus crisis, but

they most certainly were considered a crisis for those living and working at New York

University (NYU). NYU’s main campus is just a couple of miles from where the World Trade

Center stood, and the university housed students within a quarter mile of the towers (Paterson,

Bird, Burks, Washington, Ellett, & Daykin, 2007). The magnitude of the crisis and the level of

panic involved resulted in communication issues: cell phone towers reached maximum capacity

and airwaves became congested, preventing phone calls between friends, family, and staff

members as well as emergency response agencies. Consequently, NYU staff made use of the

university’s website as well as email in order to communicate emergency information, including


updates on the tragedy as well as more immediate concerns such as the housing location(s) of

displaced students (Paterson et al., 2007).

While it might seem that natural disasters should be more predictable than terrorist

attacks such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001, the aftermath of storms and other

weather events creates unpredictable and sometimes dangerous conditions. New Orleans,

Louisiana is no stranger to hurricanes; however, the city was not prepared for the unexpected

turn Hurricane Katrina made in August 2005. As the hurricane approached, Tulane University

made the decision to close campus with the hope of reopening in just a few days, not knowing

the destruction the storm would cause on campus and in surrounding areas. Though Tulane had

an emergency plan, the university did not include provisions for communicating with students

under a complete collapse of their communication systems. Though largely without cell phone

service and power, as in the 9/11 tragedy at NYU, Tulane updated the university website

constantly and eventually set up a call center to deal with inquiries from students, staff, and

faculty (Whitely, Felice, & Bailey, 2007).

Despite the catastrophic nature of the aforementioned campus crises, there is perhaps no

more terrifying of an event to a campus community than an active shooter situation.

Unfortunately, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) experienced a

campus shooting of significant proportions in 2007. During one of the most devastating

shootings in recent history, a student shot and killed 32 people and himself on the Virginia Tech

campus. Two separate incidents occurred—one that killed two people in a residence hall, and

one (two hours later) that killed 30 people in another campus building (Goldberg, 2007).

University officials failed to send students a notification of the first shooting until just before the

second incident occurred, and unfortunately, the email that was sent did not tell students to leave


class or find safe shelter despite the fact that the gunman had not been located and apprehended

(Barnett, 2007). Though we can never know for sure, it is possible that lives could have been

saved if students were notified and instructed to take cover immediately after the first incident

occurred.

Though technically a local tragedy, the Virginia Tech massacre made national headlines

and changed the way many higher education administrators thought about campus safety

(Hodgson, 2012). Students, faculty, and staff at the College of Charleston experienced their own

violent crisis events—one false alarm and one national tragedy—in 2015. The first of these

incidents particularly highlighted the need for clear and timely communication in the midst of a

crisis. On February 10, 2015, an anonymous caller told a 911 operator he had a bomb in a

specific building at the university and that he “[wanted] to shoot someone” and himself

(Munday, 2015, n.p.). Several communication issues transpired following that call, with the first

being students’ experience of chaos and confusion before receiving any official communication

from the College itself. As the campus is fairly compact, many students lived or attended classes

in the buildings affected by the bomb threat, and many were unsure what their physical

movement should entail if they found themselves in a compromised area. It was initially unclear

to those witnessing the confusion if classes were still in session and if anyone was in immediate

danger.

The College of Charleston utilizes an opt-in emergency text, email, and phonecall

notification system known as Cougar Alert. Unfortunately, after the initial confusion, the first

notification was a Cougar Alert that a dispatcher accidentally sent out stating, “A bomb has been

found on campus. If you are on campus, prepare immediately for possible evacuation. If you are

not in the area, stay away,” even though no bomb had actually been found (Bacon, 2015, n.p.).


Minutes later, another Cougar Alert was sent out that corrected the original error. The conflicting

messages added additional confusion to an already uncertain situation. Ultimately, no one was in

much danger that day, but if the 911 caller had decided to open fire on campus, he would have

had access to the many confused students who were crowded around the bomb threat scene.

Few people need reminding of the other incident that occurred in 2015 near the College

of Charleston campus. On June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof opened fire on a group of people inside

Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (Emanuel AME) Church in downtown Charleston.

Though the shooting did not occur at the College of Charleston, the church is just three blocks

from campus and the suspect’s location was unknown following his departure from the scene of

the crime. He ultimately made no attempt to do so, but it was discovered later that Roof may

have initially intended to attack the College of Charleston rather than the church (Fox News,

2015). It is important to note that many students lived on campus over the summer for part-time

jobs, internships, and summer school, but no official notification was sent out to students on the

night of the massacre. Further, some calls to the public safety office on campus were never

answered, so students living on campus were forced to turn to other outlets to find information.

Aside from the general importance of crisis communication on campus to protect students

and others from direct harm, it is vital to consider where students might stumble upon or seek out

additional information when threats surface. The University of Missouri learned the power of

social media and word-of-mouth communication in November 2015, when a user of the

anonymous social media messaging app, Yik Yak, threatened to “shoot every black person” he

saw in the wake of race-related protests at the school (Yan & Stapleton, 2015, n.p.). While

administrators attempted to make decisions about what safety measures to take, they fought to

dispel rumors circulating on social media and among students regarding other threats—one of


which involved the possibility of the Ku Klux Klan arriving on campus (Yan & Stapleton, 2015).

How did students receive this information, and why did they deem it credible enough to share it

with others? These are two important questions to answer for effective communication during a

campus crisis.

Many colleges and university administrators, consciously or subconsciously, hold the

belief that crises “happen only to other institutions” (Booker, 2014, p. 17). The reality is that a

crisis will occur at some point, but its impact can be mitigated with proper communication in the

midst of the chaos. During just two weeks in the month of November 2015, over a dozen college

campuses were threatened by violence (New, 2015). In the environmental realm, natural

disasters are likely to increase based on the scientific trend of the last three decades. According

to a 2013 study, “there were three times as many natural disasters from 2000 through 2009 as

there were from 1980 through 1989” (Leaning & Guha-Sapir, 2013, n.p.). Weather related or not,

not all crises can be predicted, but faculty and staff can and should prepare, nonetheless.

Unfortunately, current studies show that many colleges and universities are only properly

prepared for those crises they have experienced previously (Mitroff, Diamon, & Alpaslan, 2006).

The situation appears even more grim when one considers that only 58 percent of those

institutions that responded to a survey by the Campus Safety and Security Project said “templates

exist to facilitate the preparation of emergency messages for communication throughout campus”

(Campus Safety and Security Project, 2009, p. 22). This means over 40 percent of surveyed

institutions had no way to notify all or most of their students, faculty, and staff in the event of an

emergency. Furthermore, 70 percent of respondents who had emergency notification systems

said faculty, staff, and students had to opt-in to the service (Campus Safety and Security Project,

2009). In the absence of mass notification systems, or in the case that some people do not enroll,


what is the best way to reach the campus community in the wake of a threat? Do students depend

on these systems for crisis information when they are available, or are other channels preferable?

The current study intends to investigate the aforementioned questions by exploring what

media channels students are most likely to access during a crisis and why, in in the hopes of

helping university administrators to reach their target audience, minimize misinformation, and

keep students safe. Of course, institutions have always been concerned with these issues, but the

era of new media has heightened the public’s demand for communication. As Karyn Hodgson

put it, “in an age that is all about information, people have a high expectation that they will be

informed and given instructions when an unexpected event occurs” (2012, p. 44).

The following chapter will review relevant literature concerning crisis communication

and campus crisis management. Chapter 3 will discuss the methods used for data collection and

analysis, while Chapter 4 will detail the results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 will interpret the

significance of the results of the research in regard to crisis communication on college campuses

as well as provide recommendations for practice and research.


Chapter 2: Literature Review

Types of Crises

Cases such as Virginia Tech illustrate the importance of addressing and modifying

university communication plans in times of crisis. For the purposes of the present study, a crisis

shall be defined as “an event, which is often sudden or unexpected, that disrupts the normal

operations of the institution or its educational mission and threatens the well-being of personnel,

property, financial resources, and/or the reputation of the institution” (Rollo & Zdziarski, 2007,

p. 27-28). This definition first emphasizes unanticipated incidents, which are often also those that

require immediate action to ensure the safety of stakeholders. The rest of the definition speaks to

the primary focus of this study, which is not necessarily on incidents such as college personnel

scandals, administrative concerns, or budgeting problems but rather those emergencies that

endanger a university’s students, faculty, and/or staff and require the quick dissemination of

information.

The various types of crisis a college or university could potentially face include

environmental, facility, and human crises (Zdziarski, Dunkel, & Rollo, 2007). Environmental

crises involve anything weather-related, including hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding, and

tornadoes. Though theoretically any campus is susceptible to most of these, some are more

vulnerable than others. For example, schools on the Southeastern coast (like Tulane) might focus

more on preparing for hurricanes, while one near the San Andreas fault in California might need

to concentrate on earthquakes. Similarly, facility crises concern the structural and functional

integrity of campus buildings. Possible facility incidents include fires, water or power outages,

gas leaks and chemical spills as well as actual damage to the structure of the building (Zdziarski

et al., 2007). Finally, human crises are those caused, intentionally or unintentionally, by human


beings. These might include campus crime, from individual assaults and homicides to mass

shootings, bombings, vehicular accidents, terror attacks, and arson.

Crisis Communication

Regardless of type, communication with affected publics is vital during a crisis situation.

Early research in crisis communication found that an organization’s communication during a

crisis shapes public views both of the crisis and the organization itself (Coombs, 1995). Further,

it is important for the organization to be proactive in its communication so that media outlets can

accurately portray the crisis situation to the public (Bataille & Cordova, 2014). If the

organization does not provide consistent updates, it more or less forces stakeholders to depend

on the media and regulatory agencies for information; “in other words, the organization runs the

risk of allowing others to interpret the event and frame its meaning” (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer,

2003, p. 71).

Making communication during crisis even more complex, stakeholder theory suggests

that there is no single audience for crisis communication and that organizations should consider a

number of audiences when constructing crisis-related messages (Coombs, 1995). Stakeholders

are “any groups of people internal or external to an organization who have a stake in the actions

of the organization” (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2007, p. 22). In the case of a college or

university, primary stakeholders that might require information during or following a crisis

include students (current, former, and prospective), parents of students, staff members, faculty

members, legislators, donors, community constituents (business leaders, emergency workers,

hospitals, etc.), relatives and friends of any victims, media, funding and granting agencies, and

the general public (Lawson, 2007).


Crisis communication can be defined as “the collection, processing, and dissemination of

information required to address a crisis situation” (Coombs, 2012, p. 20). This definition is broad

to accommodate the three-stage model Coombs uses to describe crisis: pre-crisis, crisis event (or

crisis response), and post-crisis. The pre-crisis stage involves warning signs of crisis, prevention

measures, and crisis preparation. The crisis event stage begins with a “trigger event” (Coombs,

2007b, p. 19) and ends when the crisis is deemed resolved; this stage is the primary focus of the

current study. The post-crisis stage can last for any length of time. Actions associated with the

post-crisis stage include learning from the crisis, evaluating the organization’s crisis

management, communicating with stakeholders, and monitoring issues related to the crisis

(Coombs, 2007b).

Similarly to Coombs three-stage model, Situational Crisis Communication Theory

(SCCT) provides a framework for understanding the factors that affect organizational reputation

during and following a crisis situation. SCCT is made up of three “core elements: (1) the crisis

situation, (2) crisis response strategies, and (3) a system for matching the crisis situation and

crisis response strategies” (Coombs, 2006, p. 243). The crisis situation is composed of four

additional sub-elements: crisis type, severity of damage, crisis history, and relationship history.

According to SCCT, potential damage to the organization’s reputation is a function of crisis

responsibility, or how much stakeholders blame the organization for the crisis, in addition to

intensifying factors, which include crisis history and relationship history (Coombs, 2006). Crisis

history refers to whether the organization has experienced similar crises in the past, and

relationship history refers to the rapport (or lack thereof) the organization has built with

stakeholders.


The heart of SCCT is Coombs’s set of crisis response strategies, which include denying,

diminishing, and dealing with the crisis (2006). While response messaging is not the focus of this

study, the implications of crisis messaging are vitally important. As Coombs puts it, “what an

organization says and does after a crisis hits…has significant ramifications for its reputation”

(2006, p. 245). In the case of a college or university, its reputation is everything. In the first

place, all nonprofit organizations must rely on external funding, and therefore must continually

convince donors and government officials of their worth. Furthermore, for colleges and

universities specifically, “a loyal and stable student population is crucial in order to continue

their operations” (Snoeijers, Poels, & Nicolay, 2014, p. 648). While timely and appropriate

communication throughout a crisis event is important in and of itself, it may also affect long-

term organizational reputation. For example, if stakeholders feel the university communicated

poorly during a previous crisis, they may be more likely to blame the university for a crisis in the

future. Therefore, knowing the best ways to effectively and efficiently communicate during crisis

is important to successful crisis response efforts.

Sturges provides three “strategic foci” for crisis response strategies: instructing

information, adjusting information, and reputation repair (as cited in Coombs, 2012, p. 29).

Regardless of the crisis situation, communication during or immediately following a crisis event

must provide instructing information. Instructing information includes what happened in the

crisis, what those affected should do to protect themselves, and steps the organization is taking to

solve or correct the problem. Adjusting information communicates how to cope psychologically

with a crisis, while reputation repair strategies attempt to mitigate the damage caused by the

crisis (Coombs, 2012).


Instructing information should be an organization’s first concern as it relates most closely

to public safety (Coombs, 2012), though the subject has been largely neglected in recent crisis

communication research. Since the intent is to communicate the most pertinent details of a crisis

to affected stakeholders, “instructing information is especially critical during health

crises…natural disasters, and other events that threaten public safety and well-being” (Kim,

Avery, & Lariscy, 2011, p. 185). In the case of an event that could disrupt daily patterns of

operation for students, faculty, campus offices, university transportation systems, or major

school activities such as graduation or awards ceremonies, relevant stakeholders need to know

what to expect as well as what actions they should take as a result (Bataille & Cordova, 2014).

Further, instructing information is integral in a crisis situation, so not providing it—or not

communicating it proficiently via effective channels to essential publics—could severely damage

organizational reputation or worse; “in essence, a failure to protect the safety of stakeholders will

breed a second crisis” (Coombs, 2012, p. 29).

Crisis communication is made particularly difficult by the ambiguity inherent in crisis

situations. Stakeholders, especially those directly involved with or affected by the crisis, want

detailed answers quickly (Ulmer et al., 2007), but specific details are not always possible. On the

one hand, it is better to send information out quickly so that stakeholders are well informed and

protected; on the other hand, information distributed too quickly could be inaccurate, which

could mislead the public or worse (Mastrodicasa, 2008). Weick explains that “there is a delicate

tradeoff between dangerous action which produces understanding and safe inaction which

produces confusion” (as cited in Seeger et al., 2003). According to Coombs (2007a), “instructing

information must be quick and accurate to be useful”(para. 19), and it must be distributed to all

victims or potential victims of a crisis.


Campus Crisis Management

There can be both direct and indirect consequences that result from a university’s

handling of a crisis. The 1990 Clery Act requires staff to notify the campus population regarding

“a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat to the health or

safety of students or employees occurring on the campus” (Layton, 2014). In 2014, seven years

after the Virginia Tech massacre, the university paid $32,500 in fines for “not adequately

[warning] its campus community” when the shooting first began (Layton, 2014). Virginia Tech

is a tragic example of poor communication during a campus crisis, but the last thing colleges and

universities need is a government-mandated financial penalty to add to the loss suffered from the

crisis itself. For that reason alone, staff should be more inclined to handle crises effectively.

Most colleges and universities operate under an “ethic of care” for students, staff, and

faculty (Rollo & Zdziarski, 2007, p. 5). In regard to students specifically, higher education

institutions are often viewed as guardians, looking after young adults who are away from their

homes and parents. Missteps made in the management of crises, especially those that involve

violent crime like the shooting at Virginia Tech, violate this expectation of the ethic of care.

Smaller institutions in particular are expected to provide students with personal attention and

cater to their needs. If this principle of care is to be upheld, the institution must “reach out to its

constituencies with compassion, concern, and sensitivity to the situation at hand” (Rollo &

Zdziarski, 2007, p. 5) especially during a crisis. If students, faculty, staff, and parents expect that

the institution act in a certain way, the actual behavior of the organization either confirms or

contradicts stakeholders’ positive view of the institution.

Furthermore, the close relationship between students and their parents has direct

consequences for colleges and universities. Parents of traditional students expect their children’s


safety to be of utmost importance to university staff (Mastrodicasa, 2008). The “typical family”

relies more on parental income than student income (Sallie Mae, 2014), so it logically follows

that parents possess significant power over the college decision-making process. Parents might

not be inclined to send their children to a school that appears to have handled a crisis situation

poorly. In other words, if the institution’s behavior contradicts the ethic of care, its reputation -

and therefore its recruitment success - could be compromised.

An additional issue with crisis communication, particularly concerning college campuses,

is students’ usage of and access to different communications technologies. A recent study found

that African American students were less likely to own cell phones than their white peers, and

students from lower income brackets (<$9,999 a year) were less likely to own cell phones than

students from higher income brackets ($50,000-$74,999 and $100,000-$149,000) (Junco,

Merson, & Salter, 2010). There was less of a difference found between ownership of or access to

computers, but computer use may not be particularly helpful in a crisis. If students are not near a

computer when a crisis breaks, and they do not own a cell phone, they are forced to rely on

word-of-mouth communication from people who may or may not be accurately informed of the

facts.

The aforementioned challenges highlight the importance of universities assessing the

needs of their specific student populations (Mastrodicasa, 2008) based on setting (urban/rural),

student demographics (race, gender, age, income), size (small, medium, large), student residency

(whether the majority of students lives on or off campus), and likely severe weather events (if

prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or flooding). For example, the College of Charleston

is a mid-sized urban Southeastern university frequently affected or threatened by flooding and

hurricanes. The College’s urban setting also affects crisis management in regard to public


safety—the campus is open, meaning anyone can walk onto it, making it difficult to “secure”. In

addition, the vast majority of students live off campus (College of Charleston, 2014), so relying

on residence hall or other staff to relay important information to students during a crisis is not a

viable option. Knowing the specific characteristics of a given university can help staff identify

“ticking time bombs” (Mitroff, Diamond, & Alpaslan, 2006). The literature indicates that most

crises provide warning signs leading up to a potential crisis; therefore, analyzing the campus, its

buildings, its location, etc. can help administrators identify which issues could become crises due

to external or internal events.

Information-Seeking Behavior

Information management throughout all stages of crisis is critical to maintaining positive

relationships with stakeholders both during and following crisis. The informational challenges

organizations face during crisis include, but are not limited to, lack of information, changing

information, multiple sources of information, information uncertainty, credibility of information

sources, and conflicting information (Hagar, 2010). From the perspective stakeholders, these

challenges can produce uncertainty regarding the accuracy of information and how to react to it.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory provides insight on the valuable and necessary role that

instructing information plays during crisis. In general, uncertainty is the “inability to determine

the present or predict the future” (Ulmer et al., 2007, p. 18). As Belkin outlines, people faced

with an “anomalous state of knowledge” (ASK) may seek information to fill the gap or

uncertainty in their knowledge base (Case, 2002, p. 69). If the ASK has not been satisfactorily

managed after consulting further information, the person is either left with another ASK or

simply loses motivation to resolve it. More specifically, “crisis-induced uncertainty” (Ulmer,

Sellnow, & Seeger, 2007) results from surprise, lack of knowledge regarding the cause or


consequences of the crisis, and previously held assumptions regarding crisis (Seeger et al.,

2003). Individuals might be faced with an ASK concerning the facts of the crisis as well as what

they should do to protect themselves. Additionally, stakeholders seek information during a crisis

“in an effort to determine whether or not to maintain their ongoing relationship with the

organization” (Seeger et al., 2003, p. 71). In order to locate the information required to reduce

uncertainty, individuals turn to certain sources of information, including different media, to

manage their uncertainty.

Emerging research in the field suggests that information source affects the information-

seeking behaviors of stakeholders during a crisis, though the relationship appears to be complex.

Austin, Liu, and Jin (2012) found that university students were more likely to seek additional

information when the initial information they received came from a third-party source rather than

the organization itself. This research implies that, in lieu of an immediate response from the

organization, students might seek and obtain information (accurate or not) from a multitude of

sources before they receive a statement from the university. Additional studies indicate that

students are more likely to share crisis-related messages on social media when they come from

someone in a “CEO” role, such as a dean of student affairs, versus the “impersonal” campus-

wide social media account (Snoeijers et al., 2014). Further research on the source of instructing

information during crisis is necessary to determine which sources students rely on during crises

and why.

Role of Media Channels in Crisis Communication

The current study will link the information-seeking framework to Media Dependency

Theory (MDT), developed by Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur. Media Dependency Theory states that

individuals in society are dependent upon the “mass media” for information gathering needs of


all types (Ball-Rokeach & DeFleur, 1976). This dependency on certain channels is influenced by

the specific goals a person has for using media and the number of “functional alternatives”

available to them (Li, 2014). Gordon points out that, “despite strong parallels between MDT

theory and concepts of social disruption and perceived threat, the literature employing MDT

principles in the study of crisis communication is immature” (2009, p. 3). However, according to

Lowrey (2004), “during periods of uncertainty and stress, the goals of understanding and

orientation have proved important” (p. 341). Information sought for understanding is used for

“comprehension and interpretation of society and self” while information for orientation includes

“obtaining guides or cues for specific tasks and behaviors” (Lowrey, 2004, p. 341). The

orientation goal in particular correlates strongly with Coombs’s concept of instructing

information, which is meant to guide stakeholders toward specific behaviors to ensure safety

during crisis. Therefore, identifying the best way to communicate with stakeholder audiences

during a crisis as well as knowing where they expect to find instructing information is essential

to the crisis communication approach adopted.

Most existing studies involving media use during crisis have dealt with traditional media,

primarily because these studies were conducted in a time when digital and social media channels

were simply emerging. In their study of media channel choices leading up to Hurricane Danny,

which landed near the Alabama-Florida border in July 1997, Piotrowski and Armstrong (1998)

found that those affected by the hurricane “relied on local television coverage and local radio

reports/bulletins as their major information/news sources” (p. 343). A smaller proportion of the

sample watched the Weather Channel or CNN, and even fewer people used “Internet weather

sites and weather-band radio” (Piotrowski & Armstrong, 1998, p.343). Along the same lines,

during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, many people found


out about the crisis through person-to-person communication and four out of five people

surveyed sought further information via television (local and cable broadcasts) (Carey, 2002).

Radio continued to play a significant role as those traveling in automobiles tried to keep updated

on the most recent reports. The Internet and email played “important but secondary roles,” as

only six percent described the Internet as their “primary source of news” on September 11

(Carey, 2002, p. 203). Particularly important to the body of literature concerning media use

during crisis was Carey’s finding that “the media mix on and after September 11 was

complementary and, in some cases, redundant—with one medium filling in when another was

unavailable” (2002, p. 206), suggesting that choosing which media to invoke might involve

different, but related, information-seeking goals and therefore multiple channels for the same

crisis event.

Even as early as 1990, crisis communication researchers identified the “CNN effect,”

whereby the rise of twenty-four-seven news coverage, with channels such as the Cable News

Network (CNN), FOX News, and MSNBC, forced organizations to quicken the pace of crisis

management. With near-constant news coverage, cable news outlets jumped at the chance to

report on crises, putting intense pressure on the affected organizations. In order to maintain

images of good leadership, organizations learned they must respond quickly during crisis

situations (Mastrodicasa, 2008). The Internet and social media facilitate this process as it is often

quicker and easier to constantly update information online rather than through traditional,

especially print, media. As Li (2014) points out, “high dependency on the Internet and other

Internet-based media channels for information [has become] a noticeable phenomenon” with

advancements in media technology (p. 629). However, the subject of new media is

underdeveloped and insubstantial in the crisis communication literature. In fact, one of the least


explored areas is social media use during crises, both by the organization itself and third-party

users (stakeholders and others).

Social media is a valuable focus for further investigation because existing research

suggests that social media use tends to increase during crisis events; for example, before a severe

storm in Belgium, the public posted more than 2,000 related tweets (Fraustino, Liu, & Jin, 2012).

Furthermore, a significant percentage of the audience for college and university campuses

includes a generation that is dependent on social media as a primary mode of communication in

everyday life (Westlund & Ghersetti, 2014). However, stakeholders within each generation tend

to increase their use of media channels during crisis that they don’t use on a daily basis. In other

words, younger generations turn to more traditional media during crisis than they do in everyday

life and, conversely, older generations turn to more new media during crisis than they do in

everyday life (Westlund & Ghersetti, 2014). Researchers have postulated that this phenomenon

might stem from stakeholders’ attitudes toward various channels and their usefulness during

crisis. Specifically, audiences have been found to use social media during crisis because they

provide real-time information and, at times, unique information generated from other users that

cannot be found elsewhere (Fraustino et al., 2012).

Liu, Austin, and Jin (2011) are the first scholars to explore the relationship between

social media and crisis communication. The researchers proposed the social-mediated crisis

communication model (SMCC) to extend Coombs’s work with SCCT to new media platforms.

The model suggests that publics are motivated to use social media during crises by “issue

relevance, information seeking/sharing, and emotional venting/support” (Liu, Austin, & Jin,

2011). Additionally, SMCC describes three types of publics who interact with an organization to

produce or consume information before, during, and following a crisis. These publics are


influential social media creators, social media followers, and social media inactives. Influential

social media creators produce the crisis information that others, including social media followers,

consume. Social media inactives, on the other hand, indirectly interact with influential social

media creators’ information through word-of-mouth communication (Liu et al., 2011). SMCC

also explores how information form (traditional media, social media, or word-of-mouth) and

source (third party or organization) affect the acceptance of the crisis response strategies

established by Coombs. The model is still in the early stages of testing, but initial findings

indicate that students might find traditional media to be more credible than social media for

informational needs during a crisis (Austin et al., 2012). Furthermore, students are more likely

to utilize social media when traditional media have not yet covered the crisis (Austin et al.,

2012).

The present study extends the scope of analysis from “social media” to “new media,” and

includes “those digital media that are interactive, incorporate two-way communication, and

involve some form of computing” (Logan, 2010, p. 4), e.g. websites, email, social networking

sites, social media apps, etc. New media have become increasingly important for information

gathering; in fact, a 2009 poll by Zogby Interactive found that Americans prefer the Internet as

their primary source of information and believe it to be the most reliable for news (“Zogby,”

2009). Furthermore, the PEW Internet and Social Life Project found that two-thirds of people

who use the Internet, across all age groups, also use social media (as cited in Fraustino et al.,

2012). If, as Carey (2002) found in the aforementioned study, audiences do in fact use multiple

media channels complementarily during a crisis, the interference of information from both new

and traditional media sources might interfere with official responses from the university. All of


this points to the importance of timely organizational response via appropriate and efficient

channels.

With this in mind, the current study seeks to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What media channels do students access for information during a crisis?

RQ2: What factors influence students’ choice of media channels for information during a

crisis?


Methodology

The purpose of this study was to identify the media channels that students are most likely

to use during a crisis event as well as what is most important to them in choosing those media

channels. Quantitative methods were employed for the study for two reasons: 1) existing

literature on crisis communication provided a solid foundation from which to build, and 2) the

multiple media channels investigated motivated a variety of questions best distributed as a

survey. Though qualitative methods would serve a valuable role for further research, the

exploratory nature of the study pointed the researcher toward a quantitative survey to investigate

the research questions posed.

Although the literature surrounding crisis communication is robust, the current study uses

an inductive method of reasoning, which moves from “a set of specific observations to the

discovery of a pattern that represents some degree of order among all the given events” (Baxter

& Babbie, 2004, p. 69), because few studies have specifically investigated audience attitudes

toward both traditional and social media channels during crisis. Therefore, the researcher had no

testable hypothesis to guide the investigation. Instead, the survey results have been used to draw

preliminary conclusions about student media choice during crisis on which to build for future

research.

It is important to note that the research protocol was reviewed and approved by the

university’s Institutional Review Board [IRB-2015-12-02-110518] on January 23, 2016.

Following IRB approval, data collection commenced on February 29, 2016 and finished on

March 15, 20161. The following chapter will first provide an overview of the quantitative

methods employed for the data collection before outlining the approach to data analysis.

1 For all IRB materials, see Appendices A, B, and C


Participant Selection and Data Collection

A survey was used to collect quantitative data. As mentioned above, a survey was

deemed appropriate in part due to its flexibility; as Baxter and Babbie (2004) point out, “many

questions may be asked on a given topic” (p. 199). The present study sought to investigate a

variety of variables related to the media channels used by students on college campuses during

crisis, so a survey seemed particularly appropriate. Participants were recruited using known-

group sampling, a type of purposive sampling. According to Baxter and Babbie (2004),

purposive sampling relies on the researcher’s own knowledge of the population in order to select

an appropriate sample for study. More specifically, known-group sampling involves intentionally

selecting groups of people known to have experience with the variable(s) in question (Hocking,

Stacks, & McDermott, 2003). Because the target audience was college-aged individuals who

access various media channels on a daily basis, the researcher visited classrooms and club

meetings at a mid-sized Southeastern university. Specifically, the researcher visited classes in the

departments of Communication, Public Health, and Business, as well as a large student club

whose members are quite diverse in major and academic classification.

Furthermore, the sample was limited to students who had attended the university for at

least one year to ensure that respondents were enrolled during the aforementioned crises that

transpired at or near the campus that serves as the setting for the study. The final sample included

150 total respondents—11% were sophomores, 34% juniors, and 55% seniors. Though graduate

students were not precluded form the survey, none were specifically sought out and none

completed the survey. During each classroom visit, the researcher verbally reviewed the

informed consent document with the participants and physically distributed the survey to those


students who were willing to participate. The researcher collected the surveys upon completion

and stored them until data entry and analysis commenced.

The survey consisted of three sets of questions: demographic questions, attitudinal

questions including the opinions and perceptions of different media channels, and behavioral

questions including usage of different media channels2. All of the questions were closed-ended,

with the singular exception being the availability of an “Other” option on appropriate questions.

Demographic questions asked included the student’s major, classification (year in school),

gender identity, race/ethnicity, and housing status (on- or off-campus). See below for an example

of the demographics questions asked of respondents:

3. With which gender do you identify? a. Male b. Female c. Neither d. Both e. Other (please specify): _______________________

Question #6 through #13 asked students to identify which media channels they use during

crisis situations, including during specific types of weather-, building/facilities-, and human-

related crises (see Chapter 2 for a definition of each of these). Below is an example of these

types of questions:

7. During an emergency situation on or near campus, which media channels do you use to seek further information? Check all that apply.

a. School website b. School social media accounts c. Other social media accounts (third-party Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Yik-Yak,

blogs, etc.) d. Email from school e. Emergency alert system (Cougar Alert) f. Television news g. Word-of-mouth (i.e. talking to peers or professors on campus) h. Other, please specify:

2 For reference, the informed consent forms and survey are provided in Appendices A and B


The last set of questions (#13 through #19) involved seven sets of semantic differential

questions, each corresponding to one of the media channels listed in questions six through 13.

Semantic differential questions “ask respondents to choose between two opposite positions”

(Baxter & Babbie, 2004, p. 181). The present survey employed three semantic differential

questions that asked if each media channel identified was helpful/not helpful, credible/not

credible, and timely/not timely. See below for an example:

13. During a crisis, I find the school website to be: *Note: by “timely,” we mean “up-to-date” or having the most recent information

1 2 3 4 5 Not at all helpful Neutral Very helpful

1 2 3 4 5 Not at all credible

Neutral Very credible

1 2 3 4 5 Not at all

timely Neutral Very timely

The final question of the survey asked respondents for their contact information only if

they would be interested in participating in additional research on the topic of crisis

communication on college campuses.

Data Analysis

Analysis of the survey data included descriptive statistics of frequencies and averages as

well as some Chi square tests of the variables in question. Raw frequencies were deemed

appropriate because it is helpful to understand how many students reported using each of the

media channels discussed. Additionally, average scores calculated for the semantic differential

questions helped quantify how students felt about each media channel in terms of the three

relevant and valuable objectives—helpfulness, credibility, and timeliness—used to plot opinions.

While the arithmetic mean can be susceptible to extreme values (Baxter & Babbie, 2004), that


was not a concern in this study as the only values possible for those questions was 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or

no answer. It will also be useful to calculate the standard deviation, which describes the

dispersion of the data set around the mean (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). In other words, the standard

deviation shows how much variation exists in the data—in our case, for each question.

Aside from basic descriptive statistics, contingency tables were also created for select

variables. Contingency tables display “the relationships among variables in the form of

percentage distributions” (Baxter & Babbie, 2004, p. 421). The Chi square statistic was used to

analyze whether any of the counts in the contingency tables for certain variables were outside of

the range expected by chance alone. This statistic was appropriate for much of the data in the

survey as it was mostly nominal-level data. The results gathered from these statistics cannot be

extrapolated to any larger population due to the use of non-probability sampling, but they could

be used as inspiration for future research in the field.

Chapter 4 will discuss the results of the data analysis described above and Chapter 5 will

follow with a discussion of the results and recommendations for research and practice based on

the study’s findings.


Chapter 4: Results

As laid out in Chapter 3, this study employed a survey in order to collect quantitative data

about students’ usage of and attitude toward various media channels during campus crises. This

chapter reports the results of that survey3. First, the characteristics of the final sample will be

described. The next section will share the frequency of usage reported for each media channel.

Average scores for each media channel (in terms of helpfulness, timeliness, and credibility) will

then be provided, followed by cross-tabulations and Chi square statistics for select variables.

Sample Characteristics

The final sample consisted of 150 respondents, though not every respondent answered

every question in the survey. There were 30 different majors represented, with some students

reporting double- and triple- majors. The three most commonly reported majors were

Communication, Public Health, and International Business. The majority of the sample was

comprised of seniors (54.7%), but juniors (34%) and sophomores (11.3%) also completed the

survey. Freshmen were excluded due to reasons described in Chapter 3. The overwhelming

majority of students surveyed (88%) lived in off-campus housing.

The sample was 74.7% female and 25.3% male. Although “neither” and “other” options

were provided for the gender identity question, no respondents indicated these. The sample

overwhelmingly self-identified as “White/Caucasian.” About 84% of the sample identified as

White only, 7% as Black only, 1% as Latino or Hispanic only, 1% as Asian only, 1% as Pacific

Islander only. No respondents identified as Native American. Additionally, several respondents

indicated they identified with two races or ethnicities—White and Latino/Hispanic; White and

3 Due to the number of answer choices (media channels) provided for questions six through eight and 10 through 12, only the three most frequently chosen channels will be reported in the chapter for these questions.


Asian; and White and Black. The researcher sought to create a sample representative of the

university rather than the entire population of college students in the United States. Therefore,

though the sample was heavily skewed toward females and White students, this reflects the

population at the university. The percentage of females to males is about 64% to 36% and the

population of minority students is about 15% (College of Charleston, 2014), which reflects the

portion of non-White students surveyed in this study.

Frequency of Media Channel Usage During Crisis

The second set of questions in the survey targeted students’ usage of different media

channels during crisis. The most commonly chosen channel for nearly all of the questions asked

was the university’s emergency alert system. When asked how respondents first learned about

any campus crises they have experienced, 48% of the 150 respondents indicated the emergency

alert system, nearly 43% reported learning about the crisis through word-of-mouth

communication, and 29% stated they read about the crisis on third-party social media accounts4.

In reference to which channels they used to seek further information about the crisis, 58%

indicated emails from the university, 53% indicated the emergency alert system, and 46%

indicated word-of-mouth communication5. The media channels most likely to be accessed first in

a campus crisis were the emergency alert system (37.3%), emails from the university (34.6%),

and third-party social media accounts (15.3%). When asked for the primary reason they chose

certain media channels over others, as indicated in the previous questions, respondents reported

4 Because of the nature of a self-directed, physically distributed survey, many respondents chose multiple channels even on questions for which they were not instructed to “check all that apply.” Therefore, percentages provided indicate the portion of the 150 respondents who indicated that media channel, though they may have chosen several others as well. 5 Emails from the university are technically a part of the emergency alert system. See discussion of this issue in the Limitations section of Chapter 5.


the credibility of information most frequently (37.3%) followed by timeliness (35.3%), ease of

access (34.6%), and depth of information (11.3%)6.

The last three questions in this section asked students to indicate their media channel

preferences in three specific types of crises: weather, facilities, and human. In weather-related

crises, students reported first accessing a weather website or app (48%), television news (29%),

the emergency alert system (19%), and emails from the school (19%). In facilities crises,

students said they were most likely to access the emergency alert system (46%) followed by

emails from the school (41%) and word-of-mouth communication (10%). Finally, in human-

caused crises students said they were most likely to access the emergency alert system (39%),

emails from the university (29%), or television news (21%).

For every question in this section, a response of “other” was permitted with a space for

respondents to write out their alternative answer. In the instance that a respondent indicated a

media channel not provided as an answer choice, the response was recorded in a separate

document. Seven students reported learning about crises or seeking further information on

internet news sites not associated with the university; four students reported learning about crises

via text messages from friends; and the remaining respondents who indicated “other” responses

specified phone calls, Google, and direct experience with the crisis.

Attitude Toward Media Channels During Crisis

For questions 13 through 19, students were asked to rate each media channel presented

on three important attributes: helpfulness, timeliness, and credibility. The results obtained from

the survey for these questions are presented in Table 1. Both the standard deviations and n values

6 As mentioned about previous questions, many respondents indicated more than one answer choice for this question, even though they were not instructed to do so.


for each measure are provided, as not every respondent answered every question7. A rating of (or

close to) one indicates the respondent felt that media channel was not particularly helpful, timely,

or credible in a crisis, whereas a rating of three indicates neutrality and a rating near five

communicates the respondent felt the media channel was very helpful, timely, or credible8. The

media channels with the highest ratings of helpfulness were, in order, emails from the school,

television news, and the emergency alert system. The media channels with the highest ratings of

timeliness were emails from the school, the emergency alert system, and television news. The

media channels with the highest ratings of credibility were third-party social media, word-of-

mouth communication, and television news.

Table 1 Attitudes toward specific media channels, average ratings

Media Channel Helpfulness Timeliness Credibility

Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n

School website 2.80 1.13 148 3.73 1.19 126 2.52 1.16 123

School social media 3.06 1.15 145 3.27 1.06 124 3.09 1.14 122

Third-party social media 3.65 1.12 148 2.78 1.05 127 4.18 1.03 125

Emails from school 4.03 1.09 146 4.19 1.04 127 3.29 1.24 128

Emergency alert system 3.77 1.28 149 3.93 1.20 127 3.59 1.36 126

Television news 3.81 1.14 149 3.79 1.06 125 3.69 1.03 124

Word-of-mouth 3.72 1.05 148 2.76 0.92 126 4.02 1.07 125

7 See discussion in Limitations, Chapter 5 8 To see an example of these questions reprinted, see Chapter 3 or Appendix B.


Most data for each measure vary only about one value from the mean (or slightly higher),

though there were several standard deviations that were substantially higher than the others—for

example, the “credibility” rating for the channel “emails from school,” as well as all of the

ratings for the emergency alert system. The “timeliness” ratings for word-of-mouth

communication were the only data with a standard deviation less than one.

Cross-tabulations for Select Variables

As mentioned in Chapter 3, contingency tables (or cross-tabulations) and Chi square

statistics were calculated for select variables in the data set. The first two variables compared

were housing location (on- or off-campus), represented by question #5, and how students first

learned about past campus crises, represented by question #6. Housing location was also

compared to the media channels students reported being most likely to access first during a

campus crisis, represented by question #8. None of the counts for either of these comparisons

were outside of the expected range.

The final cross-tabulation compared the media channels students access first during a

crisis (question #8) and the primary reasons they choose those channels during a crisis (question

#9). At the .05 level of significance, participants who selected certain media channels were more

likely to choose some of the reasons provided in question #9 (see Table 2 below). Specifically,

those who reported accessing the school’s website first during a crisis were more likely to select

“ease of access” as the primary reason for that media channel choice9. Those who reported

accessing third-party social media accounts first in a crisis were more likely to choose

“credibility of information” and “timeliness of information” as the primary reasons for their

choice. The same is true for those who indicated accessing emails from the school as their first

9 It should be noted that only seven respondents selected “school website” as their choice for question #8, so the sample size for this particular test statistic is very small.


choice of media channel and those who selected word-of-mouth communication. Finally, those

who selected television news were more likely to report “depth of information” as their primary

reason for choosing that channel over others.

Table 2 Chi square values from cross-tabulation of questions eight and nine

During an emergency situation on campus, what media channel are you

most likely to access first?

What is the primary reason you choose these channels over others?

Ease of access

Credibility of information

Timeliness of information

Depth of information

School website .036 .197 .233 .333 School social media accounts .592 .563 .466 .218 Other social media accounts .157 .000379 .000026 .779 Email from school .726 .000173 .003 .306 Emergency alert system .574 .153 .940 .728 Television news .418 .798 .897 .032 Word-of-mouth .066 .004 .006 .052 *df = 1 for all tests **values significant at the .05 level are bolded


Chapter 5: Discussion

This study investigated the media channels students access for crisis information (RQ1)

and the factors that influence students’ media channel choices (RQ2). After employing a

quantitative survey, the results revealed a focus on use of the emergency alert system as a source

of information. However, third-party social media accounts, word-of-mouth communication, and

television news were reported as the most credible channels. This final chapter will elaborate on

key findings and their implications related to the two research questions posed. Additionally,

limitations to the study and recommendations for best practices and future research will be

discussed.

Key Findings

RQ1: What media channels do students access for information during a crisis?

Respondents most often indicated the emergency alert system and emails from the school

as the channels they used during crisis. Aside from these, word-of-mouth communication and

third-party social media accounts were the next most frequently reported media channels in the

study, and also seen as the two most credible sources overall. This contradicts a recent finding by

Austin, Liu, and Jin (2012) that respondents at a university viewed traditional media as more

credible than social media. In their analysis, however, the scholars cited other research that found

the opposite to be true, thus confirming the findings of the present study. Based on both the

average ratings and the Chi square statistic, the current study found third-party social media

accounts overwhelmingly credible. Austin, et. al (2012) did find face-to-face communication and

text messaging – two forms of word-of-mouth communication – to be frequently used in crisis

situations, which was confirmed by this study as well.


In this same vein, many respondents chose multiple channels for each question that asked

them to report their media channel usage. This suggests that the findings by Carey (2002)

regarding the complementary use of multiple media channels – both traditional and new media –

during a crisis might in fact be accurate. Media Dependency Theory (Ball-Rokeach & DeFleur,

1976) has historically suggested that the public depends on the mass media for information, but

this study and other recent research highlight the importance of information sources closer to

individuals, like friends, family, and peers. Additionally, these sources interact with “official”

sources of information from the university itself. In the current study, the emergency alert system

was popular but the school website and school social media accounts were among the least

frequently selected media channels in the survey. This suggests that perhaps, once receiving

information from the emergency alert system, many individuals turn to additional sources for

verification and additional information, as was suggested by Austin, et. al (2012).

RQ2: What factors influence students’ choice of media channels for information during a

crisis?

As mentioned in Chapter 4, question #9 specifically asked students to identify the

primary reason they choose certain media channels over others during crisis situations. While the

first three choices—ease of access, timeliness of information, and credibility of information—

were chosen with similar frequencies, depth of information was rarely selected. This could be

because the need to manage uncertainty in a crisis often leads individuals to seek multiple

sources of information to verify instructing information rather than focusing on one source

(which may or may not be accurate) in depth. Additionally, this study focused on the crisis event

stage (Coombs, 2007b), which is the time when information is most difficult to confirm.

Therefore, there are few sources that can or do provide in-depth information in the midst of an


emergency, even if students were looking for them. Detailed information might be expected and

reserved for the final stage in crisis communication once immediate informational needs are met.

A major finding specific to the university in question is that the reputation of the

emergency alert system seems to have been largely unaffected by the mishap that occurred

during the bomb threat situation in February 2015. It was surprising to see how many

respondents chose the emergency alert system or “emails from the school” for almost every

question in the second section of the survey. To reference Coombs (2006), this could be because

of the two factors that make up an organization’s crisis reputation: crisis history and relationship

history. First, the College of Charleston had not yet experienced a situation like that of the bomb

threat in which the emergency alert system had to be utilized for an ongoing, potentially

dangerous situation (outside of weather-related issues like ice and flooding, the latter of which is

extremely common in the area). In regard to relationship history, students who responded to the

current survey may have felt that, in their overall experience, the alert system had been accurate

despite this one particular botched attempt.

Finally, it is interesting that the type of crisis seems to affect the types of media channels

accessed in campus crisis situations. Specifically, weather apps/websites and television news

were far more popular in weather-related emergencies than in general, and although the

emergency alert system was still reported most frequently in regard to human crises, television

news came up frequently as well. Television news was also the third-highest rated channel for

credibility in this study. This suggests that, although many people are turning to new media more

frequently for information in their day-to-day lives, television news is still seen as a reliable and

credible source during crisis situations.


Limitations

Though this study provides a good foundation for updating the literature concerning crisis

communication on college campuses, there are several limitations to consider. The most obvious

is that probability sampling was not (and could not be) used in the university setting. This would

have required the researcher to obtain a list of all students’ contact information, which is a

violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Therefore, the results

cannot be generalized to the population of college students in America, but it still provides

direction for additional studies.

An additional limitation concerns the design and interpretation of the survey instrument

(see Appendix B). First, many students chose several media channels even on questions that

asked for “the first” place they found information or the “primary” reason they chose certain

channels. This is a limitation only because the researcher sought to narrow down the most

prominent channels and reasons, so the manner by which many respondents chose to fill out the

survey created a plethora of varied responses rather than singular and/or specific ones.

Furthermore, out of either confusion or an unwillingness to answer, many respondents only rated

each media channel in questions 13 through 19 on helpfulness and skipped the ratings of

timeliness and credibility. This is evident from the n values listed in Table 1 of Chapter 4.

Finally, the list of media channels provided in the survey is a potential limitation to the

study as well. Though the researcher felt prior to survey distribution that the list created

encompassed most of the possible media channel choices students might utilize, it turns out that

some of these categories were confusing or overlapped in some way. For example, “emergency

alert system” and “emails from the school” were listed as two different channels when, in reality,

emails from the school are a part of the emergency alert system at the university in question.


Additionally, “third-party social media accounts” technically refers to any accounts not

associated with the school, which includes both mass media sources (social media accounts of

broadcast news channels and newspapers) and true third-party sources like local residents and

other students. Furthermore, social media posts by non-mass-media sources could also be

considered word-of-mouth communication, if the definition of word-of-mouth is not limited to

face-to-face. In sum, the media channel choices provided on the survey could have been better

combined and/or separated for clearer results. This was difficult to achieve partially because of

the broad scope of the study, which sought to gather a wide array of information in a single

survey. In the future, it might be best to study information form (type of channel) and source

(university, mass media, or third-party) in separate studies.

Recommendations for Practice and Future Research

Table 3 Summary of recommendations for the university • Ensure accuracy and timeliness of Cougar Alerts • Include social media in the crisis communication plan • Focus on cultivating image of the university as a credible source of information during crisis • Create distinct plans for different types of crises (environmental, facilities, and human) • Communicate with mass media sources during crisis so they have accurate information

For the university, the researcher recommends several courses of action. It is important to

note that no difference was found between the information-seeking behaviors of on-campus

versus off-campus residents. On the one hand, this is great news for the university because it

means the same media channels are reaching most of the university’s population. However, it

also means that university staff must ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the messages being

sent through the emergency alert system, considering the vast majority of respondents selected it

as one of their primary sources of information. If these policies and plans have not been recently

revisited, they should be revised as soon as possible.


Additionally, social media needs to be integrated into the university’s crisis plan, as many

students consider social media a credible source of information. Few students selected school

social media accounts as a media channel they used, but they did often select third-party social

media accounts. Though it is unclear why students aren’t using the school’s accounts, it could be

because the university hasn’t placed an emphasis on social media for emergencies. Considering

how many students are using social media in crisis situations, the university should focus on

shifting the perception of the official social media accounts so that the campus community views

them as reliable, timely sources of crisis information.

If university officials are interested in the school being perceived as the most credible

source of information in campus crises, significant attention should be paid to the mix of media

channels utilized during crisis. As mentioned, a special focus on social media would be helpful

to reinforce messages sent out on the campus emergency alert system. Furthermore, the effect of

crisis type on the different media channels students selected should be taken into consideration.

At the very least, a separate crisis communications plan should be formulated for the three main

types of campus crises discussed in this study (environmental, facilities/building, and human).

While it takes much more time and preparation on the part of the university, having plans for

different events helps officials be more prepared for specific situations that require quickly

getting instructing information to the campus population. The use of television news in weather

and human crises in particular highlights the importance of media relations in those types of

crises. As mentioned previously, news channels cannot report accurate information if the

university has not given it to them.

Since the present study provides a strong foundation on which to build, future research

should concentrate on replicating and revising the current survey design, potentially through case


studies. It would be helpful to utilize a specific crisis situation to follow up with stakeholders and

investigate their behaviors and attitudes during that crisis after it has occurred. Additionally,

qualitative or mixed-methods studies are recommended in order to analyze respondents’

preferences and behavior at a deeper level. While the information gathered in this survey was

helpful, the next step is to investigate the experiences and feelings behind the responses provided

here. The interview guide originally submitted to the Institutional Review Board for use in this

study10 can serve as a template for that research11. Questions regarding participants’ media

consumption patterns may include the following:

1. Please describe your daily media diet. Prompt: What channels do you use on a daily basis? Probe: Do you usually watch or read the news, use social media, or check your email? How often?

2. How does your media use or choice of media channel change during a crisis situation? Probe: If you do not watch the news regularly, are you likely to turn it on/read it during a crisis, or utilize other media channels?

3. How do you use social media to access information during a crisis or emergency situation? 4. Do you think social media is as credible as traditional media, such as TV, radio, and newspaper?

Although time limitations did not allow for a qualitative follow up, the researcher

believes interviews would be particularly beneficial for exploring the narrative explanations

behind the quantitative responses. Finally, a tested theoretical approach to media use in campus

crisis must be developed. The Social Mediated Crisis Communication model proposed by Liu,

Austin, and Jin (2011) is a start, but it is still new and hasn’t been sufficiently tested. Although

informative, additional research on social media use during crisis will allow this model to

provide predictive insight for communication professionals to use during crisis. Further, while

Media Dependency Theory, Situational Crisis Communication Theory, and Uncertainty

10 This study initially consisted of a mixed-methods design, but the researcher ran out of time. 11 See Appendix C.


Reduction Theory provided theoretical foundations for this study, many of these need to be

updated to include the media technology popular in the modern era. Further studies will not only

contribute to the body of literature on crisis communication, but also help to update best

practices for university administration to keep students, staff, and the public safe during crises.


References

Austin, L., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2012). How audiences seek out crisis information: Exploring the

Social-Mediated Crisis Communication Model. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 40(2), 188-207.

Bacon, J. (2015, February 10). Bomb threat, botched alert rattle S.C. college. USA Today.

Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/10/college-of-

charleston-bomb-threat/23170701/

Ball-Rokeach, S.J., & DeFleur, M.L. (1976). A dependency model of mass-media effects.

Communication Research, 3(1), 3-21.

Barnett, N. (2007). In retrospect: The PR response to Virginia Tech and beyond. Communication

World, 24(4), 14-15.

Bataille, G.M., & Cordova, D.I. (2014). Managing the unthinkable: Crisis preparation and

response for campus leaders. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Carey, J. (2002). Media use during crisis. Prometheus, 20(3), 201-207.

Cavanaugh, J.C. (2005). Unpredictable is not an option. Planning for Higher Education, 34(4),

49-52.

Case, D.O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs,

and behavior. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

College of Charleston. (2016). At a glance. Retrieved from http://cofc.edu/about/ataglance/

Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the


selection of the “appropriate” crisis-response strategies. Management Communication

Quarterly, 8(4), 447-476.

Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing

reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Management, 12(3), 241-260.

Coombs, W. T. (2007a). Crisis management and communications. Institute for Public Relations.

Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/crisis-management-and-communications/

Coombs, W. T. (2007b). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coombs, W. T. (2012). Parameters for crisis communication. in W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay

(Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication, (pp. 17-53). Southern Gate, UK:

Blackwell Publishing.

Fraustino, J.D., Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2012). Social media use during disasters: A review of the

knowledge base and gaps. College Park, MD: National Consortium for the Study of

Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

Gordon, J, C. (2009). Media Dependency Theory and a tale of two hurricanes: Crisis

communication in Southeast Louisiana for Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago,

IL.

Goldberg, M. (2007, June 19). Questions after Virginia Tech tragedy. CSO Magazine. Retrieved

from http://www.csoonline.com/article/2122524/physical-security/questions-after-

virginia-tech-tragedy.html

Hagar, C. (2010). Introduction. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 36(5), 10-12.


Hocking, J. E., Stacks, D.W., & McDermott, S.T. (2003). Communication research (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Hodgson, K. (2012). Critical campus communication. Security Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/83033-critical-campus-communication

Junco, R., Merson, D., & Salter, D. W. (2010). The effect of gender, ethnicity, and income on

college students’ use of communication technologies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and

Social Networking, 13(6), 619-627.

Kemper, E.A, Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social

science research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in

social and behavioral research (pp. 273-296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kim, S., Avery, E.J., & Lariscy, R.W. (2011). Reputation repair at the expense of providing

instructing and adjusting information following crises. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 5(3), 183-199.

Lawson, C. J. (2007). Crisis communication. In E.L. Zdziarski, N.W. Dunkel, & J.M. Rollo,

Campus crisis management: A comprehensive guide to planning, prevention, response,

and recovery (pp. 255-282). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Layton, L. (2014). Virginia tech pays fine for failure to warn campus during 2007 massacre. The

Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/

virginia-tech-pays-fine-for-failure-to-warn-during-massacre/2014/04/16/45fe051a-c5a6-

11e3-8b9a-8e0977a24aeb_story.html

Leaning, J., & Guha-Sapir, D. (2013). Natural disasters, armed conflict, and public health. The

New England Journal of Medicine, 369(18), 1836-1842.

Li, Xigen. (2014). Perceived channel efficiency and motivation and orientation of information


seeking as predictors of media dependency. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 628-639.

Logan, R.K. (2010). Understanding new media: Extending Marshall McLuhan. New York, NY:

Peter Lang Publishing.

Lowrey, W. (2004). Media dependency during a large-scale social disruption: The case of

September 11. Mass Communication & Society, 7(3), 339-357.

Mastrodicasa, J. (2008). Technology use in campus crisis. New Directions for Student Services,

2008(124), 37-53.

Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H., & Raposo, Mario. (2010). Research on the stakeholders of a

university. Journal of Management and Strategy, 1(1), 76-88.

Mitroff, I.I., Diamond, M.A., & Alpaslan, C.M. (2006). How prepared are America’s colleges

and universities for major crises? Assessing the state of crisis management. Change,

38(1), 60-67.

Munday, D. (2015, February 18). College of Charleston releases 911 recording of bomb,

shooting threat. The Post and Courier. Retrieved from http://www.postandcourier.com/

article/20150218/PC16/150219325

Campus Safety & Security Project. (2009). Results of the National Campus Safety and Security

Project survey. Retrieved from www.nacubo.org/Documents/Initiatives/

CSSPSurveyResults.pdf

New, J. (2015, November 23). In two weeks, more than a dozen campuses targeted by threats of

violence. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/

11/23/two-weeks-more-dozen-campuses-targeted-threats-violence

Paterson, B.G., Bird, L.E., Burks, S.M., Washington, C.K., Ellett, T., & Daykin, A. (2007).


Human Crises. In E.L. Zdziarski, N.W. Dunkel, & J.M. Rollo, Campus crisis

management: A comprehensive guide to planning, prevention, response, and recovery

(pp. 255-282). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Piotrowski, C., & Armstrong, T.R. (1998). Mass media preferences in disaster: A study of

Hurricane Danny. Social Behavior and Personality, 26(4), 341-346.

Rollo, J.M., & Zdziarski, E. L. (2007). The impact of crisis. In E.L. Zdziarski, N.W. Dunkel, &

J.M. Rollo, Campus crisis management: A comprehensive guide to planning, prevention,

response, and recovery (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sallie Mae Bank. (2014). How America pays for college. Sallie Mae’s National Study of College

Students and Parents. Retrieved from http://news.salliemae.com/files/doc_library/file/

HowAmericaPaysforCollege2014FNL.pdf

Seeger, M.W., Sellnow, T.L., & Ulmer, R.R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis.

Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Snoeijers, E.M., Poels, K., & Nicolay, C. (2014). #universitycrisis: The impact of social media

type, source, and information on student responses toward a university crisis. Social

Science Computer Review, 32(5), 647-661.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From data

triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook

of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 671-701). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L, & Seeger, M. W. (2007) Effective crisis communication: moving

from crisis to opportunity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Westlund, O., & Ghersetti, M. (2014). Modelling news media use: Positing and applying the


GC/MC model to the analysis of media use in everyday life and crisis situations.

Journalism Studies, 16(2), 133-151.

Whitely, P., Felice, J., & Bailey, K. (2007). Environmental crises. In E.L. Zdziarski, N.W.

Dunkel, & J.M. Rollo, Campus crisis management: A comprehensive guide to planning,

prevention, response, and recovery (pp. 207-229). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yan, H., & Stapleton., A. (2015, Novemeber 11). University of Missouri students report threats;

police quell KKK rumors. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/us/

university-of-missouri-racism-protest/

Zdziarski, E.L., Dunkel, N.W., & Rollo, J.M. (2007). Campus crisis management: A

comprehensive guide to planning, prevention, response, and recovery. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

“Zogby: Internet now tops TV as news source.” (2009, June 15). Newsmax. Retrieved from

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zogby-poll-internet-tv/2009/06/15/id/330923/


Appendix A: Informed Consent Forms

Consent to Participate in Research Crisis Communication on College Campuses You are invited to participate in this survey because you are a student at the College of Charleston. You must be 18 years or older to participate. The purpose of this research is to identify which media channels students access during emergency situations on campus as well as the factors that influence those media choices. We expect that this survey will take less than 10 minutes to complete. You may skip any questions you do not wish to answer. Participation is entirely voluntary, and you may withdraw at any time. Completion of the survey constitutes your consent to participate in this research. All data obtained will be kept confidential. We ask that you do not provide any information that could identify you personally. If you have any questions before completing this survey, please contact Becca Starkes at [email protected] or the faculty advisor at [email protected]. This research study has been reviewed by the Human Research Protection Program at the College of Charleston. For information about the review process, please contact the Office of Research and Grants Administration, [email protected] or 843-953-7421. Consent to Participate in Research Crisis Communication on College Campuses

You are invited to participate in a research study. This research, to be conducted by Honors student Becca Starkes under the supervision of Dr. Amanda Ruth-McSwain, Associate Professor in the Department of Communication, is designed to investigate students’ media use to during campus crises and emergency situations. Participating in this study will require about 60 minutes. As a participant in this research, you will be asked to share your experiences and opinions through an interview discussion. The interview will be audio taped, and the record of our conversation will be destroyed at the termination of the study in May. I will keep your information strictly confidential. However, if you are willing to permit me to quote you in the report of my research, please check the item just above the signature line below. At no time will you be able to be identified by name in any reports or publications that result from this research; rather, any direct quotes shared will be identified using a pseudonym. In addition, you will be given an opportunity to review the section of my report in which your quote appears before completion of my research. Although it is not anticipated that you will benefit directly through your involvement in this study, this research is expected to benefit the body of research on crisis communication as well as the campus community by providing insight into how students seek information during


campus emergencies. The study will inform university administrators and personnel on the best ways to reach students during a crisis. I know of no risk or discomfort associated with your participation in this research study. Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may discontinue participation at any time. If you have questions concerning this research study, please contact Becca Starkes at [email protected] or the faculty advisor at [email protected]. You may also contact Research Protections & Compliance on the Office of Research and Grants Administration at 843-953-7421 or [email protected] if you have questions or concerns about research review at the College of Charleston or your rights as a research participant. You will be given a copy of this form to keep. This research has been reviewed by the Human Research Protections Program at the College of Charleston. ☐ I have read this consent form, and I agree to participate in this research study. � The information in this consent form has been explained to me, and I have been given the opportunity to ask questions. In any reports or publications that result from this research, I permit you to quote me. ___ NO ___ YES You may use ___ my name, ___ job title, ___ pseudonym, or ___ other identifier (specify appropriate identifier). _______________________________________ Printed Name of Participant _______________________________________ _______________ Signature of Participant Date _______________________________________ _______________ Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date


Appendix B: Survey Instrument

1. What is your major? If undeclared, write “Undeclared” _______________________

2. What is your classification? Please note: Only students in their second year or later should take this survey.

a. Sophomore b. Junior c. Senior d. Graduate student

3. With which gender do you identify?

a. Male b. Female c. Neither d. Both e. Other (please specify): _______________________

4. With which races or ethnicities do you identify? Circle all that apply.

a. White/Caucasian b. Black/African-American c. Latino or Hispanic d. Native American e. Pacific Islander f. Asian

5. Do you currently reside in on-campus housing (College of Charleston residence halls) or off-campus housing?

a. On-campus housing b. Off-campus housing

For the following questions, it may be helpful to recall your behavior during particular crises that have occurred on and/or near the College of Charleston campus in recent years, including but not limited to the February 2015 bomb threat at the Beatty Center, the June 2015 shooting at Mother Emmanuel AME Church, and weather-related incidents including ice storms and flooding.

6. During any of the campus emergencies mentioned, how did you first learn about the crisis? a. School website b. School social media accounts c. Other social media accounts (third-party Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Yik-Yak,

blogs, etc.) d. Email from school e. Emergency alert system (Cougar Alert) f. Television news g. Word-of-mouth (i.e. talking to peers or professors on campus)


h. Other, please specify: _________________________

7. During an emergency situation on or near campus, which media channels do you use to seek further information? Check all that apply.


blogs, etc.) d. Email from school e. Emergency alert system (Cougar Alert) f. Television news g. Word-of-mouth (i.e. talking to peers or professors on campus) h. Other, please specify: ________________________

8. During an emergency situation on campus, what media channel are you most likely to

access first? a. School website b. School social media accounts c. Other social media accounts (third-party Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Yik-Yak,

blogs, etc.) d. Email from school e. Emergency alert system (Cougar Alert) f. Television news g. Word-of-mouth (i.e. talking to peers or professors on campus) h. Other, please specify: _________________________

9. Consider the media channels you use most often during a crisis (the channels selected in

questions #7 and #8). What is the primary reason you choose these channels over others?

a. Ease of access b. Credibility of information c. Timeliness of information d. Depth of information e. Other, please specify: _________________________

10. Imagine that a weather- or environmental-related crisis has occurred. This includes hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding, and tornadoes. Which of the following media channels are you most likely to turn to first for information?

a. School website b. Weather website or app (e.g. Weather.com, Apple Weather app, etc.) c. School social media accounts d. Other social media accounts (third-party Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Yik-Yak,

blogs, etc.) e. Email from school f. Emergency alert system (Cougar Alert)


g. Television news h. Word-of-mouth (i.e. talking to peers or professors on campus) i. Other, please specify: _________________________

11. Imagine that a building- or facilities-related crisis has occurred. This includes fires, water

or power outages, gas leaks, and chemical spills. Which of the following media channels are you most likely to turn to first for information?



12. Imagine that a human-caused crisis has occurred. This includes individual assaults or

homicides, mass shootings, bombings (or threats of bombings), and terror attacks. Which of the following media channels are you most likely to turn to first for information?



For the following questions, please complete each statement by circling the number that represents your personal opinion along the scale of adjectives provided.

13. During a crisis, I find the school website to be: *Note: by “timely,” we mean “up-to-date” or having the most recent information







14. During a crisis, I find the school’s social media accounts to be: 1 2 3 4 5

Not at all helpful Neutral Very helpful





15. During a crisis, I find other (third-party) social media accounts, including those on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Yik-Yak, and blogging websites, to be:






16. During a crisis, I find emails from the school to be:






17. During a crisis, I find the school’s emergency alert system (Cougar Alert) to be:







18. During a crisis, I find television news channels (local and/or national) to be:





timely Neutral S Very timely

19. During a crisis, I find word-of-mouth communication from my peers or professors on campus to be:






20. If the researcher may contact you to set up a follow-up interview regarding the topic of

study, please leave your contact email below. Your responses will be kept confidential. Thank you for your participation in this study. Email: __________________________________


Appendix C: Interview Guide

Hello. My name is Becca Starkes. Thank you for helping me complete my research regarding crisis communication on college campuses. This research is part of a Bachelors Essay project at the College of Charleston. I am studying what media channels students at the College use during emergency situations on campus as well as the factors that influence those media use choices. In order to obtain the most accurate and meaningful information regarding student behavior, this study seeks to interview College of Charleston students who were on or near campus during the February 2015 bomb threat at the Beatty Center or the June 2015 Mother Emmanuel AME church shooting. During this interview, I will use the word “channels” to describe the various avenues with which you might receive information during a crisis. Several different media channels were mentioned in the introductory survey you took, but feel free to mention any and all that come to mind during our discussion. Just to reiterate a few important points from the informed consent, please keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers and your honest opinion is valued. The information you provide in this interview will be kept confidential, unless you have given me permission to include your identifying information in the final report of results. You may withdraw from this interview at any time. Finally, I would like to record our conversation today for the most accurate data collection. Do I have your permission to do so? Do you have any questions before we begin?

1. Please describe your daily media diet. a. Prompt: What channels do you use on a daily basis? b. Probe: Do you usually watch or read the news, use social media, or check your

email? How often? 2. How does your media use or choice of media channel change during a crisis situation?

a. Probe: If you do not watch the news regularly, are you likely to turn it on/read it during a crisis, or utilize other media channels?

3. How do you use social media to access information during a crisis or emergency situation?

4. Do you think social media is as credible as traditional media, such as TV, radio, and newspaper?

5. Do social media provide value that traditional media do not? In what ways? 6. Explain the factors influence your choice of media channels when seeking information

during a crisis or emergency situation. a. Probe: Is it more important that the information be credible, easy to access,

timely, or meaningful? Is there a different reason you seek certain channels? 7. Describe your media use during a crisis or emergency situation from start to finish. For

example, how did you hear about the 2015 bomb threat at CofC, what media channels did you immediately access for more information, and what media channels did you use to follow the crisis through post-crisis?

a. Probe: Do you check one channel (e.g. social media, TV news) for the basic information, then search for more in-depth information via other sources?


Part of your participation today was based on your experience with the bomb threat and/or Emmanuel AME church shooting incidents during the year 2015. Please consider your attitudes, preferences, and behaviors during the incident you recall most clearly.

8. Where were you when you first heard about the crisis? 9. After first hearing about a crisis, what are your immediate information needs? 10. Which channels did you find to be most informative during the crisis? Why?

a. Probe: Did certain channels seem more reliable (credible) than others? More up-to-date? Did the depth of information matter to you at the time?

11. If a campus crisis or emergency situation were to happen on campus in the near future, where would you expect to find the most “helpful” information?

a. Prompt: Where would you turn first for information? 12. Why are some media channels more effective during a crisis or emergency situation than

others? a. Prompt: What factors – like convenience or ease of access – are most important

to you when choosing a media channel? 13. How can the College of Charleston campus best reach you with important information

during a crisis or emergency situation?