8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How to Make Health and Risk Communication on Social Media More “Social” During COVID-19

      discussion

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Social media have changed the way citizens participate in and express opinions about government policy. Social media serve organizations in achieving four main goals: interacting with citizens; fostering citizen participation; furthering open government; and analyzing/monitoring public opinion and activities. We contend that despite the importance of social media, international and local health organizations have been slow to adopt to them, primarily due to the discrepancy between intraorganizational discourse modes and the type of discourse suitable for dialogue with the public. In this perspective paper, we recommend strategies for such public dialogue based on understanding the challenges faced by organizations on the road to becoming more “social” in their social media presence and in their health and risk communication. Subsequently, we propose an integrative approach that combines three complementary paths: (1) putting the “social” back into health organizations’ culture by inserting more “social” content into the internal organizational discourse through consultation with experts from different fields, including those who diverge from the scientific consensus. (2) Using strategies to enable health organizations to respond to the public on social networks, based on health communications research and studies on emerging infectious disease (EID) communication. (3) Engaging the public on social media based on the participatory approach, which considers the public as a partner that understands science and can work with the organizations to develop an open and innovative pandemic realm by using crowdsourcing to solve complex global health problems. For each path, we define the current challenges, among which are (1) overcoming organizational groupthink and hidden profiles, (2) treating all unofficial information as misleading, and (3) insufficient public engagement in solving complex global problems. We then offer recommendations for dealing with each challenge.

          Related collections

          Most cited references142

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

          This article described three heuristics that are employed in making judgements under uncertainty: (i) representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event A belongs to class or process B; (ii) availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development; and (iii) adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available. These heuristics are highly economical and usually effective, but they lead to systematic and predictable errors. A better understanding of these heuristics and of the biases to which they lead could improve judgements and decisions in situations of uncertainty.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

            Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.

              Research on moral judgment has been dominated by rationalist models, in which moral judgment is thought to be caused by moral reasoning. The author gives 4 reasons for considering the hypothesis that moral reasoning does not cause moral judgment; rather, moral reasoning is usually a post hoc construction, generated after a judgment has been reached. The social intuitionist model is presented as an alternative to rationalist models. The model is a social model in that it deemphasizes the private reasoning done by individuals and emphasizes instead the importance of social and cultural influences. The model is an intuitionist model in that it states that moral judgment is generally the result of quick, automatic evaluations (intuitions). The model is more consistent that rationalist models with recent findings in social, cultural, evolutionary, and biological psychology, as well as in anthropology and primatology.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                rmhp
                rmhp
                Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
                Dove
                1179-1594
                25 August 2021
                2021
                : 14
                : 3523-3540
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Public Health and the Health and Risk Communication Research Center, University of Haifa , Haifa, 3498838, Israel
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Anat Gesser-Edelsburg School of Public Health and the Health and Risk Communication Research Center, University of Haifa , 199 Aba Khoushy Ave., Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838, IsraelTel +972 544 243530Fax +973 3 6322143 Email ageser@univ.haifa.ac.il
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4467-8799
                Article
                317517
                10.2147/RMHP.S317517
                8403670
                34471393
                a718eb5a-8d82-4f09-87e5-20a1b30cdefe
                © 2021 Gesser-Edelsburg.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 25 April 2021
                : 13 August 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, References: 150, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: no funding;
                There is no funding to report.
                Categories
                Perspectives

                Social policy & Welfare
                health and risk communication,social media,emerging infectious disease communication,misinformation,infodemic,covid-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article