@article{GUO2025, 
author = {Shihong GUO and Xin TAN},
title = {Are Government Communications More Effective with Expert Involvement? An Experimental Study Based on a Natural Disaster},
year = {2025},
journal = {China Public Administration Review},
volume = {7},
number = {1},
pages = {246-268},
keywords = {policy narratives, risk communications, climate disasters, climate policy, behavioral public policy},
url = {https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.26599/CPAR.2025.9680111},
doi = {10.26599/CPAR.2025.9680111},
abstract = {Do government communications facilitated by experts lead to better outcomes? This research, situated in the context of the “7.31 Beijing rainstorm”, compares the impact of government officials' communications versus expert communications on public satisfaction with government disaster management. The findings indicate the following: first, public satisfaction with government officials' communications significantly exceeds that of expert communications; second, public satisfaction with named experts' communications significantly surpasses that of anonymous expert communications, suggesting that public attitudes toward experts primarily target the expert group rather than the individual experts; third, public disaster experiences play a crucial moderating role in satisfaction with government disaster management, with significantly greater satisfaction discrepancies between government officials' communications and expert communications observed among those individuals who are more heavily affected. In contexts where the threat to government reputation from natural disasters is relatively low, the effectiveness of government communications facilitated by experts is inferior to those initiated by the government, however, named expert communications prove to be more effective than anonymous communications. Based on these findings, this study yields several policy implications. First, at the current stage, the expert community does not occupy an advantageous position in terms of public opinion. Experts should exercise rigor in both “what to say” and “how to say it”. The government should carefully consider, in light of the specific contexts, whether to make statements independently or to invite experts to do so. Second, when enlisting experts to voice their opinions, the government should avoid using generic expressions like “the experts suggest” or “the experts say”. Instead, it should encourage experts to speak using their real names and to provide more background information about themselves to establish authoritative and reliable images. Third, the government should prioritize building its own professional communications system, covering aspects such as content, style, format, channels, timeliness, and the opportune moments for its statements. This will enable sincere, timely, effective, and unimpeded government-society interactions rather than relying solely on communications by experts. Additionally, the public's experience of disasters plays a significant moderating role in their satisfaction with the government. The premise for the public to have a relatively high satisfaction with official government statements is the implementation of vigorous disaster relief measures; otherwise, the effectiveness of official communications will be undermined. This implies that, ultimately, public satisfaction with the government depends on its actual “accomplishments”.This research reveals the complex attitudes of the public toward narratives by officials and experts, offering practical insights for government crisis decision-making and social mobilization. Moreover, it deepens our understanding of the complexity of the role of narratives through the integration of the Narrative Policy Framework and Situational Crisis Communications Theory.}
}