The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crisis Communication 4.0: Evaluating the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Public Trust Management
Abstract
The 4th era of crisis communication is here, and organisations have started building automation through artificial intelligence (AI) for drafting crisis messages. Crisis Communication 4.0 is the point where organisations are able to integrate digital methodologies, artificial intelligence, and real-time data analytics for monitoring and communication with stakeholders in crisis communication. This study investigates the variables of trust for AI and human crisis messages in a controlled experiment. A between-participant design was used to show 1,200 Indonesian university students a fictitious data breach scenario and assign them to view either an AI-generated statement or a human-generated statement. Trust was defined in the study as a derived perceptual construct made of the components: consistency, timeliness, sincerity, and credibility. Quantitative data was collected through independent t-tests and multiple regression analyses, which found that AI crisis messages were perceived as more timely and consistent, while human messages were perceived as more sincere and credible. Regression analyses indicate that sincerity has the highest effect on overall trust (β = 0.36). These findings challenge deterministic perspectives that place AI communication and human communication on opposing ends and instead suggest a synergistic model of communication with AI enhancing operational efficiency and humans providing the ethical and emotional recalibrations. This study reframes the trust attributes as perceptually and socially constructed instead of the trust attributes as based on the communication itself, providing a theoretical starting point to capture the complexities of ethically explainable AI in crisis management.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Towards transparency by design for artificial intelligence
Felzmann, H., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00276-4 · Cited by 588
Socially Responsible AI Algorithms: Issues, Purposes, and Challenges
Cheng, L., Varshney, K. R., & Liu, H. (2021) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.12814 · Cited by 261
The persuasive effects of political microtargeting in the age of generative artificial intelligence
Simchon, A., Edwards, M., & Lewandowsky, S. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae035 · Cited by 143
Zhan, E. S., Zheng, Q., Dong, C., & Thorson, E. (2025) · International Journal of Strategic Communication · doi:10.1080/1553118x.2025.2471527 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Rachmiatie, A., Kurniawan, T. B., & Dewi, D. A.
- Venue
- Studies in Media and Communication
- Publisher
- Redfame Publishing
- Published
- 2026-04-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 159
- ISSN
- 2325-808X
- 2325-8071
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 4
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Crisis Communication 4.0: Evaluating the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Public Trust Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.11114/smc.v14i3.8307
- The paper
- Rachmiatie, A., Kurniawan, T. B., & Dewi, D. A. (2026). Crisis Communication 4.0: Evaluating the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Public Trust Management. Studies in Media and Communication. https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v14i3.8307
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.