The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inhuman Rhetoric: Generative AI and Crisis Communication
Abstract
This article considers the rhetorical risks of using generative AI to compose organizational communication during crises or in the aftermath of tragedies. It focuses on a case study in which representatives of Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education and Human Development disclosed their use of ChatGPT to write a response to a school shooting at another university. The author argues that although generative AI can often be useful in technical and professional communication, it can also undermine perceptions of “rhetorical humanity” if its use is disclosed or discovered, making it rhetorically risky in certain contexts. Thus, knowing when not to utilize AI is an important aspect of AI literacy for practitioners.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“However, even when guided by frameworks such as SCCT, the effects of AI disclosure on how messages are received and understood by stakeholders remain uncertain.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Crisis Communication: Investigating Source Effects and Matched Crisis Responses on Stakeholder Perceptions (2026) · cites this paper as Piller 2025
In the citing paper
“Scholars have raised concerns that revealing AI involvement may alter perceptions of the humanity and authenticity of organizational responses (Piller 2025), thereby shaping judgments about the credibility and reputation of the organization.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Crisis Communication: Investigating Source Effects and Matched Crisis Responses on Stakeholder Perceptions (2026) · cites this paper as Piller 2025
In the citing paper
“While these studies show that individuals' perceptions of the source of a message shape how they evaluate the communication content from the source, it is not clear to what extent these findings apply to AI-developed crisis communication, such that disclosing the use of AI in writing can fundamentally alter how audiences perceive the authenticity of the message (Piller 2025).”
From Artificial Intelligence in Crisis Communication: Investigating Source Effects and Matched Crisis Responses on Stakeholder Perceptions (2026) · cites this paper as Piller 2025
In the citing paper
“However, while these guidelines address broad ethical considerations, public perceptions of AI usage, especially in sensitive or high-risk contexts such as crisis communication, can differ significantly depending on whether and how AI's role is disclosed (Piller 2025).”
From Artificial Intelligence in Crisis Communication: Investigating Source Effects and Matched Crisis Responses on Stakeholder Perceptions (2026) · cites this paper as Piller 2025
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Adiwardana D., 2020, ArXiv
- Appiah K. A., New York Times
- Beccue M., Manifesto: For humanity, the case against generative AI writing
- 10.1177/1050651910389147 · doi:10.1177/1050651910389147
- Card D., Intercom
- 10.1177/23294906221074311 · DOI
- Ghosal S. S., 2023, ArXiv
- 10.1080/03637751.2010.502536 · doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.502536
- 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00019.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1108/JPBM-02-2022-3864 · DOI
- Lele A., Vanderbilt Hustler
- Markel M., 2021, Technical communication
- Moschella D., 2023, Defending Digital, 19, 1
- 10.1177/1077699014538827 · DOI
- Perrotta R., Vanderbilt Hustler
- Ulmer R. R., Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity
- Wu D., The Washington Post
- Yeats W. B., 1996, The collected poems of W. B. Yeats, 80
Cited by
Schneider, E., Kyriakopoulos, V., Seo, Y., Hong, N., Lee, M., & Lim, J. S. (2026) · Corporate Reputation Review · doi:10.1057/s41299-026-00254-9 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Piller, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Business and Technical Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-09-28
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 42-50
- ISSN
- 1050-6519
- 1552-4574
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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
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.
