Does the medium matter? A meta-analysis on using social media vs. traditional media in crisis communication

There has been a growing body of crisis communication research that treats social media as a critical variable, which might alter how people perceive and react to crisis communication messages. The meta-analysis of 8 studies (k = 22, n = 3209, combined n = 9703) compared the impact of social media vs. traditional media in crisis communication. Five studies (n = 1896) contained 8 relevant effect sizes on crisis responsibility, representing 3294 individuals. Seven studies (n = 3185) contained 14 relevant effect sizes on persuasiveness, representing 6409 individuals. Compared to traditional media, using social media significantly lessened con-sumers' perceived crisis responsibility (r =-.134, 95 % CI-.212--.054, p = .001). There was no significant difference between using traditional media and social media in crisis communication on persuasiveness (r =-.039, 95 % CI-.114- .035, p = .30). The moderator analysis indicated that for both crisis responsibility and persuasiveness, the effect size was more noticeable when an organization communicates with college students vs. non-student publics. The ability of social media in dampening crisis responsibility was more pronounced for fictitious organizations compared to real organizations. Compared to traditional media, social media was significantly more negative for preventable crisis, the influence was weak for accidental crisis. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as well as directions for future research.