Communicating a crisis: Potentials and Risks of Restorative Narratives

Journalism plays a vital role in times of crises. Journalists are in charge of communicating information about the progress of the crisis, political actions and complex scientific findings to a diverse audience with different informational needs. Thereby, it lies in the nature of a crisis that information is oftentimes negative due to fatal consequences of a crisis, the suffering of people and the perceived helplessness of those in charge. Even though this is relevant information for the audience, following the news during the crises can be emotionally overwhelming and increase news avoidance (Newman et al., 2020). A potential way to overcome these negative effects is to make journalism more constructive. Constructive journalism relies on techniques described in positive psychology to produce a media coverage that fosters engagement and productivity while still keeping up with the core functions of journalism (McIntyre & Gyldensted, 2017). In times of crises, constructive journalism suggests to use a restorative narrative which describes a way of storytelling “that provides an authentic sharing of negative experiences while highlighting the strength and meaningful progression of the individual(s)” (Fitzgerald et al., 2020, p.53). Characteristics of this narrative are to 1) use positive emotions, 2) provide solutions and 3) focus on the coping of those affected by crises. While previous studies have shown that constructive journalism can have positive effects for the emotional well-being (e.g., McIntyre, 2020) and increase the willingness to engage with a topic (Goodall & Reed, 2013), the potentials but also risks of a restorative narrative in communicating a crisis remain unexplored. Potential risks could be that participants perceive the quality of a constructive news item as lower, since they might assume that relevant aspects of a topic are “played down”. Also, elaboration of a news item could decline, since a constructive journalism tries to avoid negative emotions which increase systematic processing of information (Kleemans et al., 2019). In sum, we want to address this gap in research and investigate how a restorative narrative compared to destructive narrative affects 1) emotional responses, 2) cognitive responses and 3) behavioral intentions for both individuals and journalism. For this purpose, we developed an experimental study with a 2x2 design, manipulating the type of crisis (COVID-19 pandemic/Climate Change) and the narrative of the story (restorative narrative/destructive narrative). To measure emotional responses, we rely on the short version of the PANAS scale. For cognitive responses, we ask participants for their elaboration of the news story as well as quality perceptions of the news item. Finally, as behavioral intentions, we ask for news seeking behavior, as well as the endorsement of article in social media (liking, commenting, sharing). Currently, we are conducting a pretest to make sure that experimental manipulation works as intended. The data collection of the pre-registered study will be conducted by a market research institute that will provide us a sample with n=1200 (based on a power analysis) participants, representative for the Austrian society, in March. Findings and implications of the study will be discussed at the conference.