Conclusions

This present investigation sheds light on the dual screening use during a bombing attack by analyzing the crisis response on a social media platform (i.e., Twitter), exploring the process of the public’s crisis response, and explaining the Indonesian dual screeners’ motivations to engage in dual screening during a terrorist attack. This current study also analyzes and compares three different groups of public, adapting the interviewee’s criteria of Tandoc and Takahashi (2016):

incident-related actors, digital participants, and journalists. This research analyzes the differences as well as the similarities of dual screening behavior among these three groups.

Drawing from Twitter content analysis, it was clearly seen that Indonesians responded to terrorist attacks only for a short period, approximately two to seven days. The dominant response on Twitter during the terrorist attacks was action-related contents. Indonesians would like to encourage the others to unite and join the effort to combat terrorism, reminding other citizens to

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 stop circulating the pictures or videos of fallen victims, asking the other to stay safe, and giving pressure to the government to enforce terrorism law. Apart from that, the users also conveyed emotional contents while informational contents were minimal. Another noteworthy finding was during the terrorist attacks, government institutions and security forces were able to generate high engagement, particularly on Twitter, exhibiting their power to mobilize people under a crisis situation.

This current study also scrutinizes the crisis response process of Indonesian dual screeners during terrorist attacks. Mobile instant messengers as well as social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, played an important role in informing the public regarding the terrorist attacks as most participants gained initial information about the incident from these channels. Dual screeners then consumed multiple platforms to obtain more complete information, both information related to the event and the condition of their family or friends. For this purpose, the three groups interviewed in this study exhibited different patterns: incident-related actors accessed mainstream media, for instance TV and online news portal, digital participants used Twitter, WhatsApp, and TV for seeking information, and journalists consumed TV as well as WhatsApp. Nonetheless, TV was seen as an important news source by all groups of participants as they watched breaking news or live reports on TV screens, or streamed it through their smartphones during the terrorist attacks.

After having enough information, dual screeners interpreted the details they had collected by comparing news from various platforms, conducting fact-checking, as well as discussing it with their friends and family using dual screening. Furthermore, the choice stage was crucial for incident-related actors to decide what they should do in response to the crisis. The digital participants also discussed about possible content on Twitter during this stage. In the choice stage, the participants needed to discuss with the others (e.g., family members, friends, colleagues) about

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 the best solutions before proceeding to the next stage. The following phase was the implementation of the solution, the dissemination stage. All participants spread various kinds of information through different channels. Most incident-related actors shared information about the event in general as well as their own condition using mobile instant messenger (e.g., WhatsApp) and the crisis response feature on Facebook. More than half digital participants shared not only textual information, but also pictures and videos related to the incident, for instance amateur videos showing the bombing site and the victims, via WhatsApp and Twitter. Lastly, the journalists supplied the information for the other reporters using group chats on WhatsApp and also through personal chat to their family and friends. Additionally, it was important to note that connectivity occurred in many stages of the crisis process as individuals needed to connect to their family members, friends, colleagues, and other parties for various purposes, such as discussion, checking their conditions, and so on.

With regard to motivation of using dual screening during a terrorist attack, the data from in-depth interviews with 21 Indonesian dual screeners from various backgrounds (incident-related actors, digital participants, and journalists) proved that individuals used dual screen under a crisis situation for social purposes. In the time of crises, incident-related actors and journalists preferred to communicate with their close ties using mobile instant messengers while the digital participants utilized both open platforms, such as Twitter, as well as mobile instant messengers to discuss and interact with weak ties, for instance other netizens. Dual screening was also considered convenient and the interaction facilitated by dual screening could also develop a sense of companionship which led to dual screening use. Some digital participants also attempted to solve collective problems and make a change through the usage of dual screening. In addition to the social motivation, cognitive motives also appeared as salient factors. During a terrorist attack, individuals

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 used multiple platforms to see and to verify the information they had previously acquired.

Moreover, some of them also shared the information they obtained to warn their friends and family or to raise public awareness about the incident. Lastly, the discovery also suggested emotional aspects as the drivers to dual screening use as Indonesians engaged in dual screening to reduce negative outcomes (e.g., panic, fear, sad, and so on) induced by terrorist attack. In order to release the negative emotions, they expressed their feelings to the others and received or accepted emotional supports from the other people.