Research Significance

With respect to theoretic significance, as previously mentioned, there are mainly two research gaps identified for this study to address. First, existing dual screening studies center around the context of political communication and have not elaborated its implications in crisis communication, particularly related to media behaviors during terrorist attacks. Second, in the crisis communication literature, most investigate authorities’ (governments and formal organizations) crisis management strategies and responses, but only few of them discuss how the public or specific media users respond to a crisis, such as terrorist attacks. Therefore, this current study could expand the literature of dual screening, especially in the context of crises by taking

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 the perspective of the public in responding to crisis situations. This research also extends the application of CMM to the dual screening literature during crises and CRCM to describe the dual screeners’ crisis response process during terrorist attacks.

Furthermore, the terrorist attacks cause many negative outcomes, such as public panic. For instance, according to the survey conducted by The Research and Development Department (Litbang) of Kompas (cited in Belarminus, 2017), 87.9% of the respondents in Indonesia felt worried about possible recurring bombing terrorist attacks. Therefore, to mitigate the negative effects of the terrorist attacks, effective crisis communication strategies are required as the forms and sources of crisis information could influence how individuals respond to the crisis (Liu et al., 2011). Considering the aforementioned factors, the findings of this study present beneficial insights about people’s dual screening use during terrorist attacks, which can be useful for governments and non-profit organizations to develop effective crisis communication strategies regarding content/message creation and information dissemination. This investigation also provides insights about the narratives discussed by the public, the key influencers during terrorist attacks, and the public’s media behavior (e.g., the public’s communication channels and information source) which could help the authorities communicate with the public at crisis situations and eradicate the negative effects caused by the crisis.

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter delineates the theoretical foundation of this research by elaborating existing studies regarding dual screening use and crisis communication. In previous studies, some researchers use second screening to describe the simultaneous use of social media during video-viewing (Barnidge et al., 2017; Gil de Zuniga et al., 2015); yet, the term second screening indicates using the main screen for video-viewing and another screen for complementary treat social media activities (Vaccari et al., 2015). However, users’ attention on video-viewing and on social media use shift swiftly; hence, it is hard to determine which screen is primary and secondary (Gil de Zuniga et al., 2015; Lin & Chiang, 2017). Thus, this current study adopts Lin and Chiang (2017, pp. 240)’s dual screening definition, referring to “the use of one screen device to engage in social and communicative activities while viewing audiovisual content on another.” After explaining the theoretic basis, the CMM, the first section focuses on people’s media behaviors during crisis communication under the framework of the CRCM (Hale, Dulek & Hale, 2005), in order to explore how the public respond to crisis, particularly a terrorist attack. The following section discusses research about dual screening and motivation studies. The last section elaborates the past studies of Twitter content analysis in crisis communication.

The theoretical framework of this study is based on CMM. Coined by McLeod et al. (2001), CMM proposes that the relationship between information consumption and individual’s participation is mediated by interpersonal interaction. CMM implicitly posits that communication-related activities mediate the influence of media use on an individual’s participation (Lin &

Chiang, 2017). By having the interaction with the others, individual can digest and make sense of

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 the information gathered from the media, triggering their participatory behaviors (Shah et al., 2017). Therefore, interpersonal communication activities, such as discussions, channel the effects of mass media on an individual’s civic engagement (Mcleod & Shah, 2009). Past studies show that users’ media consumption and interpersonal discussions mold individual participatory behaviors (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2014; Lee, 2012; Shah et al., 2007). For example, Lee (2012) suggested that interpersonal talk mediated the effect of satirical humor consumption on political participation.

Shah et al. (2007) also found that news media consumption indirectly influenced political consumerism through the effect on interpersonal political talk.

As the latest technological advancements shape the media system and audience behaviors tremendously, it is necessary to reevaluate the mediated communication model. Shah and his colleagues (2017) proposed the revised CMM, centering the integration of media consumption and communication activities via offline or online platform in shaping individuals’ participatory behavior. Some studies provide some evidence on how online interaction can also mediate the effect of media use on participation (Gil de Zuniga et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2013); for example, Gil de Zúñiga et al. (2014) found that the relationship between social media news use and an individual’s political participation was mediated by their political expressions on social media. As dual screening enables video consumption and online social discussions, the study of Lin and Chiang (2017) shows that CMM can serve as a commendable theoretical basis to investigate dual screeners’ online and offline participation. In regard to crisis communication, some studies found that the public’s crisis communication behaviors (e.g., acceptance to organizations’ crisis strategy) were affected by the combined impacts of crisis information consumption from traditional media and social media as well as word-of mouth interaction and interactions with organizations experiencing the crisis or third parties (social media influencers or journalists) who cover stories

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 about the crisis (Austin et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2011). Since dual screening can accommodate crisis information consumption and online communication activities related to a crisis, CMM is an appropriate framework for the theoretical foundation in this present study.

2.1. Dual screening

Today many people watch live TV shows while also enhancing that experience by using another screen to interact with the TV content (Gil de Zúñiga & Liu, 2017). The use of another device to connect to the internet or social media during linear TV-watching is conceptualized as second screening (McGregor et al., 2017). Second screening has become prevalent in use various countries where it becomes more and more habitual for people to watch videos on multiscreen devices. During this process, the user uses the second screen device to obtain more information about the TV program or they can discuss the show online in real time (Barnidge et al., 2017).

Studies have indicated that over one third of all television users are utilizing second screens in the UK and the US (Hayat & Samuel-Azran, 2017). Nielsen, in association with Yahoo, released a report that revealed 35% of American viewers use a second screen to discuss or look up show-related information with others (Bauder, 2012). Another survey in Canada counted 36% second screeners, who discuss videos or look up video-related information (MTM, 2015). Accenture Report (cited in Flomenbaum, 2015) concurred that 87% of the global population had experiences with using two screens concurrently, while 59% of citizens in North America used laptops or computers along with TV, simultaneously.

To be noted, recent literatures have started to examine the nature of these online discussions among second screeners while watching various genres of TV shows, such as sports, entertainment and politics. Kroon (2017) investigated how viewers established conversations through second

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 screening while watching FIFA World Cup 2014. Larkin and Fink (2016) also conducted a study to understand how a second screen could facilitate fans’ fantasy sport and team while watching the sports game. Van Es (2016) discussed the TV production strategy of using social media during the show (i.e., NBC show, “The Voice”) to maintain audience engagement. Giglietto and Selva (2014) examined the linkage between scenes of political shows and type of commentaries and people’s participations in Twitter activities.

One problem with the term ‘second screening’ is that it asserts that when switching between screens, TV is primary and social media is secondary (Vaccari et al., 2015); however, video viewing could be the secondary activity if users assert their attention to other screen related tasks (Lin & Chiang, 2017). Thus, this study chooses to use a similar concept, dual screening, which describes media multitasking behavior characterized by swiftly switching attention on two different screens for various tasks (Lin & Chiang, 2017). This form of communication behavior can occur when users use one screen for watching videos, while engaging in another screen to search video-related online information or interact with others via social networking sites (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2015). The concept of dual screening contains two different aspects, information seeking and social media discussions that might motivate users to engage in dual screening practices (Barnidge et al., 2017). Comparatively, there are more second screening studies than dual screening research.

Dual screening is noted as a communicative practice that adjusts the relationship between the media and their audiences (Anstead & O’Loughlin, 2011). As a result of dual screening, these practices also supply further pathways for the public to participate and engage in public conversations or debates about events as they see them occur in the video-content (Gil de Zúñiga

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 et al., 2015). Dual screeners can also establish a sense of community with others beyond their physical and network boundaries through interactions on social media (McGregor et al., 2017).

2.2. Crisis communication

A crisis can be understood as an unexpected event, such as a disaster or an organizational crisis that can interrupt normal routine or business and possibly form undesirable effects (Grunig et al., 2011). One example of a crisis is terrorism. Canel and Sanders (2010) argued that terrorism could be regarded as a crisis for several reasons. First of all, terrorist attacks are incidents that can cause uncertainty and disrupt the routine. Moreover, terrorist attacks disrupt some aspects of communication, particularly political communication, as the terrorists attempt to attack the democracy or alter government regulations. An incident can also be considered as crisis when it potentially damages one’s reputation. For this reason, a terrorist attack is seen as a crisis because it affects authorities’ reputation who are responsible for emergency response.

Although terrorist attacks can be categorized as a crisis, this man-made disaster has different characteristics compared to natural disasters and other type of crises. Terrorist attacks induce a higher degree of uncertainties as no one knows why the incident occurs and what will happen afterward, making it unclear whether the situation is already over; while during natural disasters, such as earthquake and tornado, the victims can see what is happening and they know how to act (Kaniasty & Norris, 2004). Moreover, the impact of natural disaster is usually localized to a particular affected area, but the effect of terrorist attacks can go beyond geographical boundaries and those who are threatened directly by the incidents (Shaluf et al., 2003). Therefore, aside from the physical destruction caused by the bomb, terrorist attacks can engender negative psychological effects, such as public fear and panic (Boscarino et al., 2003). These characteristics

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 result in a different approach of crisis communication as it is important to be more systematic and evidence-based in informing the public about terrorist attacks to dampen public panic and fear (Wray & Jupka, 2004). A study conducted by Boscarino et al. (2003) also indicated that in regard to terrorist attacks, the public showed more likelihood to assess available information more carefully and wait for communications from authorities or police before taking any decisions or actions.

In the field of crisis and risk communication, government and organizations’ crisis response systems have been exhaustively investigated (Hayes et al., 2017; Paraskevas, 2006). Fink (1986) developed four stages of crisis life cycle which consists of prodromal crisis, acute crisis, chronic crisis, and crisis resolution stages. This framework covered three different stages of crisis, from the initial event, recovery, and resolution. Coombs (2014) suggested four stages of crisis management for emergency, comprised of prevention, preparation, response (including recovery), and revision. Although crisis management for organizations has been well-examined, there are only a few studies that discuss the crisis response steps from the perspective of the public. This study will adapt the framework developed by Hale, Dulek, and Hale (2005) to explore how the public responds to a crisis, particularly terrorist attacks. They proposed a crisis communication response model with four different phases: observation, interpretation, choice, and dissemination.

The first phase, observation, is related to information gathering. Upon the occurrence of a terrorist attack, individuals seek and collect all relevant information related to the crisis event.

People look for information through many channels, including mainstream media and social media (Steelman et al., 2015). There are two kinds of information seekers: passive information receptors and active information seekers. For passive individuals, they do not proactively look for information related to the crisis event, but they are passively exposed to such information while

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 consuming news outlets or social media. On the other hand, active information seekers consciously search the relevant information through the channels they have (Van Velsen et al., 2012).

The next step is interpretation, which involves constructing the meaning of information gathered from the previous step (Garisson et al., 2001). During emergency, there is a time pressure that requires individual to look for information swiftly and thus there is a risk of having inaccurate data (Hale et al., 2005). Therefore, on this phase, the public also evaluate the crisis-related information by assessing its relevance and accuracy. People distinguish the relevant and irrelevant information with the context of the ongoing crisis event (Hale et al., 2015). Dual screening users also utilize the second screen to verify and check the accuracy of information that they gather (Yates & Partridge, 2015). They also use another screen to interact and discuss about the situation with other users (Lin et al., 2017).

After interpreting all gathered information, people continue to the next step, choice. On this phase, individuals examine the general picture of the crisis event from the previous step and consider about alternatives they can implement in order to respond to the crisis event. Due to the nature of crisis, individuals must quickly understand the ongoing situation, then consider and decide various actions that can help them to prevent and reduce the negative effects as a result of the crisis (Hale et al., 2005). They must have critical evaluations to every possible solution and implement the ideas afterward (Lin et al., 2017).

Once someone already has the alternatives, the next step is implementing the solutions.

One of the actions is dissemination. This phase entails information exchange with other users (Hale et al., 2015). The public contributes in effective crisis response by disseminating information that they have learnt from the previous phase through some communication channels, mainly social media. The information provided by the public will not only help their peers, but also other entities,

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 such as media outlets, authorities, and other agencies, to give assistance during the crisis (Ostermann & Spinsanti, 2011). There are two different roles of the public in regard to this information experience: information brokers and information producers. After learning about the situation, the public can be a ‘gatekeeper’ by filtering relevant information and distributing the most crucial and useful information to the public. Social media also enables individuals to act as citizen reporters by providing a platform for users to create and broadcast their own content (Yates and Partridge, 2015).

In the study of mobile communication, users do not only utilize smartphones for information exchange, but also to connect with other people through social networks (Cheng et al., 2015). During a crisis, users also use their social media to communicate with other people (Veil et al., 2011). Similarly, people also use dual screening to get in touch with other users (Weeks &

Holbert, 2013). Hence, there should be another additional dimension as an underlying activity to cover this social purpose, which can be conceptualized as connectivity. In the context of crisis communication during a terrorist attack, Dorn et al. (2007) defined connectivity as individuals’

connection with other people, various organizations, resources and information which allows them to respond to the terrorist attacks or other incidents. Establishing social connection is important during crisis, including terrorist attacks, as it will develop feelings of connectedness or togetherness with other people, build collective coping (how people will comfort each other during and aftermath of crisis) and encourage people to offer help or assistance (Yates & Partridge, 2015).

In conclusion, terrorist attacks have different characteristics compared to other kinds of crises as terrorist attacks are able to induce a high degree of uncertainty and the effects caused by the incident can go beyond the affected areas. These characteristics influence the crisis communication during terrorist attacks because individuals become more careful in evaluating

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 information regarding the incidents. Hence, an examination about the public’s crisis communication in the context of terrorist attacks is necessary. Derived from past literatures, the crisis response process comprises five different phases. After a crisis occurs, individuals’ crisis response communication is initiated by observation, characterized by information gathering related to the terrorist attack. This step is followed by interpretation (making sense of the information), choice (action plan to respond crisis), dissemination (information exchange with other users), and concluded by connectivity (maintaining contact with other people).

2.3. Motivations to use dual screening

Past studies have investigated individuals’ motivations to utilize the emerging media behaviors, dual screening. Dias (2016) found two dimensions that motivated people to utilize multi-screening: utilitarian (e.g., helping users’ life) and affective motive (e.g., establishing a sense of connectedness). Another study highlights the use of dual screening for informational purposes and discussions (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2015). Han and Lee (2014) identified several motivations to use dual-screening, such as discussing TV content, informational purposes, getting to know others’

thoughts, sense of presence and suggesting TV programs to others. Lin and Chiang (2017) revealed several social factors of dual screening (i.e., social presence, bridging social capital, and sociability) associated with dual screening usage. These existing literatures primarily emphasize two types of motivations: informational and social motives.

In the context of crisis communication, Stephens and Malone (2009) suggested three different motives to an individual’s media use during crisis: social, cognition (information), and affection (emotion). The public uses media, particularly social media, due to social-related factors, such as building sense of connectedness (Yates Partridge, 2015), bonding and bridging social

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 capital, and communicating with the authorities (Kim & Hastak, 2017). Individuals also use media, particularly traditional media and social media, for informational purposes, such as information seeking and information sharing (Liu et al., 2011). Affective aspects play an important role in evoking an individual’s intention to use media. It is crucial to examine affective factors or emotional aspects in this research as they are found to trigger people’s responses to crises and they help people to cope with emergencies and risky situations (Tandoc & Takahashi, 2016). To integrate motivations of dual screening and crisis communication, this study explores these three socio-psychological factors affecting users’ motives to adopt dual screening and respond during terrorist attacks: social, cognitive, and affective motives. The following literature review will discuss relevant past studies.

2.3.1. Social motives

Dual screening provides opportunities for users to connect with other people and serves as a platform for discussion or opinion sharing with others (Weeks & Holbert, 2013). This situation will motivate them to discuss and reflect various cases (Lin & Chiang, 2017). Many studies in dual screening or other related studies, like social TV, have identified social aspects (e.g., social presence, social capital, and sociability) as strong predictors that affect the users’ attitude or intention to use (Hwang & Lim, 2015; Lim et al., 2015; Lin & Chiang, 2017; Shin, 2013). In the context of crisis, social aspect has been identified as a predictor of media use. During and after a crisis, individuals use social media to connect with their community (e.g., group of people living in the same geographical area or sharing the same interest) (Houston et al., 2015). People also use

Dual screening provides opportunities for users to connect with other people and serves as a platform for discussion or opinion sharing with others (Weeks & Holbert, 2013). This situation will motivate them to discuss and reflect various cases (Lin & Chiang, 2017). Many studies in dual screening or other related studies, like social TV, have identified social aspects (e.g., social presence, social capital, and sociability) as strong predictors that affect the users’ attitude or intention to use (Hwang & Lim, 2015; Lim et al., 2015; Lin & Chiang, 2017; Shin, 2013). In the context of crisis, social aspect has been identified as a predictor of media use. During and after a crisis, individuals use social media to connect with their community (e.g., group of people living in the same geographical area or sharing the same interest) (Houston et al., 2015). People also use