Research Background

Indonesia is seen as being prone to terrorism due to bombing attacks, killing hundreds of people (Rivett-Carnac, 2016). The latest terrorist attack was in May 2017 when a group of terrorists, suspected to be The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militant group, mounted two suicide bombs in Kampung Melayu (KM) bus station, Jakarta, and caused three deaths and 10 injured. Effective public crisis communication for emergency responses, like terrorist attacks in Indonesia, is crucial to warn people to protect them from harm, dampen public’s anxiety, and facilitate assistances or relief efforts (Wray et al., 2004).

Furthermore, the emergence and rapid developments of information and communication technology (ICT) in recent years have clearly changed many aspects of the public’s communication, including communication during crises. In the past, the public could only utilize mainstream media (e.g., TV, radio, and newspaper) for seeking and consuming information during crises. Past studies found TV as an important medium to broadcast and disseminate crisis information massively because it is regarded as a highly credible medium by audiences in many countries (Zhang et al., 2014). However, social media has empowered passive users to be able to actively seek, share, and create user-generated content (text, audio, and video) to reach a broad audience during crisis, increasing the role of the public in civic engagement and crisis management (Palen & Liu, 2007).

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 Advancements in screen and mobile technologies allow people to watch videos anywhere and anytime on selected platforms and gadgets including TV, tablets, or smartphones (Lin &

Chiang, 2017). While people watch videos, they are able to simultaneously engage in social media on another screen, for example, a user can access a video on one screen when tweeting video-related information on a separate device for a two-way interaction during video viewing (Vaccari et al., 2015). The practice of using a screen to participate in conversations while watching audiovisual content on a separate screen is conceptualized as dual screening (Lin & Chiang, 2017).

This emerging dual screening also plays an important role at the time of crises as it shapes people’s media behaviors for crisis communication. Individuals used multiple platforms at the time of crises (Liu et al., 2011). They not only used mainstream media for seeking information when crises occurred, but also utilized social media concurrently in order to obtain, produce, and disseminate crisis information (Jin et al., 2014). Moreover, people used another screen such as mobile phone or laptop for backchannel communication for the purposes of contacting family or friends, browsing alternative information sources, and discussing disastrous events on the digital forum (Sutton et al., 2008). Abud (2013) also found that aside from using TV for obtaining information, Indonesians utilized their mobile phones to communicate with their family members or friends and to open their social media during crisis situations.

In recent years, the rapid diffusion of dual screening has attracted scholars to investigate factors that motivate dual screening use (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2015; Han & Lee, 2014), impacts of dual screening use on users’ attitudes and opinions (Cameron & Geidner, 2014), and the development of dual screening strategies for TV production (e.g., persuading audience to discuss about TV programs via Twitter Hashtag during TV viewing) (Kroon, 2017). Other studies focus on dual screening’s implications in political participation. Hayat and Samuel-Azran (2017)

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 examined the echo chamber effects regarding Americans’ second screen interactions on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. election. Lin and Chang (2017) investigated the relationship of social factors (i.e., sociability, social presence, and bridging social capital) and dual screening use and how this influenced online and offline political participation after the 2016 Taiwanese presidential election.

Barnidge, Gil de Zúñiga and Diehl (2017) attempted to explain how dual screening use could shape users’ political views or opinions on social media. Although most aforementioned political-related dual screening studies examine the western contexts, little scholarly research has investigated dual screening use for crisis communication, especially in Asia.

Another research void is also identified in literature of crisis communication, especially regarding the research subjects, as many existing studies in crisis communication mainly look at how governments or other public organizations use their communication channels, primarily social media, for crisis management. For example, Tagliacozzo and Magni (2017) explained how government communicated with citizens using social media in post-disaster phase. Kešetović, Marić, and Ninković (2017) analyzed how local authorities handled crisis communication through mainstream media and social media when floods and landslides hit Serbia. Norris (2017) explored how digital humanitarian organizations utilized user-generated content platforms engaged in updating information of European refugee crisis and an earthquake in Ecuador in 2016. So far, the public’s dual screening behaviors in crisis situations, such as terrorist attacks in Indonesia have not been investigated.

Considering the trend of dual screening use during crisis situations and the aforementioned research gaps, this study investigates the linkage between dual screening use (using social media while video viewing) and crisis communication by conducting Twitter content analysis and in-depth interviews with 21 Indonesian dual screeners from various groups (i.e., incident-related

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 actors, digital participants, and local journalists). Focusing on the KM bombing attack, the Twitter content analysis identifies trends and prevalent messages of tweets during the crisis (e.g., emotion-related, information-emotion-related, action-related). The Twitter content analysis also finds the key mobilizers with high engagement levels (LeFebvre & Armstrong, 2016) to understand these influential opinion leaders on the Twitter platform during terrorist attacks.

The Twitter content analysis also helps identify the digital participants, one group of interviewees in the next step of research. However, this investigation attempts to understand the public’s dual screening behavior in general, while digital participants are only one group of the public. Tandoc and Takahashi (2016) suggested other groups involved in crisis situations other than digital participants, including incident-related actors (survivors and their family members or friends, and affected residents) and local journalists who reported the bombing incident. These three groups with varying degrees of involvement have different behaviors during a crisis.

Therefore, in order to gain more comprehensive insights about the public’s dual screening behaviors, these three groups are interviewed to identify the differences and similarities of their media behaviors in stages of the crisis communication process and to investigate their motivations to use dual screening at the time of terrorist attacks.

This research grounds upon Communication Mediation Model (CMM) as the theoretical

foundation. As CMM postulates that individual’s media consumption mediated by interpersonal interactions will influence individuals’ participatory behaviors or engagement, Lin and Chiang (2017) justified its suitability to serve as the theoretical basis for dual screening use. In this study, dual screening users utilize one screen for crisis-related videos and another screen for backchannel communication via social media. Thus, the CMM can provide an appropriate theoretical framework to examine dual screening use for crisis communication. Moreover, this study also

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 adapts Crisis Response Communication Model (CRCM), coined by Hale, Dulek, and Hale (2005), to understand the public’s crisis response process during a terrorist attack (i.e., observation, interpretation, choice, and dissemination). However, in the context of terrorist attack, dual screeners do not only utilize screen media for informational purposes, but also for maintaining interactions with others to seek support or vent their emotions and thus this study adds a dimension of “connectivity” as an underlying behavior to the stages of CRCM.

This present study explores the media behavior and dual screening use during terrorist attacks in the context of bombing cases in Indonesia. Between 1997 and 2002, Indonesia has encountered at least 90 bombing attacks. A total of 224 people died from the manmade disasters and 340 people were injured (Pusponegoro, 2004). A recent attack occurred on May 24, 2017, when two bombs exploded in Kampung Melayu bus station, Jakarta, which caused the death of three police officers and the injuries of ten people (Movanita, 2017). Afterwards, police officers identified the two suicide bombers (Chan & Soeriaatmadja, 2017) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militant group claimed ownership of the attack (Adyatama, 2017). Another bombing incident occurred in February 2017 in Bandung. A lone attacker, who later was killed by the police, was suspected to be linked with a radical network sympathetic to ISIS (Chan &

Soeriaatmadja, 2017). Since 2000, there were at least 15 bombing cases in Indonesia, including the famous 2002 Bali bombing with 202 people killed (Yusmadi, 2016). Despite the long list of terrorist attacks, Indonesia has one of the “world's most determined campaigns against terrorism”

(Beech, 2010). The government has made significant progress in the effort of combating terrorism as the government has been able to weaken the terrorist networks, causing less major bombing incidents to occur in this country since 2009 (McBeth, 2016; McKay & Webb, 2015). Moreover, through the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) Republic of Indonesia, the government

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 also utilizes the internet and social media to communicate with the public and spread positive content in order to inform as well as to protect the public from terrorism (BNPT, 2017).

Aside of the long list of terrorist attacks, this country has been known as a leading social media nation with more than 80 million social media users and the daily use of three hours and 16 minutes per person (Loras, 2016; Nguyen, 2017). This nation has more than 50 million Twitter users, posting more than 4.1 billion tweets in 2016 alone (Prihadi, 2015; Ador, 2016). Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, is recognized as the most active city on Twitter, while another large city in Indonesia, Bandung, is in sixth place (Lipman, 2012). In addition, there were more than 126 million registered Facebook users in Indonesia by July 2017 (Statista, 2017). Indonesia has the highest Facebook penetration and became the fourth largest Facebook user in the world (Loras, 2016). Indonesia’s Digital Consumer Behavior Report (Daily Social, 2016) revealed that Facebook, Instagram, Path, and Twitter were the most popular social networking sites in Indonesia, while Blackberry Messenger, WhatsApp, Line, and Facebook Messenger were the top mobile messaging applications. In regard to dual screening, Indonesia also has a high rate of multi-screen consumption with over 23% more media time spent than counterparts in other Asia Pacific countries (Millward Brown, 2014). In the context of a crisis, Abud (2013) conducted a study about the crisis communication pattern in the Jakarta Flood 2013 and found that participants used social media during the disaster, such as accessing Facebook, Blackberry Messenger or Twitter for gaining information and contacting their family or friends. In sum, Indonesia is a suitable research context to carry out this investigation regarding dual screening use for crisis communication.

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 1.2. Research purposes

This investigation attempts to understand Indonesians’ dual screening use during terrorist attacks. First, this study scrutinizes the social media conversations as a response to the terrorist attacks by conducting Twitter content analysis to analyze the prevalent messages on Twitter and the key mobilizers or the most influential users. The next step of this study is in-depth interviews with 21 Indonesian dual screeners from various affected groups to gain the insights about media behaviors in different stages of crisis response process (i.e., observation, interpretation, choice, dissemination). Furthermore, the findings also shed light on Indonesian dual screeners’

motivations to use dual screening during terrorist attacks, particularly how individual socio-psychological factors (e.g., affective, cognitive, and social motives) motivate their dual screening use during terrorist attacks. This study also elaborates the differences and similarities of personal motivations to use dual screening and the media behavior during terrorist attacks from various affected groups (i.e., incident-related actors, digital participants, local journalists).

1.3. 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

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