雙螢與危機傳播研究：探討恐攻期間印尼人媒體使用行為 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學國際傳播英語碩士學位學程 International Master’s Program in International Communication Studies College of Communication National Chengchi University. 碩士論文 Master’s Thesis. 雙螢與危機傳播研究：探討恐攻期間印尼人媒體使用行為 Dual Screening and crisis communication: Exploring Indonesians’ media behaviors during terrorist attacks. Student: Jeffry Oktavianus Advisor: Trisha Tsui-Chuan Lin, Ph.D.. 中華民國 107 年 6 月 June 2018. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(2) 雙螢與危機傳播研究：探討恐攻期間印尼人媒體使用行為 Dual Screening and crisis communication: Exploring Indonesians’ media behaviors during terrorist attacks. 研究生：侯偉偉指導教授：林翠絹. Student: Jeffry Oktavianus Advisor: Trisha Tsui-Chuan Lin, Ph.D.. 國立政治大學國際傳播英語碩士學位學程碩士論文. A Thesis Submitted to International Master’s Program in International Communication Studies National Chengchi University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement For the degree of Master of Arts. 中華民國 107 年 6 月 June 2018. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(3) ABSTRACT Indonesia has a long list of bombing attacks and the latest terrorist attack occurred in Kampung Melayu (KM), Jakarta in May 2017. During terrorist attacks, individuals utilize dual screening, the use of two separate screens for videos and social media simultaneously (Lin & Chiang, 2017), for obtaining, producing, and disseminating information, increasing the public’s role in crisis communication. A growing body of literature has explored dual screening, but little scholarly research has investigated dual screening use for crisis communication; thus, this study attempts to investigate the dual screening use during terrorist attacks in Indonesia. This mix-method research proposes three research questions: (RQ1) What patterns of terrorismrelated social media communication were shown during the KM bombing terrorist attack based on the Twitter content analysis? (RQ2) During different stages of the crisis response process, what kinds of media behaviors did Indonesian dual-screeners from various groups perform during the terrorist attack? (RQ3) What motivated Indonesian dual screeners from various groups to use this new mode of crisis communication during terrorist attacks? To answer RQ1, this study analyzed the content of 7,101 tweets during peak days of the KM terrorist attack and coded it using the framework from Haverin and Zach (2010) (i.e., action-related, emotion-related, informationrelated contents). In response to RQ2 and RQ3, this study recruited 21 Indonesian dual screeners from various groups (incident-related actors, digital participants, and local journalists) for in-depth interviews. The semi-structured interviews asked about respondents’ media behaviors during stages (i.e., observation, interpretation, choice, dissemination) of crisis responses and their motivations (i.e., social, cognitive, affective motives) to use dual screening during terrorist attacks. Twitter content analysis showed that the tweets during peak days of the KM bombing dominantly promoted action-related messages, such as to unite in combating terrorism, to stop posting or sharing pictures or videos of victims, and so on, confirming the role of social media to mobilize people during crisis. Moreover, the Twitter users also posted emotional content, for instance emotional venting, offering prayer, expressing sympathy, and expressing solidarity. It is also noteworthy that most Twitter mobilizers were government institutions and security, reflecting their effort to draw public’s attention on crisis situations. These mobilizers mostly tweeted actionrelated and information-related content. The identification of Twitter mobilizers also helped identify digital participants for the in-depth interviews. The results of in-depth interviews suggested interviewees used multiple platforms (e.g., social networking sites, mainstream media, and mobile instant messengers) in different stages of crisis response process. They sought KM bombing information mostly through TV contents with the complementary of many other channels (e.g., online news portals, YouTube video, social media). Interestingly, for the communication purposes, incident-related actors were more comfortable to use mobile instant messengers (e.g. WhatsApp) to personally chat with their close friends or family members to inform them of their conditions. Journalists engaged more in group chats with their colleagues on mobile instant messengers (e.g., WhatsApp) for information exchange, while the digital participants were also vocal on open platforms, such as Twitter, allowing them to share the general information regarding the incident and accompanying photos and videos. Furthermore, the findings indicate social motives (e.g., social capital, social presence, sociability) and cognitive motives (e.g., information seeking, information appraisal, information sharing) as motivators to engage in dual screening at the time of crises. Another notable finding was the participants, DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(4) particularly the digital participants, used dual screening to achieve social change, for instance asking others to stop circulating the photos of victims, not to be afraid, and so on. However, the dual screeners also utilized dual screen for emotional coping purposes, such as for venting emotions and for conveying or receiving emotional support. As for contributions, the findings provide valuable insights in applying Communication Mediation Model (CMM) to the context of dual screening in crisis communication research by understanding the effects of crisis information consumption and social media discussions on people’s crisis response-related behaviors. This research also extends the application of Crisis Response Communication Model (CRCM) by explaining dual screening use during the crisis process of terrorist attacks. Practically, the study offers beneficial insights for the government and other authorities in regard to crisis management, particularly on designing strategies to produce crisis information and effectively disseminate it on suitable media platforms during terrorist attacks or the like. Keywords: dual screening, crisis response, terrorist attack, communication mediation model, Twitter content analysis. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Trisha T. C. Lin. Without her endless support, encouragement, and continuous optimism in this work, this thesis would have been hardly completed. I also would like to extend my warmest gratitude to the committee members, Professor Tsung-Jen Shih and Dr. Ming-Ying Jason Lee for the constructive feedback. A special appreciation is given to Johan Setiawan, MBA, MM. from Universitas Multimedia Nusantara, Indonesia for the contribution in the data collection of this study. I would like to especially thank Ministry of Education, Taiwan for the generous support and giving me the opportunity to study Master’s in Taiwan. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends who have been my support system.. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….....1 1.1. Research Background ……………………………………………………………………..1 1.2. Research Purposes ………………………………………………………………………...7 1.3. Research Significance …………………………… ………………………………………7 2. Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………………9 2.1. Dual Screening …………………………………………………………………………..11 2.2. Crisis Communication …………………………………………………………………...13 2.3. Motivations to Use Dual Screening ……………………………………………………...17 2.3.1. Social Motives ……………………………………………………………………18 2.3.1.1. Perceived Social Presence ……………………………………………….19 2.3.1.2. Bridging Social Capital ………………………………………………….20 2.3.1.3. Sociability ……………………………………………………………….21 2.3.1. Cognitive Motives ………………………………………………………………..22 2.3.3. Affective Motives ………………………………………………………………...24 2.3.3.1. Emotional Support ………………………………………………………25 2.3.3.2. Emotional Venting ………………………………………………………26 2.4. Social Media and Crisis Communication ………………..……………………………...27 3. Method ………………………………………………………………………………………..32 3.1. Data Collection …………………………………………………………………………..35 3.1.1. Twitter Content Analysis ………………………….……………………………...35 3.1.2. In-depth Interview ……….……………………………………………………….37 DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(7) 3.2. Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………39 3.2.1. Twitter Content Analysis …………………………………………………………39 3.2.2. In-depth Interview Analysis ………………………………………………………42 4. Results ………………………………………………………………………………………..46 4.1. Twitter Content Analysis Results: Twitter Trends and Key Messages ………………….46 4.1.1. Twitter Trends of KM Bombing Attack ………………………………………….46 4.1.2. Messages Types of Twitter Communication During Terrorist Attacks ………….50 4.2. General Description of the Interviewee’s Profiles ………………………………………58 4.3. Crisis Response Communication Process ……………………………………………….61 4.3.1. Observation ……………………………………………………………………….62 4.3.2. Interpretation ……………………………………………………………………...67 4.3.3. Choice …………………………………………………………………………….69 4.3.4. Dissemination …………………………………………………………………….71 4.3.5. Connectivity ………………………………………………………………………76 4.4. Motivations to Use Dual Screening During Terrorist Attacks …………………………..81 4.4.1. Social Motives ……………………………………………………………………82 4.4.2. Cognitive Motives ………………………………………………………………...87 4.4.3. Affective Motives ………………………………………………………………...94 5. Conclusion and Discussion ………………………………………………………………….101 5.1. Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………………..101 5.2. Discussions ……………………………………………………………………………..104 5.3. Research Contributions …………………………………………………………………111 5.4. Limitations……………………………………………………………………………...113 DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(8) References ……………………………………………………………………………………...116 Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………………..131 Appendix A. Consent Form …………………………………………………………………131 Appendix B. Interview Questions …………………………………………………………..135 Appendix C. Offline Activities Regarding Kampung Melayu Attack ……………………...143. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(9) LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES. TABLES Table 1. Code Scheme for Twitter Data Analysis…………………………………………….41 Table 2. Code Scheme for Interview Data …………………………………………………...43 Table 3. Count and Percentage of All Tweet Codes …………………………………………51 Table 4. Most Influential Twitter Users During KM Bombing ……………………………...57 Table 5. Respondents’ Profile ………………………………………………………………..59 Table 6. Summary of Crisis Response Communication Process………………………………80 Table 7. Summary of Motivations to Use Dual Screening During Terrorist Attacks…………98 FIGURES Figure 1. Crisis Group with Varying Involvement …………………………..………………31 Figure 2. Distribution of Tweets during KM Bombing (#KamiTidakTakut) ………………..47 Figure 3. Word Cloud for Storm Phase ………………………………………………………48 Figure 4. Word Cloud for Post-Storm Phase …………………………………………………49 Figure 5. The Trend of the Public’s Interest on the KM Bombing Based on Google Trend ...49 Figure 6. Examples of Pictures Shared on Twitter …………………………………………..54 Figure 7. Prevalent Messages on Storm and Post Storm Phase ……………………………...55 Figure 8. Crisis Response Feature on Facebook ……………………………………………..72 Figure 9. Instagram Post for Emotional Support …………………………………………….96. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(10) 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. 1.1. 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.

(11) 2 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 videorelated 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.

(12) 3 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 indepth interviews with 21 Indonesian dual screeners from various groups (i.e., incident-related DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(13) 4 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., emotionrelated, information-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.

(14) 5 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.

(15) 6 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.

(16) 7 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 sociopsychological 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.

(17) 8 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.

(18) 9 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 videoviewing (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 communicationrelated 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.

(19) 10 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.

(20) 11 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 showrelated 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.

(21) 12 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.

(22) 13 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.

(23) 14 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.

(24) 15 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.

(25) 16 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.

(26) 17 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.

(27) 18 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 social media to build a sense of social presence; thus, they will not feel alone when facing the crisis (Yates & Partridge, 2015). Considering the aforementioned studies, this study proposes to integrate social motives in explaining individuals’ motivations to use dual screening during a crisis by DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(28) 19 adapting the three social motives of dual screening use from Lin and Chiang (2017): perceived social presence, bridging social capital, and sociability. 2.3.1.1. Perceived social presence Online communication creates the sense of togetherness or connectedness in a virtual community (Yates & Partridge, 2015). Individuals project other users as ‘real people’ in a digital environment (Zhan & Mei, 2013). This kind of perception is conceptualized as social presence and has been regarded as an important aspect of individuals’ social motivations in using communication technologies, particularly online media (Lowenthal & Dennen, 2017; Song & Hollenback, 2015). In CMC studies, social presence is described as “a psychological variable that goes beyond the virtual presence of other social actors and generates subjective experiences of closeness and connectedness in mediated communications” (Lin & Chiang, 2017, pp. 246). Many studies have identified the effect of social presence on users’ intentions and behaviors in the context of digital interaction (Han & Lee, 2014; Kim et al., 2017; Lin & Chiang, 2017; Shin, 2013). Dual screening allows the users to develop the feeling of togetherness through interaction on a second screen (Nicovich et al., 2005) and users enjoy a sense of group viewing although they are not physically together (Wohn & Na, 2011). This kind of experience can occur due to the immediacy and responsiveness of the communication activity on the second screen during linear TV-viewing (Johns, 2012). In the context of crisis, social presence could provoke certain affective and emotional effects (Hjorth & Burgess, 2014). Hence, it is important to acquire the sense of presence of others to encourage prosocial behaviors, for instance fundraising or volunteering (Uchida, et al., 2014).. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(29) 20 2.3.1.2. Perceived social capital Social capital can be understood as “resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions” and it stems from any social relationship as well as networks (Lin, 1999, pp. 35). Generally, social capital provides support and positive influence on participants’ interactions in a social network (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004) as it can escalate individuals’ commitment to support their community and activate weak ties in a social network (Ellison et al., 2007). Social capital can be categorized into three different dimensions: bonding, bridging, and linking social capital (Kim & Hastak, 2018). Bonding social capital occurs in the relationship between participants with emotional attachments, for instance family and close friends (Lin et al., 2017). On the other hand, bridging social capital focuses on the exchange resources among individuals from various backgrounds within a social network, derived from conversations and communications on social media (Lin & Chiang, 2017). Lastly, linking social capital focuses on bigger networks as it emphasizes on the relationship between communities and other influential organizations, for instance authorities, police, and so on (Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004). Social capital, particularly bridging social capital, can occur from conversation and communication via social media (Skoric et al., 2009). Dual screening users that watch video develop a higher likelihood to have social interaction with people from diverse networks and therefore, they are exposed to information related to the issues being discussed (Lin & Chiang, 2017). Bridging social capital plays an important role in the context of crises, especially the postcrisis phase as individuals want to connect with their community member to discuss the disaster response and recovery (Houston et al., 2015). Aldrich & Meyer (2015) identified the crucial role of bridging social capital for resilience by emphasizing the importance of formal institutions’ DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(30) 21 efforts to build up social infrastructure at the community level. Several social resources, for instance strong bonds between community members, influence of opinion leaders, commitment of residents, and other social aspects, have been identified as factors that affect victims’ recovery (Joshi & Aoki, 2014). Social media during a crisis could bridge social capital for crisis recovery, especially in building social networks, leadership, and support systems (Dufty, 2012). 2.3.1.3. Sociability Dual screening is sometimes recognized as a type of Social TV because video viewers are able to interact with other audience members using an array of social media applications (Lin & Chiang, 2017). Shin and Kim (2015) defined perceived sociability in the context of social TV as the technology-mediated characteristics in a communicable environment that facilitate the state of being sociable, where viewers can have interactions with each other in a pleasant environment. This current study adapts the definition by Lin and Chiang (2017), describing perceived sociability as how the social policies and technical features of online communities accelerate and facilitate group members’ social interactions, particularly for shared purposes. Sociability is a crucial component in interactions via dual screening because it is essential for viewers to feel comfortable in order to communicate within a technology-mediated environment. Thus, it is reasonable to assert that generating more sociability will result in the improvement of the behavior of the users (Shin, 2016). A study conducted by Wang and Sun (2016) found that sociability affected the users’ intentions to utilize social media. Shin’s STV study (2013) found that perceived sociability had a positive effect on the users’ attitude and intentions to use STV. Furthermore, another study demonstrated that, when mediated by bridging social capital, perceived sociability of STV indirectly had a positive association with loyalty to programs, for example, users kept watching videos and consuming social media for DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(31) 22 communication purposes (Lin et al., 2016). Information technological cues involved in dual screening can affect individuals’ perceived sociability of the online environment (Gao et al., 2010). Haciyakupoglu and Zhang (2015) identified two different technological factors: technological affordance and technological barrier. They are also related to dual screeners’ perceived sociability. Technological affordance is defined as how users interact with technological tools (Wijekumar et al., 2006). Technological barrier is a problem related to the technology’s function that arises during the usage, which will potentially damage users’ perceptions of the system (Haciyakupoglu & Zhan, 2015). 2.3.2. Cognitive motives Cognition refers to the ability to understand the extent of potential risk that a community might encounter and then act on that information; thus, information plays a vital role in individuals’ cognition (Comfort, 2007). Information is an important resource in a crisis, as people react to the situation based on the information they digest cognitively (Steelman et al., 2015); therefore, this present study focuses on informational motives to drive dual screeners’ media behaviors and crisis responses during terrorist attacks. Information-related factor has been identified as something affecting someone’s intention to use media channels (Conway & Rubin, 1991). Information need is often considered as one of the major forces to use media, including traditional TV-viewing (Rubin, 1983). However, the nature of dual screening as a practice of using multiple media types and devices simultaneously provides a different lens to see how cognitive motives drive someone to engage in dual-screening. Gil de Zúñiga, Garcia-Perdomo, and McGregor (2015) explained that individuals used dual screening for two different motives related to cognition, information seeking and information appraisal. Chadwick, O’Loughlin, and Vaccari (2017) also suggested that dual screening users’ motivations related to cognitive engagement were to obtain information and share DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(32) 23 information. Therefore, this study will investigate three informational purposes: information seeking, information appraisal, and information sharing. Information seeking has been seen as a factor that drives individuals to use dual screening (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2015). Dual screeners actively and purposively look for information by watching or reading contents from the mainstream media and social media (Vaccari et al., 2015). In the crisis-related context, there is a tremendous need for obtaining updated information from any available media to cope with uncertainty and unstable situations (Shklovski et al., 2008). Many people also attempt to consume some media simultaneously, as there are many actors that can provide information using different forms of media, such as journalists, NGOs, authorities, and so on (Austin et al., 2012). Traditional media channels, such as TV, have been used to obtain credible information from authorities during a crisis, so people rely on mass media more than social media (Steelman et al., 2015). Nonetheless, individuals still use their social media for information seeking, as social media is still one of the most popular sources of information during a crisis in many countries (Kim & Hastak, 2018). Thus, dual screening use for information fulfillment during crisis situations has become a common practice. Moreover, in regard to the dual screening practice, the complementary screen provides another feature, information appraisal, which is characterized by using the second screen to obtain additional information beyond what the video content offers and to clarify unknown information (Han & Lee, 2014). A report released by Nielsen (2012) asserts that 36 to 44% of individuals age 35–64 utilized another screen device, such as tablets, to acquire more information about the video content they watched (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2015). During a crisis, social media can provide supplementary information to the mass media and therefore many users consume social media to fill the gaps of information that are not covered by traditional media, such as TV, radio, and DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(33) 24 newspaper (Yates & Partridge, 2015). People also need information appraisal to clarify and verify the information acquired from the third party, such as social media influencers (Austin et al., 2012). Furthermore, in the CRCM, there are four stages of crisis response process: observation, interpretation, choice, and dissemination (Hale et al., 2005). Information appraisal is crucial in this process, particularly in two stages, interpretation and choice. In the interpretation phase, individuals try to make sense and assigned meaning to the crisis. Then in the choice stage, individuals examine the whole picture of the crisis (Hale et al., 2005); thus information appraisal is crucial to give more information about the crisis and help individuals understand the situation. Another informational motive is information sharing, referring to the activity of disseminating information to the community or network (Stieglitz & Dang-Xuan, 2013). Han and Lee (2014) also found that users prefer to use dual screening for sharing information with their friends, as dual screening provides a venue for information dissemination (Han & Lee, 2014). Social media, in particular, enables users to disseminate information using a low-cost technological solution (Lin et al., 2014). Users assess and quickly verify the news they obtain through social media, then they produce or circulate content to be publicly accessible on social media (Chadwick et al., 2017). Sharing information is crucial in crises as sometimes traditional media could not reach the location; thus, citizens’ information will be tremendously helpful in these situations (Toriumi et al., 2013). 2.3.3. Affective motives When crises occur, it generates a different perspective on viewing motivations of media use as it affects people’s emotions, such as creating anger and sadness (Ibrahim et al., 2008). Therefore, in disaster-related research, another crucial component to be explored is coping, the effort to respond an experience of an intense event or after a stressful situation (Eckenrode, 1991). DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(34) 25 There are two kinds of coping, one of them is emotion-focused coping, described as the way to control emotion distress in the aftermath of an event (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Media can facilitate emotional coping during and after a crisis by becoming a channel for emotional support (Perez-Lugo, 2004). Social media particularly becomes a platform for individuals to manage their feelings about a disastrous event (Tandoc & Takahashi, 2016). Thus, the affective motives of media use should be integrated in the context of crises, including terrorist attacks. Jin (2010) suggested two dimensions related to emotional-coping that might motivate individuals to use media, emotional support and emotional venting. 2.3.3.1. Emotional support In a crisis situation, there are many kinds of resources that people can give or obtain through their social network, including emotional support (Hikichi et al., 2016). Emotional support occurs as an exchange among some individuals by showing attention and affection, confirming the individual’s worth, as well as confiding in one another (Lincoln et al., 2003). Emotional support reflects a solidarity behavior and it becomes a common practice among survivors of a crisis in order to prevent trauma in the future (Drury et al., 2016). In a crisis situation, people use social media, for instance Twitter, as a channel to seek or accept emotional support (Wilensky, 2014). In particular, Twitter allows users to provide emotional support after crises by facilitating virtual bonding, information sharing, and resolution request (Jin et al., 2014). Individuals can also use social media to comfort and reassure other people (Yates & Partridge, 2015). Bautista and Lin (2015) identified several behaviors related to emotional support, such as giving tribute to the victims, showing sympathy or condolences, and praying for the victims as well as their families.. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(35) 26 2.3.3.2. Emotional venting Crises, such as terrorist attacks most often are very overwhelming, creating negative affective emotions (Jin, 2010). Some of these emotions are anger, sadness, fright, and anxiety (Jin et al., 2007). There is a necessity for the public to cope with such emotions and one of these strategies is emotional venting (Jin, 2010). This behavior is understood as expression of grief, anger, or any other negative feeling (Parlamis, 2012). Emotional ventilation can help people to reduce stress from such events and prevent future trauma (Pfefferbaum et al., 2014). Furthermore, a study by Nils and Rime (2012) demonstrates how venting can provide various benefits, including emotional recovery and stress reduction. Liu et al. (2014) identified emotional venting as a factor that motivates someone to use social media during crises. Social media offers a proper environment for users to share their feelings by diminishing social constraints (Baker & Moore, 2008). Thus, the public can use online platforms, such as social media, to express or vent negative emotions after a crisis, such as a bombing attack (Guo, 2017). By utilizing social media for sharing their emotions, users can feel more ease emotionally (Neubaum et al., 2014). In sum, based on aforementioned past studies, this research identifies three sociopsychological factors (i.e., social, cognitive, and affective motives) that can motivate people to engage in dual screening during terrorist attacks. Social motive is one aspect that drives an individual to use dual screening during a terrorist attack, and it consists of social presence, bridging social capital, and sociability. With regard to cognitive motive, information is a crucial component of cognition as it affects how someone responds to a crisis (Steelman et al., 2015). Hence, this study focuses on informational factors of dual screening use during a terrorist attack, comprising of information seeking, information appraisal, and information sharing. Lastly, affective factors, DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.

(36) 27 such as emotional support and emotional venting, also drive someone to use dual screening during a crisis.. 2.4. Social media and crisis communication Social media communication is an important element in dual screening practice as this behavior emerges after being facilitated by online platforms (Barnidge et al., 2017). Video viewers use another screen to obtain more information beyond the content they watch (Gil de Zuniga et al., 2015) and to share the information they have acquired (Chadwick et al., 2017). As individuals watch videos on one screen, they usually utilize another screen to react to the video content through online media, such as social media (Atifi & Marcoccia, 2017). Dual screeners also interact on social media by making comments online, looking at what other people post, and having conversations in real time (Cameron & Geidner, 2014). The rise of social media has altered the way people respond to a crisis situation. Individuals across the globe use social media to convey their thoughts and feelings regarding crises (Terpstra et al., 2012). Open social micro-blogging platforms, such as Twitter, are increasingly utilized by people from many countries to create and disseminate content as crisis responses in various ways, ranging from positive responses (e.g., calling social support or assistance for resilience, giving advices, and sharing information), to more social disruptive responses (e.g., spreading fake news, rumor, and negative comments) (Burnap et al., 2014). The recent KM bombing case in Jakarta on May 2017, also sparked extensive reactions on social media, especially Twitter. Twitter was the first platform used to broadcast news about this bombing (Sodikin, 2017). The users kept using this platform to update the situation and post. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05.