| Literature DB >> 30450537 |
Bertus F Jeronimus1,2, Evelien Snippe2,3, Ando C Emerencia1,2, Peter de Jonge1,2, Elisabeth H Bos1,2.
Abstract
People can experience disasters vicariously (indirectly) via conversation, social media, radio, and television, even when not directly involved in a disaster. This study examined whether vicarious exposure to the MH17-airplane crash in Ukraine, with 196 Dutch victims, elicited affective and somatic responses in Dutch adults about 2,600 km away, who happened to participate in an ongoing diary study. Participants (n = 141) filled out a diary three times a day for 30 days on their smartphones. Within-person changes in positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) and somatic symptoms after the crash were studied. Additionally, we tested whether between-person differences in response could be explained by age, baseline personality (NEO-FFI-3), and media exposure. The MH17 crash elicited a small within-person decrease in PA and an increase in NA and somatic symptoms. This response waned after 3 days and returned to baseline at day four. The decrease in PA was larger in more extraverted participants but smaller in those higher on neuroticism or conscientiousness. The NA response was smaller in elderly. Personality did not seem to moderate the NA and somatic response, and neither did media exposure. Dutch participants showed small acute somatic and affective responses up till 3 days to a disaster that they had not directly witnessed. Vicariously experienced disasters can thus elicit affective-visceral responses indicative of acute stress reactions. Personality and age explained some of the individual differences in this reaction.Entities:
Keywords: Big Five Personality; Collective indirect threat signal; Indirect threat exposure; Media; Positive and negative affect
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30450537 PMCID: PMC6900050 DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Psychol ISSN: 0007-1269
Figure 1Social tension in the Netherlands as indicated by social media.Notes. On the y‐axis, we see the percentage of social media messages that include words indicative of social tension (from 0% to 2%) according to Center for Big Data Statistics (2017) Social Tension Indicator (https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/our-services/innovation/project/social-tension-indicator-based-on-social-media). This indicator measures tensions or unrest within Dutch society based on a validated glossary containing words that are specifically related to (un)safety, rather than more general measurements of positive or negative sentiments. Chronologically, we see in this graph: [1] The MH17 crash on 17 July 2014; [2] Monster truck accident on 28 September 2014; [3] Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris on 7 January 2015; [4] Intruder with a gun at the Dutch national broadcasting foundation, 29 January 2015; [5] Big power outage in the Netherlands, 27 March 2015; [6] Riots in the Schilderswijk The Hague, 2 July 2015; [7] Attacks in Paris, 14 November 2015; [8] National uproar about protest against setting up an asylum centre, 16 December 2015; [9] Attacks in Brussels, 22 March 2016; [10] Shooting in Orlando, 12 June 2016; [11] Attack with truck in Nice, 15 July 2016. The results show that the MH17 disaster (1) was associated with a peak in messages including words indicative of social tension, although the peak was not as high as the peak of the subsequent terrorist attacks in Paris (events 3 and 7) and Brussels (event 9).
Demographic and personality characteristics of the participants
| Total sample | Personality sample | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 141 | 89 |
| Age, mean ( | 43.6 (14.0) | 45.2 (14.6) |
| Female, | 102 (72%) | 61 (69%) |
| Level of education, mean ( | 7.0 (1.1) | 7.1 (1.1) |
| Number of observations, mean ( | 57.8 (27.6) | 61.1 (25.5) |
| Negative affect, mean ( | 29.0 (19.3) | 29.5 (18.9) |
| Positive affect, mean ( | 55.8 (18.1) | 56.3 (17.9) |
| Somatic symptoms, mean ( | 25.0 (26.2) | 27.5 (27.6) |
| Personality, mean ( | ||
| Neuroticism | 35.0 (9.8) | |
| Extraversion | 38.4 (7.5) | |
| Conscientiousness | 42.0 (6.8) | |
Educational level ranged from 1 (elementary school not finished) to 8 (academic degree).
Multilevel models showing the effect of the MH17 crash on negative affect, positive affect, and somatic symptoms
| Negative affect | Positive affect | Somatic symptoms | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | 95% CI |
| Estimate | 95% CI |
| Estimate | 95% CI |
| |
| Fixed effects | |||||||||
| Intercept |
| 28.43–29.19 | <.001 |
| 55.80–56.51 | <.001 |
| 24.55–25.79 | <.001 |
| MH17 event |
| 0.03–1.56 | .022 |
| −2.19 to −0.47 | <.001 |
| 1.59–4.05 | <.001 |
| Random effects | |||||||||
| Intercept |
| 224–242 | <.001 |
| 170–185 | <.001 |
| 372–410 | <.001 |
| MH17 event |
| 39.66–71.10 | <.001 |
| 48.06–83.54 | <.001 |
| 106–197 | <.001 |
Note. Bold denotes significant values (p < .05). Fixed effects are estimated coefficients (B). Random effects are variances. Confidence Intervals (CI) are bootstrapped.
All models covered 141 participants with 8,149 observations in total.
Figure 2Affective and somatic responses to the MH17‐crash.Notes. This figure shows the best‐fitting response shape. The x‐axis shows the measurement moments, the morning (e.g., 17.1), afternoon (e.g., 17.2) and evening (e.g., 17.3) measurements between 16 July and 22 July.
Multivariable multilevel models showing moderating effects of personality, age, and media exposure on the effect of the MH17 crash on negative affect, positive affect, and somatic symptoms
| Negative affect | Positive affect | Somatic symptoms | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | 95% CI |
| Estimate | 95% CI |
| Estimate | 95% CI |
| |
| Intercept |
| 29.80–31.70 | <.001 |
| 52.30–54.30 | <.001 |
| 26.80–29.50 | <.001 |
| Sex |
| 0.69–2.55 | <.001 | 0.08 | −0.93 to 1.09 | .871 |
| −6.71 to −4.04 | <.001 |
| MH17 event | 2.13 | −0.18 to 4.72 | .062 |
| −5.81 to −0.79 | .007 |
| 3.25–10.7 | <.001 |
| Neuroticism |
| 0.97–1.06 | <.001 |
| −0.93 to −0.81 | <.001 |
| 0.85–1.01 | <.001 |
| Extraversion |
| −0.36 to −0.24 | <.001 |
| 0.30–0.43 | <.001 |
| −0.47 to −0.29 | <.001 |
| Conscientiousness | −0.01 | −0.08 to 0.06 | .807 |
| −0.18 to −0.03 | .007 | −0.09 | −0.18 to 0.01 | .058 |
| Age |
| 0.02–0.08 | .005 |
| −0.17 to −0.09 | <.001 | 0.02 | −0.04 to 0.06 | .473 |
| Media exposure |
| 2.00–4.23 | <.001 |
| −5.78 to −3.45 | <.001 |
| −3.13 to 0.17 | .038 |
| MH17*Neuroticism | −0.01 | −0.15 to 0.14 | .918 |
| 0.02–0.30 | .015 | −0.14 | −0.35 to 0.07 | .135 |
| MH17*Extraversion | 0.03 | −0.12 to 0.21 | .636 |
| −0.36 to −0.02 | .014 | −0.18 | −0.41 to 0.11 | .132 |
| MH17*Conscientiousness | 0.05 | −0.12 to 0.19 | .486 |
| 0.01–0.36 | .036 | 0.14 | −0.13 to 0.38 | .230 |
| MH17*Age |
| −0.19 to −0.03 | .003 | 0.06 | −0.01 to 0.14 | .076 | −0.04 | −0.15 to 0.07 | .466 |
| MH17*Media exposure | 0.14 | −3.01 to 3.31 | .940 | −0.99 | −4.32 to 2.27 | .516 | 3.81 | −1.40 to 9.13 | .126 |
Significant effects in bold. N = number of participants. Estimated coefficients are fixed effects. Moderator variables are centred around their mean. Sex is coded 0 (female) and 1 (male). All models covered 89 participants and 5,633 observations in total. CI= confidence interval.
Salient disaster characteristics applied to the MH17 crash
| Salient disaster characteristics | MH17 crash characteristics | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Direct or vicarious exposure? | − | Vicarious disaster exposure (via media) |
| 2. | Proximity | − | MH17 crashed in Ukraine, over 2,600 km from the Dutch border |
| 3. | Intentionality / mutability | + | On purpose, shot down by Russian separatists, after the EU sanctioned Russia for its role in Ukraine the day before the crash. |
| 4. | Human‐made or act of nature? | + | Human choice |
| 5. | Degree of life threat | − | No direct threat to our participants, as they lived far from the disaster location |
| 6. | Death rate (exposure to death) | + | 296 victims |
| 7. | Physical injury | − | No participant was injured |
| 8. | Proportion community affected (e.g., urban/rural) | − | National response, but only few people were directly affected |
| 9. | Bereavement or loss of significant others | − | Participants were unlikely to have lost close family members or friends |
| 10. | Speed of onset | + | Crash came ‘out of the blue’ |
| 11. | Duration of the trauma | + | Short, but many return flights with bodies over the following months |
| 12. | Potential for recurrence (control) | − | Small. Flights over Ukraine became suspended. |
| 13. | Severity of property destruction | − | Relatively small on national scale (and no property of the participants) |
| 14. | Victim's displacement from home | − | Not applicable. Very slow recovery of victim bodies. |
| 15. | Person's role in the trauma | − | Absent |
| 16. | Organizational response to event (management) | + | Firm response from Dutch government, but difficulty securing victim bodies. |
| 17. | Sociocultural context of the event (understanding) | + | Exceptional event for the Netherlands and excessive media coverage. US President Obama broadcasted the MH17 crash as a ‘global tragedy’ |
These characteristics were derived from review papers on disaster impact by Kasperson et al. (1988), Rubonis and Bickman (1991), Bromet and Dew (1995), and Neria et al. (2008). km = kilometres (0.62 mile).