Diffusion of Emergency Information during a Crisis within a University
-
Michael J. Egnoto
,
Elena Svetieva
Abstract
Little attention has been given to the differences in information dispersion and interpretation during emergencies in collegiate environments which utilize diffusion. This manuscript seeks to add to social science knowledge via an expansion of diffusion of information literature by combining it with third-person effects and message credibility literature. In 2010, at a large Northeastern University, an alert went from the university warning students of a potential gunman on campus. Results indicate that high levels of third person effect were associated with greater sharing of information, and early knowers were more trusting of messages from both interpersonal and mass media channels than late knowers. Desire to share information was also more associated with early knowers, and theoretical implications are also discussed. Finally, suggestions for streamlining communication with regards to classroom policy are discussed.
Appendix 1
Instrument
On February 16th, at approximately 4:30 pm, reports of a man with a gun at the University began surfacing. The man was thought to be in the Library, located on Campus. Police arrived on campus, then surrounded and searched the building. The following survey seeks to understand how information about the Library incident spread.
Do you own a cell phone?
__ Yes __ No
Do you have texting on your cell phone?
__ Yes __ No
How frequently do you text?
______
1. On what date did you first become aware of the Library incident? (if the day of the incident, write “2/16”)
(date)_________ Not aware of the event _______
2. At approximately what time did you become aware of the incident
__4:30–5:00 __5:01–5:30 __5:31–6:00
__6:01–6:30 __6:31–7:00 __7:01–7:30
__7:31–8:00 __8:01–8:30 __8:31–9:00
__9:01–9:30 __9:31–10:00 __10:01–10:30
__10:31–11:00 __11:01–11:30 __11:31–12:00
__12:01–12:30(midnight) 12:30+
3. Through which media channel did you first hear about the Library Incident? (select 1)
__ text (SMS) __ Facebook
__ Twitter __ television
__ home phone __ from a person
__ email __ radio
__ cell phone (call) __ office phone
__ other __ online website
3a. if you selected Twitter, Facebook, or some other social networking site, please answer 2a if not, proceed to question 3.
If you received a tweet did it come from someone close to you, or a news source?
__ friend __ school paper
__ significant other __ family member
__ CBS __ local News (WGRZ)
__ CNN __ Fox
__ MSNBC __ other
If you received a Facebook alert or message, did it come from someone close to you, or a news source?
__ friend __ news source
__ significant other __ family member
__ other
4. Through which source did you first hear about the Library Incident?
__ from officials __ from a friend
__ from the mass media __ from a family member
__ from instructors __ other
5. On a scale of 1–7 with 1 being not credible at all, and with 7 being very credible, how trustworthy did you find the information from this source?
1----------2----------3----------4----------5----------6----------7
6. Upon hearing about the incident did you seek further information?
__ yes __ no
7. If you did seek more information after you initially heard about the incident, how long did you wait, in minutes, before seeking more information?
__ 0–5 min __6–10 min
__11–15 min __ 16–20 min
__21–25 min __ 26–30 min
__31–35 min __ 36–40 min
__41–45 min __46–50 min
__51–55 min __ 56–60 min
__ Over 60 min __ did not seek more information
8. If yes, through which media channel did you first seek more information?
__ text __ Facebook
__ Twitter __ television
__ phone __ from a person
__ email __ other
9. On a scale of 1–7 with 1 being not credible at all, and with 7 being very credible, how trustworthy did you find the information from this media channel?
1----------2----------3----------4----------5----------6----------7
10. If yes, through which source did you seek more information?
__ from officials __ from a friend
__ from the mass media __ from a family member
__ from instructors __ other
11. After hearing about the incident, did you tell others?
__ yes __ no
If yes, how many others did you contact? __________________________
12. If you did tell others about the information you heard after you initially heard about the incident, how long did you wait, in minutes, to begin telling them?
__ 0–5 min __6–10 min
__11–15 min __ 16–20 min
__21–25 min __ 26–30 min
__31–35 min __ 36–40 min
__41–45 min __46–50 min
__51–55 min __ 56–60 min
__ Over 60 min __ did not tell others
13. 10- If yes, whom did you first contact?
__ friends (classmates) __ significant other
__ family __ other
14. If yes, through which channel did you tell others?
__ text __ Facebook
__ Twitter __ television
__ phone __ from a person
__ email __ other
15. What did you tell the person you contacted?
____________________________________________________
16. What best described your motivation for seeking additional information, or sharing the information you had about the Library Incident?
__ it made me feel informed __ it was good information to know
__ it gave me something to talk about __ it was important information to share
17. What was the most important reason for contacting this person
__ to gather information __ to share information
__ to confirm information __ to discredit information
18. On a scale of 1–7, with 1 being poor and 7 being excellent, how well did you think information from the text conveyed the situation?
1----------2----------3----------4----------5----------6----------7
19. On a scale of 1–7, with 1 being poor and 7 being excellent, how well did you think the information from the email conveyed the situation?
1----------2----------3----------4----------5----------6----------7
20. Where were you located when you first heard about the incident?
__ home __ north
__ work __ south
__ Other__________________________
21. If you were on campus, where were you located?
__ dorms __ class
__ library __ gym
__ Student Union __ eatery
__ other__________________________
22. Which one additional source, other than the previous source you named, that you sought additional information from seemed most credible
__ from officials __ from a friend
__ from the mass media __ from a family
__ from instructors __ other
23. Which media channel other than the previous channel you named, that you sought additional information from seemed most credible
__ text __ Facebook
__ Twitter __ television
__ phone __ from a person
__ email __ other
__________________________
24. Have you been in a similar experience as the evacuation before?
__ yes __ no
25. If yes, could you briefly describe it?
___________________________________________________
Demographic information:
How do you ethnically identify yourself?
__ White __ Latino __ Prefer not to say
__ Asian __ African American __
Other__________________________
What is your sex?
__ female __ male
What is your age (in years)?
____
What is your educational attainment?
__ freshman __ sophomore
__ junior __ senior
References
Banning, S. A. (2006) “Third-Person Effects on Political Participation.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83:785–800.10.1177/107769900608300404Suche in Google Scholar
Basil, M. D. and J. D. Brown. (1994) “Interpersonal Communication in News Diffusion: A Study of “Magic” Johnson’s Announcement.” Journalism Quarterly, 71:305–320.Suche in Google Scholar
Choi, J. H., J. H. Watt and M. Lynch (2006) “Perceptions of News Credibility About the War in Iraq: Why War Opponents Perceived the Internet as the Most Credible Medium.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12:209–229. Doi:10.1111/j.1083.Suche in Google Scholar
Davison, W. (1983) “The Third-Person Effect in Communication.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1):1–15.10.1086/268763Suche in Google Scholar
Greenberg, B. S. (1964a) “Diffusion of the News About the Kennedy Assassination.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 28:225–232.10.1086/267239Suche in Google Scholar
Greenberg, B. S. (1964b) “Person to Person Communication in the Diffusion of a News Event.” Journalism Quarterly, 41:489–494.10.1177/107769906404100402Suche in Google Scholar
Harrer, A., N. Malzahn, S. Zeini and H. Ulrich Hoppe (2007) “Combining Social Network Analysis with Semantic Relations to Support the Evolution of a Scientific Community.” CSCL, 2007:270–279.10.3115/1599600.1599650Suche in Google Scholar
Ibrahim, A., J. Ye and C. Hoffner (2008) „Diffusion of News of the Shuttle Columbia Disaster: The Role of Emotional Responses and Motives for Interpersonal Communication.“ Communication Research Reports, 25:91–101. Doi: 10.1080/0882409092021970.Suche in Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2004) Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar
Kubey, R. W. and T. Peluso (1990) “Emotional Response as a Cause of Interpersonal News Diffusion: The Case of the Space Shuttle Tragedy.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34:69–76. Doi:10.1080/08838159009386726.10.1080/08838159009386726Suche in Google Scholar
Nam, Y. and G. A. Barnett (2010) “Communication Media Diffusion and Substitutions: Longitudinal Trends From 1980 to 2005 in Korea.” New Media & Society 12(7):1137–1155. Doi:10.1177/1461444809356334.10.1177/1461444809356334Suche in Google Scholar
Palen, L., S. Vieweg, S. B. Liu and A. L. Hughes (2009) “Crisis in a Networked World: Features of Computer-Mediated Communication in the April 16th, 2007 Virginia Tech Event.” Social Science Computer Review, 27:467–480. Doi: 10.1177/0894439309332302.10.1177/0894439309332302Suche in Google Scholar
Palen, L., S. Vieweg and K. A. Anderson (2011) “Supporting ‘Everyday Analysts’ in Safety and Time-Critical Situations.” The Information Society Journal, 27:52–62.10.1080/01972243.2011.534370Suche in Google Scholar
Paul, B., M. B. Salwen and M. Dupagne (2000) “The Third-Person Effect: A Meta-analysis of the Perceptual Hypothesis.” Mass Communication and Society, 3:57–85. Doi: 10.1207/s15327825MCS0301_04.10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04Suche in Google Scholar
Rogers, E. (1962, 2003) Diffusion of Innovations, Rev. 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. and N. Seidel (2002) “Diffusion of News of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.” Prometheus, 20:209–219. Doi: 10.1080/0810902021014326.10.1080/0810902021014326Suche in Google Scholar
Salwen, M. B. and M. Dupagne (1999) “The Third-Person Effect.” Communication Research, 26:523–549. Doi:10.1177/009365099026005001.10.1177/009365099026005001Suche in Google Scholar
Scharrer, E. and R. Leone (2008) “First-Person Shooters and Third Person Effect.” Human Communication Research, 34:210–233.10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00319.xSuche in Google Scholar
Vishwanath, A. (2009) “From Belief-Importance to Intention: The Impact of Framing on Technology Adoption.” Communication Monographs, 76:177–206. Doi: 10.1080/03637750902828438.10.1080/03637750902828438Suche in Google Scholar
Wigley, S. and M. Fontenot (2010) “Crisis Managers Losing Control of the Message: A Pilot Study of the Virginia Tech Shooting.” Public Relations Review, 36(2):187–189.10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.01.003Suche in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Research Articles
- Integrating Federal Approaches to Post-Cyber Incident Mitigation
- Cybersecurity and US Legislative Efforts to address Cybercrime
- The Military’s Response to Domestic CBRNE Incidents
- Building Public Health Preparedness and Food and Agriculture Defense Capabilities Using Whole Community and One Health Concepts
- Situated Response and Learning of Distributed Bushfire Coordinating Teams
- A Critical Examination of the Assumptions Regarding Centralized Coordination in Large-Scale Emergency Situations
- “Of Gods and Men”: Selected Print Media Coverage of Natural Disasters and Industrial Failures in Three Westminster Countries
- Spontaneous Planning after the San Bruno Gas Pipeline Explosion: A Case Study of Anticipation and Improvisation during Response and Recovery Operations
- Understanding Incident Response to Unplanned Releases at Chemical Facilities
- A Study on the Responsiveness of Local Health Departments that Use Facebook
- Texas takes on the TSA: The Constitutional Fight over Airport Security
- The Gulf Oil Spill and Economic Impacts: Extending the National Interstate Economic Model (NIEMO) to Account for Induced Impacts
- The Economic Value of Water: Providing Confidence and Context to FEMA’s Methodology
- Diffusion of Emergency Information during a Crisis within a University
- Resilience Building Policies and their Influence in Crisis Prevention, Absorption and Recovery
- Communication and News
- A Practitioner-Researcher Partnership to Develop and Deliver Operational Value of Threat, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Training to meet the Requirements of Emergency Responders
- Regional Public-Private Interoperable Communications for Catastrophic Events Using a Cloud Computing Based Portal
- It’s Never Too Late: Restructuring the Department of Homeland Security’s Regional Framework
- Finding the New High Ground in Cyber War: Malware as an Instrument of War
- Opinions
- Cybersecurity and Emergency Management: Encryption and the Inability to Communicate
- Assessing the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards after 5 Years: Achievements, Challenges, and Risks Ahead
- Book Review
- Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900–2010 (2nd Edition)
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Research Articles
- Integrating Federal Approaches to Post-Cyber Incident Mitigation
- Cybersecurity and US Legislative Efforts to address Cybercrime
- The Military’s Response to Domestic CBRNE Incidents
- Building Public Health Preparedness and Food and Agriculture Defense Capabilities Using Whole Community and One Health Concepts
- Situated Response and Learning of Distributed Bushfire Coordinating Teams
- A Critical Examination of the Assumptions Regarding Centralized Coordination in Large-Scale Emergency Situations
- “Of Gods and Men”: Selected Print Media Coverage of Natural Disasters and Industrial Failures in Three Westminster Countries
- Spontaneous Planning after the San Bruno Gas Pipeline Explosion: A Case Study of Anticipation and Improvisation during Response and Recovery Operations
- Understanding Incident Response to Unplanned Releases at Chemical Facilities
- A Study on the Responsiveness of Local Health Departments that Use Facebook
- Texas takes on the TSA: The Constitutional Fight over Airport Security
- The Gulf Oil Spill and Economic Impacts: Extending the National Interstate Economic Model (NIEMO) to Account for Induced Impacts
- The Economic Value of Water: Providing Confidence and Context to FEMA’s Methodology
- Diffusion of Emergency Information during a Crisis within a University
- Resilience Building Policies and their Influence in Crisis Prevention, Absorption and Recovery
- Communication and News
- A Practitioner-Researcher Partnership to Develop and Deliver Operational Value of Threat, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Training to meet the Requirements of Emergency Responders
- Regional Public-Private Interoperable Communications for Catastrophic Events Using a Cloud Computing Based Portal
- It’s Never Too Late: Restructuring the Department of Homeland Security’s Regional Framework
- Finding the New High Ground in Cyber War: Malware as an Instrument of War
- Opinions
- Cybersecurity and Emergency Management: Encryption and the Inability to Communicate
- Assessing the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards after 5 Years: Achievements, Challenges, and Risks Ahead
- Book Review
- Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900–2010 (2nd Edition)
