Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Social Media Usage During Disasters: Exploring the Impact of Location and Distance on Online Engagement

  • Qing Deng (a1), Yi Liu (a2), Xiaodong Liu (a2), Hui Zhang (a1) and Xiaolong Deng (a3)...

Abstract

Social media play an important role in emergency management. The location of citizens and distance from a disaster influence the social media usage patterns. Using the Tianjin Port Explosion, we apply the correlation analysis and regression analysis to explore the relationship between online engagement and location. Citizens’ online engagement is estimated by social media. Three dimensions of the psychological distance – spatial, temporal, and social distances – are applied to measure the effects of location and distance. Online engagement is negatively correlated to such 3 kinds of the distance, which indicates that citizens may pay less attention to a disaster that happens at a far away location and at an area of less interaction or at a relatively long period of time. Furthermore, a linear model is proposed to measure the psychological distance. The quantification relationship between online engagement and psychological distance is discussed. The result enhances our understanding of social media usage patterns related to location and distance. The study gives a new insight on situation awareness, decision-making during disasters.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Correspondence and reprint requests to Hui Zhang, Room 1009, Liuqing Builiding, Tsinghua University, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100084 (e-mail: zhhui@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn).

References

Hide All
1. Takahashi, B, Tandoc, EC, Carmichael, C. Communicating on Twitter during a disaster: an analysis of tweets during Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Comput Human Behav. 2015;50:392-398. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.020.
2. Wong, TC, Chan, HK, Lacka, E. An ANN-based approach of interpreting user-generated comments from social media. Appl Soft Comput. 2017;52:1169-1180. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.09.011.
3. Hadi, TA, Fleshler, K. Integrating social media monitoring into public health emergency response operations. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2016;10(05):775-780. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2016.39.
4. Finch, KC, Snook, KR, Duke, CH, et al. Public health implications of social media use during natural disasters, environmental disasters, and other environmental concerns. Nat Hazards. 2016;83(1):729-760. doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2327-8.
5. Hossain, L, Kam, D, Kong, F, Wigand, RT. Social media in Ebola outbreak. Epidemiol Infect. 2017;2016:2136-2143. doi: 10.1017/S095026881600039X.
6. Jamali, M, Nejat, A, Ghosh, S, et al. Social media data and post-disaster recovery. Int J Inf Manage. 2019;44:25-37.
7. Wukich, C. Government social media messages across disaster phases. J Contingencies Cris Manag. 2016;24(4):230-242. doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12119.
8. Xu, X, Yin, X, Chen, X. A large-group emergency risk decision method based on data mining of public attribute preferences. Knowledge-Based Syst. 2019;163:495-509. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2018.09.010.
9. Ma, L. What drives the adoption of social media applications by the public sector? Int J Public Adm Digit Age. 2016;3(4):76-93. doi: 10.4018/IJPADA.2016100106.
10. Ngamassi, L. Examining the role of social media in disaster management from an attribution theory perspective. Proc ISCRAM 2016 Conference – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 2016.
11. Díaz, P, Carroll, JM, Aedo, I. Coproduction as an approach to technology-mediated citizen participation in emergency management. Futur Internet. 2016;8(3). doi: 10.3390/fi8030041.
12. Simon, T, Goldberg, A, Adini, B. Socializing in emergencies – a review of the use of social media in emergency situations. Int J Inf Manage. 2015;35(5):609-619. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.07.001.
13. Kumar, A, Singh, JP. Location reference identification from tweets during emergencies: a deep learning approach. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019;33:365-375. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.021.
14. Starbird, K, Dailey, D, Walker, AH, et al. Social media, public participation, and the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2015;21(3):605-630. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2014.947866.
15. Chandran, S, Menon, G. When a day means more than a year: effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. J Consum Res. 2004;31(2):375-389. doi: 10.1086/422116.
16. Huang, N, Burtch, G, Hong, Y, Polman, E. Effects of multiple psychological distances on construal and consumer evaluation: a field study of online reviews. J Consum Psychol. 2016;26(4):474-482. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2016.03.001.
17. Trope, Y, Liberman, N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev. 2010;117(2):440-463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963.
18. Liberman, N, Trope, Y, Stephan, E. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford Press; 2007.
19. Liberman, N, Trope, Y. Traversing psychological distance. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(7):364-369. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001.
20. Smith, A, Schlozman, KL, Verba, S. The Internet and civic engagement. Pew Res Center Internet Am Life Proj. 2009;67(3):311-334. doi: 10.1086/376947.
21. Kortelainen, T, Katvala, M. “Everything is plentiful-Except attention.” Attention data of scientific journals on social web tools. J Informetr. 2012;6(4):661-668. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.06.004.
22. Knight, SR. Social media and online attention as an early measure of the impact of research in solid organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2014;98(5):490-496. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000307.
23. Van Lent, LGG, Sungur, H, Kunneman, FA, et al. Too far to care? Measuring public attention and fear for Ebola using Twitter. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(6):1-10. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7219.
24. Strekalova, YA. Health risk information engagement and amplification on social media. Heal Educ Behav. 2017;44(2):332-339. doi: 10.1177/1090198116660310.
25. Xhafa, F, Patnaik, S, Yu, Z. Systems I. Recent developments in intelligent systems and interactive applications. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent and Interactive Systems and Applications (IISA2016); 2016.
26. Liu, Y, Wang, B, Wu, B, et al. Characterizing super-spreading in microblog: an epidemic-based information propagation model. Physica A. 2016;463:202-218. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2016.07.022.
27. Snefjella, B, Kuperman, V. Concreteness and psychological distance in natural language use. Psychol Sci. 2015;26(9):1449-1460. doi: 10.1177/0956797615591771.
28. Carmi, N, Kimhi, S. Further than the eye can see: psychological distance and perception of environmental threats. Hum Ecol Risk Assess An Int J. 2015;21(8):2239-2257. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2015.1046419.
29. Liberman, N, Trope, Y, McCrea, SM, Sherman, SJ. The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;43(1):143-149. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009.
30. Fujita, K, Henderson, MD, Eng, J, et al. Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(4):278-280. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01698.x.
31. Carmi, N, Bartal, E. Perception of environmental threat in the shadow of war: the effect of future orientation. Hum Ecol Risk Assess An Int J. 2014;20(3):872-886. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2013.798217.
32. Ayazi, T, Lien, L, Eide, A, et al. Community attitudes and social distance towards the mentally ill in South Sudan: a survey from a post-conflict setting with no mental health services. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014;49(5):771-780. doi: 10.1007/s00127-013-0775-y.
33. Boothby, EJ, Smith, LK, Clark, MS, Bargh, JA. Psychological distance moderates the amplification of shared experience. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2016;42(10):1431-1444. doi: 10.1177/0146167216662869.
34. Liviatan, I, Trope, Y, Liberman, N. Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: implications for perception of others’ actions. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008;44(5):1256-1269. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007.
35. Darke, PR, Brady, MK, Benedicktus, RL, Wilson, AE. Feeling close from afar: the role of psychological distance in offsetting distrust in unfamiliar online retailers. J Retail. 2016;92(3):287-299. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2016.02.001.
36. Lim, S, Cha, SY, Park, C, et al. Getting closer and experiencing together: antecedents and consequences of psychological distance in social media-enhanced real-time streaming video. Comput Human Behav. 2012;28(4):1365-1378. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.022.
37. Huang, P, Zhang, J. Facts related to August 12, 2015 explosion accident in Tianjin, China. Process Saf Prog. 2015;34(4):313-314. doi: 10.1002/prs.11789.
38. Chung, YS, Kim, HS. On the August 12, 2015 occurrence of explosions and fires in Tianjin, China, and the atmospheric impact observed in central Korea. Air Qual Atmos Heal. 2015;8(6):521-532. doi: 10.1007/s11869-015-0371-2.
39. Deng, Q, Liu, Y, Zhang, H, et al. A new crowdsourcing model to assess disaster using microblog data in typhoon Haiyan. Nat Hazards. 2016;84(2):1241-1256. doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2484-9.

Keywords

Social Media Usage During Disasters: Exploring the Impact of Location and Distance on Online Engagement

  • Qing Deng (a1), Yi Liu (a2), Xiaodong Liu (a2), Hui Zhang (a1) and Xiaolong Deng (a3)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed