citizens emotional and cognitive response to crises and ... · or potential policy change. one...

Citizens’ emotional and cognitive responses to

crises and catastrophes:

An experimental study of four Finnish

focusing events

Jenny Lindholm

Åbo Akademi University

2

Paper presented at the 2013 ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, September 4−7

First draft: please do not cite without permission of the author.

Abstract

A focusing event, i.e. a crisis or catastrophe, is of interest within research since it is most likely to enter

the formal political agenda, obtain a lot of attention in the media and engage citizens. But when studying

the political consequences of focusing events, the main emphasis often lies on the media’s performance

or potential policy change. One interesting unexplored approach is to study how citizens respond to

crises and catastrophes and their expectations of the response by politicians and various societal

institutions. During the spring of 2013, an experiment (N = 30) on how citizens respond to focusing

events took place in the MediaCity Content Testing Lab at Åbo Akademi University, Finland. The aim of

this project is to provide a better understanding of the role citizens play in the wake of a crisis. In line

with this, an attempt will be made to discover what the public expect from decision makers and society

in times of crisis. The experiment will examine four recent Finnish crises. The combination of emotional

and cognitive responses discovered will contribute to a better understanding of how citizens perceive a

focusing event and the expectations that will be placed on politicians and societal institutions in similar

events.

Keywords

focusing events, crises and catastrophes, emotions, experiment

3

1 Introduction

The concept of focusing events provides an understanding of the political processes that follow a crisis or

catastrophe. The term ‘focusing event’ is defined here as an event that is instantly discussed in the media

and reaches citizens’ awareness, and possesses the possibility of pushing issues onto the formal political

agenda. A further definition of the concept and many interesting starting points can be found in

Birkland’s (1997; 2006) reasoning. He discusses how an event, although having all the characteristics of

a focusing event may vary in strength.

A potential focusing event is an event that is sudden, relatively rare, can be reasonably defined as

harmful or revealing the possibility of potentially greater future harms, inflicts harms or suggests

potential harms that is or could be concentrated on a definable geographical area or community of

interest, and that is known to policy makers and the public virtually simultaneously. (Birkland

1997, 22)

One way of discussing the strength of an event is by using different concepts like crises, disasters and

catastrophes (Birkland 2006). However, this discussion about strength of focus has a number of

difficulties. One problem is how to distinguish a disaster from a catastrophe: in Swedish for example,

the two concepts have the same translation. Birkland argues that a catastrophe is more profound and

affects society further than a disaster. But the use of the concepts “catastrophe/disaster” still leaves a

large grey area of events that are difficult to place in either category. In disaster research, one common

way to categorize the severity of events is by the number of deceased (Oh & Oetzel 2011, 666). This is

not an ideal approach when studying focusing events, especially since many natural disasters in the

Nordic countries have very few deaths, if any at all. Another example is how a focusing event that was

mega-focusing in Finland, i.e. the school shooting in Jokela, had nine deaths, while natural disasters in

other parts of the world may have hundreds of deaths, but still be less focusing on that specific

geographical area.

In my forthcoming thesis I discuss how to create an index for the strength of focusing events. In this

paper, the concept is only briefly discussed. By identifying different characteristics that may influence

the degree of focus as either necessary or intensifying characteristics, an 11-point scale is created. First

the three variables required for an event to be focusing are defined; suddenness, rarity, and negativity

for a large number of people. Each of these variables can receive from one to three points depending on

the severity. Subsequently I identify two characteristics to further intensify the focus; geographic

4

proximity and cultural proximity (see Birkland 1997; 2006; Worrall 1999). Each of these characteristics

receives one point if acknowledged. Altogether an event may receive a minimum of three points up to a

maximum of eleven points. However, the main idea is not to separate events with seven points from

events scoring eight points. Instead, the intension is to discuss different groups of events, like mega-

focusing, intermediate focusing and only slightly focusing.

Another way of dividing focusing events is by origin, either a natural phenomenon or a man-made

disaster. Focusing events based on natural phenomena include earthquakes, floods and hurricanes. Such

events occur on a regular basis and it can be expected that there will be various natural disasters every

year. These events may of course vary in strength and can be exacerbated by human actions. The

discussion of different types of focusing events proceeds from the cause of the event that is either created

by nature or by human actions. Although it was noted that many subsequent processes affect events to

various extents, in this research I chose to identify the events from the origin. The second groups of

focusing events are those that are caused by human actions, i.e. accidents and errors, or the intended use

of violence, like school shootings and terrorist attacks.

We live in a world that is constantly exposed to events classed within the second group mentioned

above. The twenty-first century has brought us new threats such as international terrorism, fears of a

collapse of information and communication systems, and more extreme weather events (OECD 2003).

Well-known problems in the form of crises and disasters created by humans and natural phenomena

show the vulnerability of societies (Boin, t'Hart, Stern & Sundelius 2005, 1). Whenever a crisis or a

disaster occurs, it is essential that citizens trust that their society can provide credence towards managing

the situation. Society’s leaders are expected to avert threats – or at least to minimise the damage and

devastation of a disaster. Likewise, an explanation is expected as to what went wrong and a declaration

that it will not happen again (Boin et al. 2005, 1).

Finland, like many other western societies, has a representative political system. This requires citizens to

have confidence and trust in the system and in their elected political representatives. For the system to

work smoothly it must be perceived as legitimate by both those in power and by the citizens.

Furthermore, accountability or dissatisfaction can be channelled through regular occurring elections.

(Grönlund & Isaksson 2008, 60). With regard to focusing events, it is worth noting that an American

study has shown that natural disasters can affect voting behaviour. If citizens feel that the authorities have

handled a crisis badly, they may attribute blame and punish the incumbents (Arceneaux & Stein 2006).

In Finland, the percentage of Swedish-speaking Finns with either a fairly or very high confidence in the

5

government and the parliament is 39% and 38 % respectively. The Swedish-speaking Finns show an

even higher confidence rate for both the Police (79 %) and the fire brigade (94%) (Grönlund & Isaksson

2008). The confidence in different media is also fairly high; trust in newspapers is 38%, and for radio

and television the figure is 47% (Söderlund, 2008). Based on such statistics, it can be seen that Swedish-

speaking Finns have a great deal of trust in their system. One aspect that may affect the expectations

citizens have on decision makers and authorities may stem from the individual’s trust in politicians and

the government and how a particular event is perceived. However, there is a difference in the

perception of what a person believes policy makers and politicians intend to do and what decision

makers are capable of doing. This may be influenced by past experiences, personal characteristics, or

formal and informal rules (Chamlee-Wright & Storr 2010, 257). A study of Hurricane Katrina in New

Orleans in 2005 found that residents had a positive and optimistic view of the ability of the authorities to

cope with the situation, despite the fact that many emphasised how the authorities had failed to handle

the situation. (Chamlee-Wright & Storr 2010, 274)

This experimental study looks at how citizens respond to focusing events. The question is an important

and relatively unexplored part of a larger whole, namely the political implications generated from

focusing events. For a political system to function, it is important that people have confidence and trust

in various social institutions. When an emergency or disaster occurs, citizens may, to some extent, be

excluded from policy-making, and so-called "policy without publics" may occur (Birkland, 1996; May

2003). Through an experiment of how citizens react to various Finnish crises and disasters, this paper

firstly places the emphasis on the following: in what manner do the origin and strength of a focusing event affect

the emotional and cognitive reactions of citizens? This question provides a bisectional focus, on one hand

citizens’ emotional and cognitive reactions to focusing events. Secondly, the research interest lies in

comparing the civic responses on a group level for four different focusing events. These focusing events

vary both in strength (high or medium) and in origin (man-made crises versus natural phenomena). The

two most important research questions are therefore:

RQ1) How do citizens respond to focusing events of varying strength?

i) Citizens’ emotional reactions.

ii) Citizens’ cognitive reactions.

RQ2) How do citizens respond to focusing events based on whether the event is caused

by human action or through a natural phenomenon?

i) Citizens’ emotional reactions.

ii) Citizens’ cognitive reactions.

6

A situation that is perceived as threatening and fearful produces negative emotions and anxiety, which

can cause citizens to pay more attention to the event. The concept of emotion can be defined as

“underlying responses to the perceived relevance of external stimuli” (Brader 2005, 390). The brain

identifies different objects and their significance, which triggers different emotions, often in such a way

that the person is not even aware of this happening. Marcus, Neuman and MacKuen (2000) refer to this

as affective intelligence (AI). The theory of AI develops from two emotional systems, the dispositional

and the surveillance system – that people use to manage all tasks and information they are constantly

confronted with in the world. While the dispositional system handles everyday behaviour, the

surveillance system makes people pay attention to threats and novelties and is connected to feelings of

anxiety and fear. These mechanisms may also explain political behaviour (Marcus et al. 2000,

126−127).

In this study this can be exemplified as:

x → z → y

Focusing event Emotional response Political response

Focusing events may even affect political processes. One expression for this on the civic arena is that

focusing events can create an emotional reaction. Citizens react in an affective way, both unaware and

consciously. Different emotions, for example, may influence citizens to learn more about a particular

issue, demand policy change or perhaps distance themselves from the problem (Graber 2007, 265).

The experiment in this research contained four different test groups that were randomised out of a test

population of Swedish-speaking adults in the Vaasa region of Finland. Within each group the participants

watched television-news stimuli about a Finnish crisis or disaster, while psychophysiological

measurements were taken. The measurements included heart rate and skin conductance combined with

an Emotiv headset used to measure brain activity with an EEG. The subjects also responded to a pre-

survey before the study, and participated in a structured interview after the test.

This experimental study is one of three studies that are included in my forthcoming doctoral thesis. The

dissertation as a whole looks at how focusing events influence society by creating a possibility for

political response and policy change. In the future, crises and catastrophes are likely to receive a great

deal of media attention as well as attention on the political agenda. One way of understanding why

citizens find an issue important is by looking at emotional reactions that may influence the demand for a

7

political response. As such, the aim of this thesis is to provide a better understanding of how focusing

events affect political processes on different societal arenas. Although, there are obvious focusing events

such as major disasters and accidents, it is also of interest to consider potential focusing events, or

focusing events that have very little impact on political processes. Focusing events and their impact and

political response on three societal arenas are examined by two overreaching research questions, similar

to the two research questions in this study. Firstly, how does the strength of a focusing event affect

political processes? And secondly, is there a difference in how focusing events, generated either through

natural catastrophes or human action affect political processes? The two other studies will examine the

same four focusing events and their influence on the debate sessions in the Parliament as well as the

media’s reporting after the event.

2 Methods and design

Experimental methods and hypothesis

Experimental methods have increased rapidly in political science during the 1990s and the beginning of

the twenty-first century (Druckman, Green & Kuklinski 2011; Morton & Williams 2010). Some of the

reasons for this are the result of an increased interest in causal inference and empirical approaches to

theory development, as well as new research questions. What distinguishes experimental research is

random assignment, which means that the test subjects are randomly assigned to different treatments.

By using random assignment, an average treatment effect may be estimated. (Druckmat et al. 2011, 22).

This experiment uses a between-subject design, where the subjects are randomly assigned to one of four

different treatment groups. Alternatively, researchers may use a within-subject design, but in this

experiment the combination of a structured interview after the stimulus makes such a design more

difficult.

The theory of focusing events proceeds from the fact that these events carry certain characteristics that

elucidate problems in the society. How do citizens respond to crises and disasters in terms of their trust

for politicians and demands for action? And what emotions can be linked to a focusing event? The

focusing events studied are four Finnish crises that occurred over the past six years. The fact that these

events had already taken place means that people have already seen, heard, read and discussed these

events and thus, the external validity is low. Nevertheless, as the study's main purpose is to compare

reactions to events with a varying degree of focus, the study looks at the differences in people's reactions

8

depending on the strength of the focusing events – and not on the strength or weakness the reactions

were to the event at the time. This also controls for the measuring instrument of focusing events and

their strength. Do citizens perceive a mega-focusing event as more serious than an event with lower

scores on the scale?

Focusing events are classed as surprisingly rare phenomena often containing some form of violence or

negative consequences, which cause a reaction among citizens. Although citizens usually react on an

emotional and unconscious level, this reaction can also be on an intellectual level. However, how

citizens choose to verbally express their emotional reactions can be influenced by social control (Orne &

Evans 1965). That is, citizens choose a way that is appropriate and socially acceptable to respond. This

suggests that the emotional reactions are reviewed both by the subjects’ responses to questions and by

objective measurements such as psychophysiological reactions. The intellectual reactions, by comparison

can be retrospective, looking at different aspects of focusing events, and forward looking, e.g. who is

responsible or who should be doing more? One interesting approach to this experimental study is to

determine whether the self-reported emotions are similar to the psychophysiological responses. The

subjects being tested were also asked to specify their self-reported emotions. In earlier research, this is a

common measurement of people’s emotional response to a stimulus (see e.g. Brader & Valentino 2007;

Graber 2007; Huddy et al. 2005; 2007). However, this method has many problems (Gruszczynski et al.

2013), since the creation of emotions often takes place outside of the subject’s awareness. Moreover,

self-reported emotions may be influenced by many outside factors like language use and surrounding

objects. In this study both psychophysiological measurements and self-reported emotions are used so

that the two dimensions can be compared. Does our body’s response agree with what we think we feel?

The combination of physiological response and individually felt emotions is also strongly advocated, by

Gruszczynski et al. (2013), since both dimensions are important in the understanding of politics.

The degree of focus might vary amongst events, and the more powerful the event is, the more attention

it will receive on different societal arenas, in the media for example (Birkland 2006). This also applies

for citizen attention. For example, in a study by Graber (2007), an interesting result is that the television

feature that produced the highest emotional reactions from the audience depended on the magnitude of

danger in the story. For instance, involvement in violence abroad, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and

man-made disasters received more attention than elections and general issues such as childcare (Graber

2007, 267). In a study of specific news reports that people claimed to follow more closely, researchers

found that what attracted the most attention from the audience was how widespread and dangerous the

incident was perceived to be, and not for example, the audiovisual aspects of the stimuli (Graber 2007).

9

This allows us to assume that focusing events generally evokes reactions and emotions from citizens on

the basis of the characteristics that these events possess. Primarily, because the situation is rare, occurs

without warning and affects a large number of people. This also results in the assumption that a higher

degree of focus is associated with stronger reactions from citizens and the possibility of them taking

measures to understand the problem and advance demands for policy change.

Another division of focusing events is the origin of the event. A rough separation is man-made disasters

and natural disasters. Disasters created by human action can be either accidents or intended use of

violence, like a school shooting. Weather the event is caused by a natural phenomenon, like a flooding,

or a man-made event can vary the implications for society, sine natural disasters may, to some extent, be

harder to focus and bring attention to the political agenda. This is due to the fact that such events do not

always have a clear underlying cause. You cannot stop a hurricane or an earthquake from happening.

Although an event gains attention when it threatens or causes harm to many people, sometimes it is

easier for threats based on human behaviour to gain attention on the political agenda (Eriksson & Noreen

2004). One explanation is that actor-based threats mean that one can identify a clear underlying factor

and elucidate different problems that cause the event (ibid.). Simply put, it can be difficult to discuss the

background to an earthquake and how similar events could be avoided in the future. Policy makers may

decide to build a house that can handle earthquakes better, but one cannot escape earthquakes

completely. It appears that it is easier to point to the different underlying factors associated with a school

shooting, even though this is a complex problem. As such, politicians may prefer to focus their attention

on gun legislation or mental health care despite the fact that it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to

prevent a school shooting from happening again.

In recent years there have also been research pointing to the fact that the relationship may be reversed

(Williams 2008). Disasters caused by natural forces can have a major impact on civilians because injuries

are often very visible and tangible, which, in turn causes the question to be prioritised by decision

makers. Technical problems and accidents can sometimes be more difficult to cover (Williams 2008, 7).

Although it may seem unclear how different types of focusing events affect decision-making, it is still

necessary to make this distinction and thus be aware that the treatment of focusing events created by

nature and humans can differ (Birkland 2006, 27).

The starting points for the hypotheses are how focusing events with a varying degree of strength and

origin influence emotional and cognitive reactions, and expectations towards decision makers.

10

The independent variables are: focusing events;

1) stronger degree of focus – weaker degree of focus;

2) human actions – natural phenomena

The dependent variables are: citizens’ reactions;

1) emotional reactions;

a) psychophysiological reactions: pulse, skin conductance and EEG-waves

b) Self-Assessment Manikin and self-reported emotions

2) cognitive reactions; expectations towards decision makers

My expectations due to earlier research (Birkland 1997; 2006, Graber 2007) are that a stronger degree

of focus produces more emotional and cognitive reactions than an event with a weaker degree of focus.

As such, man-made disasters produce stronger reactions than natural disasters, if the degree of focus in

the events is similar. In the following hypotheses “mega” refers to a focusing event with a stronger

degree on focus, and “medium” with a weaker degree of focus. In like manner, “man-made” refers to a

focusing event caused by human actions and “natural” refers to a natural phenomenon. The first

hypothesis is therefore:

H1: Man-madeMega > Man-madeMedium & NaturalMega > NaturalMedium concerning

a) emotional reactions (psychophysiological and self-reported)

b) cognitive reactions

The second hypothesis looks at if human made events cause stronger cognitive reactions than natural

disasters.

H2: Man-madeMega > NaturalMega & Man-madeMedium > NaturalMedium concerning

a) cognitive reactions

and [Man-madeMega > NaturalMega] > [Man-madeMedium > NaturalMedium]

The second addition presuppose from the expectation that it is the event’s strength that is primary rather

than the origin of the event. Thus we could expect the cognitive reactions and expectations towards

decision makers to be:

Man-madeMega > Man-madeMedium > NaturalMega > NaturalMedium

11

Earlier researchers have used emotions in connection with demands for political actions. For example

Huddy, Feldman, Taber and Lahav (2005) found that if a person feels anxious this may cause the person

to avoid dangerous and risky situations and advocate restrictive actions (Huddy et al. 2005, 595).

However, this research uses self-reported emotions instead of psychophysiological recordings. An

interesting question is therefore, if the self-reported emotions differ from the psychophysiological

reactions; pulse, skin conductance and EEG-waves. Hence, I choose to look at the second hypothesis

concerning only cognitive reactions, and instead make a comparison between the subject’s self-reported

emotions and psychophysiological reactions, to see if they correspond.

Experimental design and data

Selection of cases

The starting point for this study is to compare events with a varying degree of focus. A possible starting

point would be to select events based on three different focus levels; a mega-focus, an intermediate-

focus and a slight focus. In a Finnish context, this becomes a problem when we look at focusing events

created by natural phenomena. We have had only a few natural disasters in Finland in recent years. A

search in the international database on disasters, EM-DAT1 shows that throughout the 1900s, Finland

had only two storms and flooding that are classified as natural disasters. Not only does this make it

difficult to find truly focusing natural disasters, it also makes it difficult to implement a three-part

division of the strength, especially if Finnish natural disasters are compared to disasters occurring

abroad. In other parts of the world, there are no problems finding natural disasters that varys on a scale

from mega focusing to only slight focusing. In the light of this, I have chosen to include only two

different focal degrees in the study. Another key element of the study is to highlight the difference in

how focusing events that are either man-made or the result of natural disasters are processed. Four

different focusing events are studied; two events that are natural disasters and two events that are

created by human action. Within each category the strength of focus varies. The four Finnish crises and

disasters which have been selected are:

Human action, stronger degree of focus: the school shooting in Jokela 2007. An 18-year-old

student killed nine people, including himself, when he started shooting at Jokela High School. This was

the second school shooting in Finland. The first occurred in 1989 when a 14-year-old boy shot two other

students. Less than a year after the school shooting in Jokela another school shooting occurred in

1 The International Disaster Database: http://www.emdat.be/

12

Kauhajoki, where 11 people were killed. The school shooting in Jokela sparked a debate on gun

legislation and the mental health service for the youth in Finland.

Human action, weaker degree of focus: the water crisis in Nokia 2007. The drinking water in

Nokia was contaminated in November 2007 when sewage water became mixed with drinking water due

to human error. The water crisis affected 12 000 inhabitants and caused diarrhoea and stomach upsets

for thousands of people, resulting in three deaths. The crisis highlighted the poorly-designed water

treatment facility. The same design was at that point in time used in almost half of Finland’s water

treatment plants.

Natural disaster, stronger degree of focus: the Boxing Day storm in 2011. The storm that hit

Finland as well as other Nordic countries (named Dagmar) during the Boxing Day of 2011 was one of

the hardest storms during the twenty-first century. The electricity supply for hundreds of thousands of

people was cut off for many days. The forest damage was later estimated to be 50−70 million Euros.

One person was killed by a falling tree.

Natural disaster, weaker degree of focus: the floods in Ostrobothnia in 2012. During the late

summer of 2012, many villages in Ostrobothnia were flooded due to heavy rains. Roads were flooded

and many houses were damaged. Many farmers had flooded fields and the harvest losses were estimated

at 20 million Euros.

One problem already mentioned is that we have not had any truly mega-focusing natural disasters in

Finland when compared to events in other parts of the world. Although the two categories, i.e. human

action and natural disaster are comparable, the school shooting in Jokela is more focusing than the

Boxing Day storm. Although the storm was seen here as an event with a stronger focus, it only applied

in a Finnish context. And it may be impossible to merge the storm and the school shootings as events

with a mega degree of focus. But in a comparison within the natural disaster category, the Boxing Day

storm is more focusing than the flooding in Ostrobothnia. Moreover, the storm was classified as the

most focusing natural disaster simply because Finland had not experienced a more serious natural

disaster in the past decade. The discussion in the results section emphasises and discusses these facts in

more detail.

In this study, I chose to look only at crises and disasters that have occurred in Finland, in order to keep

the context in all cases and the other two studies as similar as possible. Another discussion is the time

13

aspect, where the two focusing events created by human actions have occurred somewhat further back

in time than the natural disasters. The natural disaster that occurred almost a year ago, i.e. the flooding

in Ostrobothnia, is nevertheless so far back in time that the participants do not have the event in recent

memory. However, since storms and floods are common recurring phenomen in Finland, the proximity

in time should not be a problem.

In this study, each participant looked at only one stimulus, i.e. one focusing event. Thus, there were

four different groups who all looked at different stimuli, and all the participants were tested individually.

Sample and procedure

The subjects for this study were Swedish-speaking Finns from Ostrobothnia. Information about the

study was given in connection with courses and fairs at the Korsholm Adult Education Centre

(Korsholms vuxeninstitut). The subjects were informed that the study looks at how citizens react and

respond to Finnish crises and catastrophes. In all, there were 30 participants in the study. The

participants were between the ages of 17 and 74 (mean 42 years) and 53 % were women and 47 % men.

The four groups consisted of seven or eight people each. A group of students from Åbo Akademi

University were also contacted to participate in a pilot study (N=8). The pilot study was conducted over

a few days in March 2013, to test the stimuli and the questionnaire and interview questions. The pilot

study’s results showed no problems with the material that this study uses.

Data collection took place in Media City’s Content Testing Laboratory at Åbo Akademi University over

two weeks in April 2013. Each test session was scheduled to take approximately one hour. Initially, each

subject received information about how the study was designed, the purpose of the study and a reminder

that data is treated confidentially. Next, the subject filled out a short questionnaire with demographic

variables and information about media consumption and confidence in government agencies and social

institutions. Also questions about the subject’s trauma history were included. The trauma questions used

in the study were from the Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ) (Kubany, et al., 2000). Test

subjects were asked to answer questions about different types of traumatic events such as experience of a

traffic accident or a natural disaster. If they had experienced such situations, they were then asked about

the kind of emotions they felt during the situation. This trauma history was included in order to discover

whether the person had experienced similar events as the focusing event they were about to see on a

report (Weathers, Keane & Foa 2009). Having experienced a similar event may affect the person’s

14

emotions during the story. The trauma history showed that only one test person had experienced a

similar event as the stimuli.

Thereafter, each subject was sat down in an armchair and the collection of psychophysiological

measurements started. As an introduction a quiet and restful image was showen on the television screen,

while the test subject was instructed to relax. The picture was taken from the International Affective

Picture System (IAPS), with a valence of 6.36 and arousal 2.51. A baseline consisting of the individual’s

normal values was obtained during phase. Thereafter, the test subject saw a short and neutral news

report to cancel out the experiment effect, since the test subject person was in unfamiliar surroundings

waiting for something to happen. In view of this, it was considered likely that the first stimulus receive

more responses because of the situation itself. Moreover, it is also good to have a comparison of how

test subjects normally react to a television report, as psychophysiological reactions can vary greatly

between individuals.

Emotional measurements

When the test subject was calm and physiological responses had stabilised, the stimulus was shown on a

television screen. Emotional reactions to the event were measured by an Emotiv headset and skin

conductance. This measurement was objective in the sense that social control should not affect the

person’s reactions. The psychophysiological measurements used in this study were pulse, skin

conductance and brain waves. Sensors were attached to the test subject’s hand to measure heart rate and

skin conductance. Skin conductance reflects both the subject’s emotional and cognitive activity and

electrodermal activity may be seen as “the state of the organism’s interaction with its environment”

(Stern, Ray & Quiley 2001, 206). Moreover, skin conductance can be described as either skin

conductance level (SCL) or skin conductance response (SCR). The difference, however, is that SCL

refers to basal activity, while SCR refers to the response to a stimulus.

Data on the subject’s brain activity was collected with electroencephalogram (EEG) indicators. For this

purpose I used Emotiv’s helmet, which measures the brain response through 14 sensors. The equipment

provides brainwaves as raw data, as well as four pre-defined clusters that measure excitement,

frustration, engagement and meditation (Bobrov et al., 2011; Emotiv, 2012: Media City Content

Testing Lab, 2012) The curves that are of interest to this study are mainly excitement and frustration.

15

Stimuli

The stimuli used consist of television reports that are approximately three minutes length. Each focusing

event had its own stimulus, so in total there were four different reports. There were four groups of

seven or eight people – and each group saw only one stimulus. The test subject saw only the stimulus

assigned to the group, and also only discussed this kind of event. The video news reports originated from

the newscast belonging to the public broadcasting service, Yleisradio (YLE), and primarily the Swedish-

speaking news broadcasts. The reports were taken from the first, second and third day after the

incidents occurred. However, as there were no longer Swedish-speaking reports during the water crisis

in Nokia, the Finnish-speaking YLE news and YLE’s local news broadcasts were included to get as

comparable material as possible. The broadcasts in Finnish were subtitled into Swedish. This is not a

problem because the Swedish broadcasts often use material in Finnish, which is then subtitled into

Swedish. The material about the school shooting in Jokela, for example, contained statements in Finnish

subtitled into Swedish.

The four different stimuli were built up to resemble each other as far as possible, in order to ensure that

the format itself would not affect the test subject’s reactions. This allowed me to compare the reactions

between the four different groups. Each stimulus started with the newsreader briefly introducing the

audience to what had happened. Then there were different reports ranging from eyewitnesses accounts

of the event to stories of people who were on the scene describing what they saw. A clip was then

shown of either a government official or an expert discussing the incident and attempting to explain

what had happened. Finally, a clip of a discussion was shown on the impact the event had had on society

and various proposals for action.

After seeing the news broadcast about a focusing event, each test subject was asked to complete a Self-

Assessment Manikin (SAM) form (Bradley & Lang 1994). This was done in order to perform a subjective

control of the feelings the test subject claimed to have had during the stimulus. The SAM consists of

graphic symbols to represent three different dimensions of emotion, pleasure / happiness, arousal and

dominance. In this study, two of the dimensions were used. Firstly, if the feature gave rise to positive

and pleasant feelings or negative emotions, and secondly if the test subject felt excited or calm during

the stimulus. A nine-point scale combined with graphic illustrations of a smiley face for example was

used. Previous research shows that the two dimensions of pleasure / happiness and arousal together

account for a large part of the emotion variance which a person experiences (Bradley & Lang 1994, 55).

As the dimension measuring dominance creates the most semantic problems, in global comparisons

16

where SAM has been used (Bradley & Lang 1994, 57), in this study only two dimensions are used. SAM

is an established measuring instrument and an effective method that has been widely used in previous

research, including studies on the emotions associated with pictures, sounds, or advertising (for a review

see eg Bradley & Lang 1994, 51). Many studies involving television or film clips in combination with

SAM have already been implemented, such as Lombard, Reich, Grade, Bracken & Bolmarcich Ditton

(2000), Palomba, Sarlo, Angrilli, Mini & Stegagno (2000) and Zhou (2005). SAM will also be used for

the neutral stimulus that the test subject watches first.

Cognitive measurements

The second part of the study’s measurements was based on a questionnaire that the subject completed at

the beginning of the test session, as well as a structured interview at the end. There are elements of

social control involved in this, i.e. the test subject can alter their response as he or she feels is expected

and socially acceptable. After seeing the news broadcast on the focusing event the test person was asked

to describe their thoughts and feelings on the feature. Thereafter, the subject filled out an evaluation of

six basic emotions (such as anger, anxiety, hope) on a seven-point scale, if the subject experienced these

emotions during the report on the focusing event. The emotions chosen are often used in research on

media, news and political consequences (see, eg Brader & Valentino 2007; Huddy, Feldman, & Cassese

2007; Neuman, Marcus, Crigler & MacKuen 2007).

The following questions dealt with societal responsibility in a similar situation. Starting from Rothstein’s

(2003) three dimensions of institutional trust; the representative, implementing and reviewing, the

actors included in the questions were the government, the parliament, political parties, the police, the

military, rescue services, newspapers, radio and television, as well as citizens. Thereafter, the test

person was asked if any of these institutions or actors should act in a similar situation, if they should do

more or if they do enough as it is today. The test subject could answer based on their personal view

regarding how society functions when there is a crisis or a disaster. The alternatives offered were on a

seven-point scale.

The structured interview also dealt with issues regarding the opportunities citizens had in terms of

political participation. For example, if the focusing event evoked such feelings that a person became

emotionally involved and willing to put forward demands for policy change. Various examples of

political participation were presented, and the test subject was asked to answer how likely it is that they

would do these things after a similar event to the one they had just seen a report on. For example, if the

17

person would be willing to contact politicians or sign a petition. Also more broadly defined forms of

political participation were included, for example if the person would be willing to join a Facebook

group or discuss the issue on the internet. Finally, the structured interview discussed the role of the

media in crises and disasters, and the test subjects had to consider various claims about how the media

should report in a similar situation. The test subject was also asked to pick out which three tasks are the

most important for the media to report on in conjunction with a similar event.

Ethical considerations

Participation in the experiment was voluntary and the identity of the participants will not be used in the

treatment of data. This study is performed according to the general guidelines for good scientific

practice, as defined by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, in consultation with the

scientific community in Finland (Forskningsetiska delegationen 2012).

The two issues discussed here concern how the study seeks to avoid inconvenience to the participants

and how the collected and reported material can be treated confidentially. The participants were

informed in advance that the study is about crises and catastrophes. Information about this was given

when people could announce an interest to participate in the study, and again in the email with further

information that was sent out to those who were chosen to participate. When each participant arrived at

the laboratory, the researcher and the laboratory assistant presented the project and the laboratory

equipment. The participant always had the opportunity to ask questions if something was unclear.

All data collected is stored and handled in a way to ensure that the subject remains anonymous. The

physiological data material collected as well as the questionnaire and interview are stored with an ID

number. But the relationship between the participants’ personal data and ID number is not saved in any

file. The collected data is stored on secure servers. Since participants are tested individually and there

was a time gap between one participant leaving the lab and the next arriving, participants never met each

other.

The stimuli used are based on news broadcasts that had already been showed by YLE. In this way, the

material that the participants came in contact with is similar to what they might encounter on a daily

basis if they consume media. If anybody participating found the material uncomfortable, they would

always have the opportunity to abort the study.

18

3 Results

At this stage in my research process only skin conductance data is included in the psychophysiological

reactions. Later on, pulse and EEG-waves will also be analyzed.


a) emotional reactions (psychophysiological and self-reported)

b) cognitive reactions

The second hypothesis looks at if human made events cause stronger cognitive reactions than natural

disasters.


a) cognitive reactions

and [Man-madeMega > NaturalMega] > [Man-madeMedium > NaturalMedium]

Emotional psychophysiological reactions

In an experimental study looking at the format of different television news reports and how the audience

perceives them (Nykvist 2011), attention in the form of skin conductance level (SCL) decreased by an

average of 15 % when the stimuli were between six and twelve minutes long. As the focusing events

used as stimuli in this research are about three minutes length, and the neutral stimulus was about two

minutes long, we can expect a slight decrease in attention during the reports. The neutral stimulus was

shown first as it was realized that the subject’s attention might be higher than normal at the start as a

result of the exciting new situation of being in a laboratory.

The decrease in SCL was calculated for each news report by taking the initial value when the stimulus

started and the mean value for the whole feature. The difference was then transformed into a

percentage. The neutral stimulus retained the audience’s attention quite well, ranging from a four

percent decrease up to a two percent increase, i.e. from 96 % to 102 % respectively. One explanation

for this is probably that since the news feature was shorter than the focusing events stimuli, the SCL did

not have time to decrease as much. And the excitement of being in a laboratory waiting for something to

happen probably made the test person pay more attention to the first thing that appeared on the screen –

in this case the neutral stimulus. The results are shown in figure one.

19

Figure 1. Differences in start value (%).

Almost all the stimuli used as focusing events scored around 90 % on the attention level, a ten percent

decrease, the only exception being the Boxing Day storm feature that received only 79 % in the original

calculations. When looking at the initial values for the neutral stimulus compared to the focusing event

stimuli, the value was much higher for the focusing events. This was probably because the test subjects

had filled in a SAM between the two stimuli, and the physical activity of writing resulted in an increase

in skin conductance. The difference in percentage between the neutral starting value and the starting

value for the focusing event was quite high; for the Nokia water crisis 18 %, the Boxing Day storm 45

%, the Jokela school shooting 32 % and the floods 19 %. Because of this disparity, a compensation for

the start value of the focusing event was made, according to the percentage difference between the

neutral stimulus and the focusing event stimulus. In the graph below this is shown as focus (adjusted).

For example, the Boxing Day storm group had a 45 % higher start value compared to the start value for

the neutral stimulus. The compensation was made on a group level, and resulted in a different result

than the first calculations. Jokela still received the highest attention at 125 %, but the Boxing Day storm

was at second place with 115 %, the Nokia water crisis was 108 % and the floods received 106 %.

Althoug the adjusted values can be used for a better comparison between the four different groups, they

Nokia Storm Jokela Floods

Focus 91,59 78,90 94,17 89,57

Neutral 99,46 99,06 101,72 96,37

Focus(Adjusted) 108,37 114,55 124,50 106,21

Focus (Adjusted Individ.) 108,38 112,91 123,38 105,94

0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

120,00

140,00

160,00

Difference Start values - Means (%)

20

should not be used as individual values. The same compensation was then made on an individual level for

each participant, before calculating the group values. The result is very similar to the adjusted value

which is calculated only as a mean for the whole group.


psychophysiological reactions:

Jokela school shooting 124.5 % > Nokia water crisis 108.4 %

and Boxing Day storm 114.5 % > the Floods 106.2 %

Emotional self-reported reactions

The four events triggered different self-reported emotions. During the structured interview the test

subject had to outline the presence of six basic emotions during the stimuli. A seven point scale was used

for this, where one represents having no emotion at all up to seven where the emotion was highly

present during the stimuli. A Kruskal-Wallis H Test demonstrates statistically significant differences

between the groups for four emotions. The results are presented in table one.

Table 1. Self-reported emotions for different focusing events stimuli.

Mean value

(std. deviation) Boxing Day

Storm The Floods Jokela school

shooting Water crisis in

Nokia Anger 1.5 (1.1) 2.9 (1.6) 4.2 (1.6) 2.6 (1.1)

Fear 3.1 (1.4) 2.6 (1.5) 4.4 (0.7) 2.0 (0.6)

Anxiety 3.4 (0.9) 4.4 (1.4) 5.4 (1.2) 3.2 (1.5)

Sadness 3.1 (1.4) 4.0 (1.8) 5.9 (1.4) 3.3 (1.8)

Hope 2.8 (2.3) 2.1 (1.1) 2.0 (1.1) 2.6 (2.6)

Happiness 1.4 (0.7) 1.3 (0.5) 1.0 (0.0) 2.0 (1.7)

Anger. (H = 11.600, p = 0.009), with a mean rank of 8.13 for the Boxing Day Storm, 16.07 for the

Floods, 22.75 for the Jokela school shooting and 15.07 for the water crisis in Nokia.

21

Fear. (H = 12.005, p = 0.007), with a mean rank of 15.81 for the Boxing Day Storm, 12.43 for the


Anxiety. (H = 10.889, p = 0.012), with a mean rank of 11.56 for the Boxing Day Storm, 17.57 for

the Floods, 22.69 for the Jokela school shooting and 9.71 for the water crisis in Nokia.

Sadness. (H = 10.424, p = 0.015), with a mean rank of 10.81 for the Boxing Day Storm, 15.50 for the


Hope. (H = 0.163, p = 0.983), with a mean rank of 16.00 for the Boxing Day Storm, 16.21 for the


Happiness. (H = 2.764, p = 0.429), with a mean rank of 16.13 for the Boxing Day Storm, 16.36 for

the Floods, 12.50 for the Jokela school shooting and 17.36 for the water crisis in Nokia.

H1: Man-madeMega > Man-madeMedium & NaturalMega > NaturalMedium concerning self-reported

reactions of anger and fear:

Anger:

Jokela school shooting 4.2 > Nokia water crisis 2.6

and Boxing Day storm 1.5 > the Floods 2.9 not confirmed

Fear:


and Boxing Day storm 3.1 > the Floods 2.6

The emotions and reactions of the test subjects to the stimuli were also measured using the Self-

Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Bradley & Lang 1994). A SAM consists of graphic symbols to symbolise

three different dimensions of emotion; pleasure, arousal and dominance. In this study, two of the

dimensions were used. The pleasure dimension was used to measure weather the stimuli gave rise to

positive and pleasant feelings or negative emotions and arousal – if the test subject felt excited or calm

during the television feature. A nine-point scale was used combined with graphic illustrations a of smiley

face for example. Previous research shows that the two dimensions of pleasure and arousal together

account for a large part of the emotional variance that a person experiences (Bradley & Lang 1994, 55).

22

SAM is an established instrument and an effective method that has been widely used in previous

research, including the study of emotions associated with pictures, sounds, or advertising (for a review

see Bradley & Lang 1994, 51). Many studies that involved television or film clips in combination with

SAM have been implemented, such as Lombard, Reich, Grade, Bracken & Bolmarcich Ditton (2000),

Palomba, Sarlo, Angrilli, Mini & Stegagno (2000) and Zhou (2005).

The pleasure dimension ranks from 1 (very happy) to 9 (very unhappy) and the arousal dimension from

1 (very upset) to 9 (very calm).

Neutral stimuli

Pleasure 5.1/Arousal 6.7

Focusing event stimuli

Pleasure 6.2/Arousal 4.9

Boxing Day Storm 5.9/5.4

Floods 5.4/4.4

Jokela school shooting 7.4/4.3

Water crisis in Nokia 6.0/5.6

H1: Man-madeMega > Man-madeMedium & NaturalMega > NaturalMedium concerning SAM:

Pleasure:



Arousal: (the relationship is reversed since a high number represents a calm person)

Jokela school shooting 4.3 < Nokia water crisis 5.6

and Boxing Day storm 5.4 < the Floods 4.4 not confirmed

Cognitive reactions

Another difference between the groups of focusing events stimuli concerned who would be held

responsible in a similar event. Two statistically significant differences were found between the groups

using a Kruskal-Wallis H Test. The differences concerned the responsibility of the Parliament and the

23

Government. While there were no statistically significant differences between the other social

institutions and actors (political parties, the police, national defence, rescue services, citizens and the

media). The results are presented in table two.

Responsibility – the Parliament. (H = 8.329, p = 0.040), with a mean rank of 14.06 for the

Boxing Day Storm, 18.79 for the Floods, 20.13 for the Jokela school shooting and 8.57 for the water

crisis in Nokia.

Responsibility – the Government. (H = 8.141, p = 0.043), with a mean rank of 17.19 for the

Boxing Day Storm, 16.50 for the Floods, 19.63 for the Jokela school shooting and 7.86 for the water

crisis in Nokia.

Political parties (H = 2.268, p = 0.519), National defense (H = 4.667, p = 0.198), Rescue department

(H = 5.081, p = 0.166), The police (H = 3.208, p = 0.361), Newspapers (H = 4.578, p = 0.205),

Radio and TV (H = 2.337, p = 0.505), Citizens (H = 6.767, p = 0.080).

Table 2. Responsibility after different focusing events.

Mean value (std. deviation) Responsibility

The Boxing Day Storm The Floods

Jokela school shooting

The Water crisis in Nokia

The Parliament 4.0 (2.1) 5.3 (0.8) 5.3 (1.4) 3.1 (1.8)

The Government 5.0 (1.9) 5.3 (0.8) 5.5 (1.5) 3.1 (1.8)

Political Parties 4.3 (2.3) 4.4 (1.4) 5.3 (1.9) 3.9 (1.8)

National Defence 5.9 (1.1) 5.0 (1.7) 5.1 (2.4) 3.7 (2.1)

Rescue service 6.5 (1.1) 6.1 (1.5) 5.0 (2.0) 6.0 (0.8)

The Police 5.9 (2.0) 5.4 (1.8) 5.7 (1.3) 5.0 (1.5)

Newspapers 5.8 (0.9) 4.4 (1.5) 5.4 (1.6) 4.6 (1.4)

Radio & TV 5.9 (1.0) 4.9 (1.7) 5.4 (1.6) 5.0 (1.0)

Citizens 5.7 (1.2) 5.6 (1.0) 4.8 (0.9) 5.1 (1.1)

H1: Man-madeMega > Man-madeMedium & NaturalMega > NaturalMedium concerning responsibility

of Parliament and Government:

24

Responsibility Parliament:



Responsibility Government:




Responsibility Parliament:

Jokela school shooting 5.3 > Boxing Day storm 4.0

and Nokia water crisis 3.1 > the Floods 5.3 not confirmed

Responsibility Government:



One explanation for the Floods high scores is that during the second week of the experiment, the same

areas in Ostrobothnia, as in the stimulus, got flooded again. This was a common feature in the news

during the time of the experiment. This probably influenced how the group, which looked at the floods

stimulus, responded. Hence, the Floods scores quite high in societal responsibility due to the fact that

this was discussed in the media at that time.

Using a Kruskal-Wallis H Test the results show a statistically significant difference between the different

stimuli concerning anxiety and concern that the event would happen again as well as worry for a similar

event affecting friends and relatives. A seven point scale was used in the questionnaire, where one

represents no anxiety and seven a great deal of anxiety. The results are showed in table three.

Anxiety and concern about a similar event taking place. (H = 15.133, p = 0.002), with a

mean rank of 14.25 for the Boxing Day Storm, 18.86 for the Floods, 22.31 for the Jokela school

shooting and 5.79 for the water crisis in Nokia.

25

Anxiety and concern for a similar event affecting friends and family. (H = 6.320, p =

0.097), with a mean rank of 17.38 for the Boxing Day Storm, 14.86 for the Floods, 19.81 for the Jokela

school shooting and 9.07 for the water crisis in Nokia.

When asked if the stimuli influenced the test subject’s personal safety fears there were no statistically

significant differences between the four groups (H = 2.231, p = 0.526).

Table 3. Anxiety and concern after focusing events stimuli.

Mean value (std. deviation) Boxing Day

Storm The

Floods

Jokela school

shooting

Water crisis in Nokia

Anxiety and concern about a similar

event taking place 3.8 (0.9) 4.9 (1.8) 5.3 (1.4) 2.4 (0.8)

Anxiety and concern about a similar event affecting

friends and family 4.5 (1.4) 4.1 (2.5) 5.1 (2.0) 2.7 (1.1)

Personal safety fears 2.5 (1.7) 2.4 (2.2) 3.5 (1.9) 2.4 (1.8)

H1: Man-madeMega > Man-madeMedium & NaturalMega > NaturalMedium concerning anxiety and

fear of a similar event taking place and affecting friends and family:

Anxiety about a similar event taking place:


and Boxing Day 3.8 > the Floods 4.9 not confirmed

A similar event affecting friends and family:



H2: Man-madeMega > NaturalMega & Man-madeMedium > NaturalMedium concerning:

Anxiety about a similar event taking place:



26

A similar event affecting friends and family:



Another question asked was the following; Are these institutions doing enough, or are there actors who

should do more when thinking about how society and different actors today deal with crises and

catastrophes? Using a Kruskal Wallis H test no significant differences were found between groups, but

the results are still interesting.

Table 4. Who should be doing more after a focusing event?

Mean value (std. deviation) Should do more

The Boxing

Day Storm The Floods Jokela school

shooting The Water crisis

in Nokia

The Parliament 4.4 (2.7) 5.1 (1.6) 4.8 (2.2) 2.6 (1.1)

The Government 4.4 (2.7) 5.3 (1.6) 4.8 (2.2) 2.6 (1.1)

Political Parties 4.4 (2.5) 5.4 (2.4) 4.9 (2.2) 3.1 (1.2)

National Defence 2.9 (2.1) 3.7 (2.3) 3.6 (2.5) 3.1 (2.8)

Rescue service 2.5 (2.0) 3.0 (2.2) 3.5 (2.1) 2.1 (1.2)

The Police 2.6 (2.1) 2.7 (1.6) 4.0 (2.2) 2.0 (1.0)

Newspapers 1.9 (1.4) 3.3 (2.1) 2.8 (1.8) 2.9 (1.3)

Radio & TV 1.9 (1.4) 3.3 (2.1) 2.6 (1.9) 2.9 (1.6)

Citizens 3.8 (2.5) 4.3 (1.9) 4.6 (1.7) 4.6 (1.5)

H1: Man-madeMega > Man-madeMedium & NaturalMega > NaturalMedium concerning actors who

should do more after a focusing event:

Parliament :


and Boxing Day 4.4 > the Floods 5.1 not confirmed

Government



27


Parliament:



Government:



Comparison between psychophysiological reactions and self-reported emotions

At this stage in my research process only skin conductance data is included in the psychophysiological

reactions. However, later on pulse and EEG-waves will also be analyzed.

The differences between the measurements are shown in table five. For each category the different

stimuli are given a ranking from one to four. A one infers the highest value for that particular

measurement, and a four infers the lowest value. The two dimensions of SAM, together with four self-

reported emotions constitute the self-reported emotions. Likewise, skin conductance (and later on pulse

and EEG) represents the psychophysiological reactions.

The Jokela school shooting is the number one in both groups with no exceptions. When looking at skin

conductance, the two events that are more focusing also receive more attention. But the difference

between skin conductance and what emotions subjects report to have felt, is that the floods get the

lowest rank in skin conductance, but the second highest in self-reported emotions. One reason for this

might be that the floods where on the news agenda at the time of the experiment. People were already

thinking about similar events before arriving at the experiment, and maybe this influenced the self-

reported emotions. But when looking at what the body and brain experienced, the floods were not as

interesting as the three other events.

28

Table 5. Differences between psychophysiological reactions and self-experienced emotions.

Jokela school shooting

Nokia water crisis

Boxing Day storm

The Floods

SAM Pleasure 1 (7.4) 2 (6.0) 3 (5.9) 4 (5.4)

SAM Arousal 1 (4.3) 4 (5.6) 3 (5.4) 2 (4.4)

Anger 1 (4.2) 3 (2.6) 4 (1.5) 2 (2.9)

Fear 1 (4.4) 4 (2.0) 2 (3.1) 3 (2.6)

Anxiety 1 (5.4) 4 (3.2) 3 (3.4) 2 (4.4)

Sadness 1 (5.9) 3 (3.3) 4 (3.1) 2 (4.0)

Skin conductance (adjusted) 1 (124,5 %) 3 (108.4 %) 2 (114.6 %) 4 (106.2 %)

Average placing self-reported 1 3.3 3.1 2.5

Average placing psychophysiological 1 3 2 4

4 Conclusions

Conclusions will be included when all the analyses are done.

29

Reference list

Arceneaux, K. & Stein, R. M. 2006. “Who is held responsible when disaster strikes? The attribution of

responsibility for a natural disaster in an urban election”, Journal of Urban Affairs 28 (1), 45−53.

Birkland, T. A. 1997. After Disaster. Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing events. Washington, D.C.:

Georgetown University Press.

Birkland, T. A. 2006. Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change After Catastrophic Events. Washington, D.C.:

Georgetown University Press.

Bobrov, P., Frolov, A., Cantor, C., Fedulova, I., Bakhnyan, M., & Zhavoronkov, A. 2011.” Brain-

computer interface based on generation of visual images”, PLoS ONE, 6 (6), e20674.

Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E. & Sundelius, B. 2005. The Politics of Crisis Management. Public Leadership

under Pressure. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brader, T. 2005. “Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by

Appealing to Emotions”, American Journal of Political Science 49 (2), 388−405.

Brader, T & Valentino, N. A. 2007. ”Identities, Interests, and Emotions: Symbolic versus Material

Wellsprings of Fear, Anger, and Enthusiasm”, i Neuman, R., Marcus, G. E., Crigler, A. N. &

MacKuen, M., red., The Affect Effect. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bradley, M. & Lang, P. J. 1994. “Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic

differential”, Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 25 (1), 49−59.

Chamlee-Wright, E. & Storr, V. H. 2010. “Expectations of government’s response to disaster”, Public

Choice 144 (1−2), 253−274.

Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. & Lupia, A. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental

Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Emotiv. (2012). Emotiv. You think, therefore you can. Retrieved from: http://emotiv.com/index.php

Eriksson, J. & Noreen, E. 2002. Setting the agenda of threats: an explanatory model. Uppsala: Uppsala

Universitet. Institutionen för freds- och konfliktforskning.

Forskningsetiska delegationen. 2012. ”God vetenskaplig praxis och handläggning av misstankar om avvikelser

från den i Finland”, tillgänglig på http://tenk.fi .

Graber, D. 2007. “The Road to Public Surveillance: Breeching Attention Thresholds”, i Neuman, R.,

Marcus, G. E., Crigler, A. N. & MacKuen, M., red., The Affect Effect. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Gruszcynski, M. W., Blazer, A., Jacobs, C. B., Smith, K. B. & Hibbing, J. R. 2013. ”The Physiology of

Political Participation”, Political Behavior 35 (1), 135−152.

http://tenk.fi/

30

Grönlund, K. & Isaksson, G-E. 2008. ”Litar finlandssvenskarna på samhällsinstitutioner”, i Herberts, K.,

red., Opinioner och trender i Svenskfinland. Vasa: Institutet för finlandssvensk samhällsforskning.

Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C. & Lahav, G. 2005. “Threat, Anxiety, and Support of Antiterrorism

Policies”, American Journal of Political Science 49 (3), 593−608.

Huddy, L., Feldman, S. & Cassese, E. 2007. “On the Distinct Political Effects of Anxiety and Anger”, i

Neuman, R., Marcus, G. E., Crigler, A. N. & MacKuen, M., red., The Affect Effect. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Kubany, E. S., Haynes, S. N., Leisen, M. B., Owens, J. A., Kaplan, A. S., Watson, S. B., & Burns, K.

2000. “Development and preliminary validation of a brief broad-spectrum measure of trauma

exposure: The Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire”, Psychological Assessment 12, 210−224.

Lombard, M., Reich, R. D., Grade, M. E., Bracken, C. C. & Bolmarcich Ditton, T. 2000. ”Presence

and Television. The Role of Screen Size”, Human Communication Research 26 (1). 75−98.

Marcus, G.E., Neuman, W. R. & MacKuen, M. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

May, P. J. 2003. “Policy decision and implementation”, i Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J., red., Handbook of

Public Administration. London: Sage.

MediaCity Content Testing Lab. (2012). Nokia Lumia 800/iPhone 4S. First impression and benchmark - new

users results and comments (unpublished report). Vaasa: MediaCity.

Morton, R.B. & Williams, K. C. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G. E., Crigler, A. N. & MacKuen, M. 2007. “Theorizing Affect’s Effects”, i

Neuman, R., Marcus, G. E., Crigler, A. N. & MacKuen, M., red., The Affect Effect. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Nykvist, A. 2011. Formaterade nyheter. Studier i hur tv-nyheter formatmässigt editeras, gestaltas och tas emot.

Åbo: Åbo Akademis Förlag.

OECD 2003. Emerging Risks in the 21st Century. An Agenda for Action. Paris: OECD.

Oh, C. H. & Oetzel, J. 2011. ”Multinationals’ Response to Disasters: How Does Subsidiary Investment

Vary in Response to the Type of Disaster and the Quality of Country Governanve?”, Strategic

Management Journal 32 (6), 658−681.

Orne, M. T. & Evans, F. J. 1965. “Social control in the psychological experiment: Antisocial behavior

and hypnosis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1, 189−200.

Palomba, D., Sarlo, M., Angrilli, A., Mini, A. & Stegagno, L. 2000. ”Cardiac responses associated with

affective processing of unpleasant film stimuli”, International Journal of Psychophysiology 36, 45−57.

Rothstein, B. 2003. Sociala fällor och tillitens problem. Stockholm: SNS fölag.

31

Stern, R. M., Ray, W. J. & Quigley, K. S. 2001. Psychophysiological Recording. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Söderlund, P. 2008. ”Medieexponering och medieförtroende i Svenskfinland”, i Herberts, K., red.,

Opinioner och trender i Svenskfinland. Vasa: Institutet för finlandssvensk samhällsforskning.

Weathers, F. W., Keane, T. M & Foa, E. B. 2009. “Assessment and Diagnosis of Adults”, i Foa,E.B,

Keane, T. M., Friedman, M. J & Cohen, J. A., red., Effective Treatments for PTSD. New York:

Guilford Press.

Williams, S. 2008. “Rethinking the Nature of Disaster: From Failed Instruments of Learning to a Post-

Social Understanding”, Social Forces 87 (2), 1115−1138.

Worrall, J. L. 1999. “Focusing Event Characteristics and Issue Accompaniment: The Case of Domestic

Terrorism”, Criminal Justice Policy Review 10, 319−341.

Zhou, S. 2005. “Effects of Arousing Visuals and Redundancy on Cognitive Assessment of Television

News”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 49 (1), 23−42.

citizens emotional and cognitive response to crises and ... · or potential policy change. one...

Documents