Study: Watching Wall-to-Wall Coverage of Boston Marathon Bombings Was More Stressful Than Being There

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9888682/stock-photo-pictures-in-a-living-room-a-funny-and-expressive-man-sitting-on-a-couch-watching-on-tv-sport-event.html?src=SuqZO8_q5HvjrkyG2sH5Aw-1-3">ostill</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Just how stressful is it to glue yourself to media coverage of a horrific event like the Sandy Hook massacre, the 9/11 attacks, or last year’s Boston Marathon bombings? In some cases, it may be more stressful than direct exposure to the event.

That’s according to a new study from the University of California-Irvine, which focused on the Boston attacks this past April. In the wake of the bombings, researchers measured symptoms of acute stress reported by people who were either at the event or who had loved ones there. They compared these responses to the responses of people with no connection to the event, but who were exposed to repeated media reports on the bombing. The media junkies were the more stressed-out group, because, the team concluded, the extended exposure kept the acute stressor “active and alive” in their minds.

“We underestimate the role of media exposure to graphic images,” says Alison Holman, the study’s lead author. “It’s not just seeing it once; my concern is the repetitive viewing. If seeing those images over and over produces more rumination or habitual worrying, even at a subconscious level, it could be contributing to mental or physical ailments.”

Almost 10 percent of respondents to the researchers’ internet survey reported being “directly exposed” to the events of April 15; just over 1 percent were at or near the bombing site, while roughly 9 percent had a close friend or family member there. The survey asked respondents to rate 30 statements—such as “I try to avoid thoughts about the Boston Marathon bombings” and “I feel hypervigilant or ‘on edge'”—on a scale of 0 (never experienced) to 5 (experienced very often). The researchers then used clinical criteria to determine stress levels for each respondent. In order to fall into the category of “high acute stress,” the person had to report symptoms involving all four criteria: disassociation, avoidance, re-experiencing, and arousal/anxiety.

As expected, they found symptoms of stress among people with direct exposure to the bombings, but little incidence of “high acute stress,” which Holman points out, is symptomatically similar to PTSD—although not necessarily a predictor of it. But respondents who followed media coverage for six or more hours a day in the weeks after the bombings were more than twice as likely to fall into the “high acute stress” category. And when compared to respondents who had neither direct exposure to the events nor significant media exposure to them, the heavy TV watchers were nine times as likely to exhibit high acute stress.

Although the results cannot be extrapolated directly to events like the Sandy Hook shootings, some of the findings may apply generally to other “collective traumas.” For instance, an earlier study of Holman’s had found an increase in mental and physical ailments among people exposed to extended media coverage of the 9/11 attacks. At the time, though, researchers assumed that these type of reactions were reserved for people who were directly affected in some way.

“Repeated exposure to trauma-related content is likely to reinforce rumination and intrusive thoughts” and “activate fear circuitry.”

Holman and her coauthors did look at how past exposures to traumatic events affected the respondents’ stress symptoms. Those who’d had direct exposure to the Newtown killings, for example, were much more likely to report symptoms of acute stress in the wake of the Boston bombings. “Repeated exposure to trauma-related content is likely to reinforce rumination and intrusive thoughts, activate fear circuitry, and perhaps contribute to development of flashbacks,” the study reads. What’s more, “people who are most distressed in the aftermath of such an event are probably more likely to engage media coverage as a way of coping with the experience.”

Direct exposure to Hurricane Sandy, which was devastating for many families, did not provoke the same sensitivity. The researchers think that’s because the Sandy, unlike the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary, was a natural disaster, as opposed to “deliberately perpetrated violence against the community.”

Holman was somewhat surprised by the team’s findings. She certainly didn’t expect them to be so dramatic. She takes it as a warning: Americans “have to temper and control how much we expose ourselves to this kind of content.” She also was impressed by what she calls the “tremendous” resilience of Bostonians, based on their relatively low levels of acute stress. “There was a lot of stress imposed on the community,” Holman says. “And they did a pretty remarkable job of managing.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate