Cited by 230Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationDisaster Management and Resilience

Disaster Media Coverage and Psychological Outcomes: Descriptive Findings in the Extant Research

Open access
Pfefferbaum, Betty, Newman, Elana, Nelson, Summer D., Nitiéma, Pascal, Pfefferbaum, Rose L., Rahman, Ambreen·2014·Current Psychiatry Reports

Abstract

This review of the literature on disaster media coverage describes the events, samples, and forms of media coverage (television, newspapers, radio, internet) studied and examines the association between media consumption and psychological outcomes. A total of 36 studies representing both man-made and natural events met criteria for review in this analysis. Most studies examined disaster television viewing in the context of terrorism and explored a range of outcomes including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caseness and posttraumatic stress (PTS), depression, anxiety, stress reactions, and substance use. There is good evidence establishing a relationship between disaster television viewing and various psychological outcomes, especially PTSD caseness and PTS, but studies are too few to draw definitive conclusions about the other forms of media coverage that have been examined. As media technology continues to advance, future research is needed to investigate these additional media forms especially newer forms such as social media.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11920-014-0464-x

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Indirect exposure is associated with stress symptoms and other psychopathologies comparable to those linked to direct exposure.

    “Recent research provided extensive evidence that indirect exposure is associated with stress symptoms and other psychopathologies comparable to those linked to direct exposure [13,16,23-27].”

    From Impact of Media-Induced Uncertainty on Mental Health: Narrative-Based Perspective. (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results (Association between Contact with Media Coverage and Psychological Outcomes; page unavailable) report associations between disaster media viewing and posttraumatic stress, depression, stress reactions, and other outcomes. The References' annotation of Holman et al. reports higher acute stress after heavy media contact than after direct exposure in one study, but the review does not establish that outcomes from indirect and direct exposure are generally comparable across psychopathologies. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A large body of previous research has established an association between media exposure and symptoms of posttraumatic stress related to various life-threatening stressors.

    “A large body of previous research has convincingly established the association between media exposure and symptoms of posttraumatic stress related to various life-threatening stressors, such as war conflicts [9,10], terrorism and other acts of mass violence [11-15], natural disasters [16,17], and recently also the COVID-19 pandemic”

    From Impact of Media-Induced Uncertainty on Mental Health: Narrative-Based Perspective. (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results section reports significant associations between disaster television viewing and posttraumatic stress in most reviewed studies, including studies of terrorist attacks and natural disasters. The Discussion describes evidence for an association beyond other disaster exposures as preliminary, so the claim that research has 'convincingly established' a general association across media exposure overstates the review's conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pfefferbaum, B., Newman, E., Nelson, S. D., Nitiéma, P., Pfefferbaum, R. L., & Rahman, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
  • University of Tulsa (US)
  • Phoenix College (US)
Corresponding author
Pfefferbaum, Betty
Venue
Current Psychiatry Reports
Published
2014-07-27
Volume
16
Issue
9
Pages
464-464
ISSN
  • 1523-3812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-1645
OpenAlex
W2148450146
Cited by
230
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
20.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Psychiatry Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Oklahoma
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH070569)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic stress, psychological outcomes, terrorism, media use, depression, anxiety, substance use, natural disasters, man-made disasters, social media
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Mental Disorders, Disasters, Fear, Humans, Mass Media, Stress, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review