CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 106Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationMedia Influence and Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychological outcomes in reaction to media exposure to disasters and large-scale violence: A meta-analysis.

Hopwood, Tanya L., Schutte, Nicola S.·2017·Psychology of Violence
DOI 10.1037/vio0000056
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: A quantitative meta-analysis set out to consolidate the effect of experimental studies of media exposure to disasters and large-scale violence on negative psychological outcomes. Method: The meta-analysis included 18 experimental studies with an overall sample size of 1,634 to obtain an overall effect size and information regarding moderators of the effect size. Results: An overall significant and large effect size of Hedges' g of 1.61 showed that, across studies, media exposure to disasters and large-scale violence was followed by negative psychological outcomes. Outcome type was a significant moderator, with anxiety reactions showing an especially strong effect. Community sensitization was a significant moderator, with studies conducted in a region that had recently been exposed to the type of disaster or violence portrayed in the media showing especially large effect sizes. Conclusion: The results indicate that media exposure to disasters and large-scale violence can cause negative psychological outcomes, at least transiently. Limitations included a lack of statistical power in some moderator analyses and the inability to draw inferences about the duration of effects. There is a need for further research aimed at identifying the possible cumulative effects of media exposure and identification of groups at greatest risk for harmful outcomes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/vio0000056

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 76 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–106 of 106

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hopwood, T. L., & Schutte, N. S.
Affiliations
University of New England (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Psychology of Violence
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2017
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
316-327
ISSN
  • 2152-081X (ISSN-L)
  • 2152-0828
DOI
10.1037/vio0000056
OpenAlex
W2560320704
Cited by
106
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
5.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology of Violence (publishedVersion)
  • EPubDev Repository (submittedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
media exposure, disasters, mass violence, psychological outcomes, anxiety, community sensitization, media influence, experimental study, moderators of effect size

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