This study details an innovative and methodical content analysis of 2,207 YouTube comments from four different YouTube videos (e.g., breaking news or memorials) related to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School and Aurora theater mass shootings and the catastrophic Hurricane Sandy. As expected, YouTube comments associated with the Sandy Hook shootings (particularly those from a memorial video) were especially likely to feature compassion and grief with lessened hostility. This study highlights differing online contexts by which individuals show grief and related emotions following man-made and natural calamities and how—even in an online environment—powerful situational contexts greatly guide behavior.
KonijnEA, VeldhuisJ, PlaisierXS. YouTube as a research tool: three approaches. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2013; 16:695–701.
3.
ChouWS, HuntY, FolkersA, et al.Cancer survivorship in the age of YouTube and social media: a narrative analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2011; 13:e7.
4.
VragaEK, BodeL, WellsC, et al.The rules of engagement: comparing two social protest movements on YouTube. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2014; 17:133–140.
5.
MomeniE, HaslhoferB, TaoK, et al.Sifting useful comments from Flickr Commons and YouTube. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 2014; 14:1–19.
6.
MaddenA, RuthvenI, McMenemyD. A classification scheme for content analyses of YouTube video comments. Journal of Documentation, 2013; 69:693–714.
7.
EdgerlyS, VragaEK, DalrympleKE, et al.Directing the dialogue: the relationship between YouTube videos and the comments they spur. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 2013; 10:276–292.
8.
van ZoonenL, VisF, MiheljS. YouTube interactions between agonism, antagonism and dialogue: video responses to the anti-Islam film Fitna. New Media & Society, 2011; 13:1283–1300.
9.
RosenbergJ. Mass shootings and mental health policy. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 2014; 41:107–121.
10.
ShultzJM, MuschertGW, DingwallA, et al.The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as tipping point: “this time is different.”. Disaster Health, 2014; 1:65–73.
11.
GaleaS, NandiA, VlahovD. The epidemiology of post-traumatic stress disorder after disasters. Epidemiologic Reviews, 2005; 27:78–91.
12.
NeriaY, LitzBT. Bereavement by traumatic means: the complex synergy of trauma and grief. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 2004; 9:73–87.
13.
ScheufeleDA. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 1999; 49:103–122.
14.
SkitkaLJ, SargisEG. The Internet as psychological laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 2006; 57:529–555.
15.
SwartwoodRM, VeachPM, KuhneJ, et al.Surviving grief: an analysis of the exchange of hope in online grief communities. Omega: Journal of Death & Dying, 2011; 63:161–181.
16.
SandersonJ, CheongPH. Tweeting prayers and communicating grief over Michael Jackson online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 2010; 30:328–340.
17.
MarwickA, EllisonNB. “There Isn't Wifi in Heaven!” Negotiating visibility on Facebook memorial pages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2012; 56:378–400.
18.
LingelJ. The digital remains: social media and practices of online grief. The Information Society, 2013; 29:190–195.
19.
KansteinerW. Finding meaning in memory: a methodological critique of collective memory studies. History & Theory, 2002; 41:179–197.
20.
WalterT, LittlewoodJ, PickeringM. Death in the news: the public invigilation of private emotion. Sociology, 1995; 29:579–596.
21.
WhiteGM. National subjects: September 11 and Pearl Harbor. American Ethnologist, 2004; 31:293–310.
22.
BonannoGA, WortmanCB, NesseRM. Prospective patterns of resilience and maladjustment during widowhood. Psychology & Aging, 2004; 19:260–271.
23.
KoushaK, ThelwallM, AbdoliM. The role of online videos in research communication: a content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 2012; 63:1710–1727.
24.
ChowdhurySA, MakaroffD. Characterizing videos and users in YouTube: a survey. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Broadband, Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications (BWCCA) 2012. Victoria, British Columbia.
25.
WellsGL, WindschitlPD. Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 1999; 25:1115–1125.
26.
ZechmeisterJ, ZechmeisterE, ShaughnessyJ. (2000) Essentials of research methods in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
VieraAJ, GarrettJM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 2005; 37:360–363.
28.
CraigRJ. (2003) Assessing personality and psychopathology with interviews. In WeinerIB, GrahamJR, NaglieriJA, eds. Handbook of psychology. 1st ed. Vol. 10. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 487–508.
29.
MilgramS. (1974) Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.
30.
MilgramS. Network love. Omni, 1984; 7:34, 148.
31.
SiersdorferS, ChelaruS, NejdlW, et al. (2010) How useful are your comments? Analyzing and predicting YouTube comments and comment ratings. Proceedings of the 19th International World Wide Web Conference, Raleigh, NC.
32.
BuckelsEE, TrapnellPD, PaulhusDL. Trolls just want to have fun. Personality & Individual Differences, 2014; 67:97–102.
33.
RuthsD, PfefferJ. Social media for large studies of behavior. Science, 2014; 346:1063–1064.
34.
ReisHT, GoslingSD. (2010) Social psychological methods outside the laboratory. In FiskeST, GilbertDT, LindzeyG, eds. Handbook of social psychology. 5th ed. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, pp. 82–114.
