Hashtagging Sandy: How are the psychological effects of natural
disasters expressed in social media? Analyzing the response to Hurricane Sandy on Twitter
ABSTRACT
In the wake of crisis, humans innately succumb to particular set of emotions, allowing
psychologists to develop a pattern for their responses to trauma. While subjective, a general
cycle of emotions can be broken down into three stages: anticipation, experience, and
recovery. This study examines this traditional psychological theory and its application to
current events through the October 2012 disaster, Hurricane Sandy, and how it was expressed
through social media. Presenting the timeline of trending topics and hashtags as exhibits, the
investigation asks: to what extent did social media act as an outlet to express the
psychological effects of natural disasters? Using the psychological stages to trauma recovery,
as described by Herman (2002), and Quarantelli and Dynes (1977), as methods, this study
finds that a similar pattern of human response and cycle of emotions was captured on Twitter
during Hurricane Sandy. During this computerized era, this investigation examines relevant
information regarding the hybridization of traditional psychology and new technology.
INTRODUCTION
On October 22, 2012, Tropical Storm Sandy formed in the Atlantic Ocean. Two
days later it intensified to a Category 1 Hurricane and on October 28, President Obama
declared an emergency for the state of New Jersey. After reaching the status of a
Category 2 Hurricane, Sandy hit the United States—impacting 24 states from Florida to
Maine, and as far inland as Michigan and Wisconsin (FEMA, 2013).
Following the storm’s formation, social media site, Twitter, became a prominent
outlet for public commentary. Users ranged from professional journalists and federal
organizations to local communities and civilian reporters. The accessibility and utility of
social media was showcased by Hurricane Sandy’s record-breaking presence on Twitter
before, during, and after the storm. In affected regions, the site was a communicative
tool to share live action posts despite the loss of power. In other areas, it was used to
voice the reactions, concerns, and relief effort support following the storm. With access
Lam – 2
to the Twitter archives from this event and the months that followed, researchers
analyzed patterns expressed on social media as a result of a natural disaster.
On Twitter on October 29, 2012, as users sought information about the storm,
search queries related to Hurricane Sandy peaked at 20 percent of total search queries on
the site (Olanoff, 2012). The massive presence of Sandy on social media demonstrated a
new outlet for victims and onlookers to express their responses to trauma and crisis. Four
days later on November 2, 2012 following the end of Sandy’s most damaging impacts,
Twitter released five official tweets from their official account regarding Hurricane
Sandy’s impact on their site. Two of these tweets read: “People sent more than 20
million Tweets about the storm between Oct 27 & Nov 1. Terms tracked: ‘sandy,’
‘hurricane,’ #sandy, #hurricane,” and “Between Saturday, Oct 27 and Tuesday, Oct 30,
Tweets mentioning the Red Cross increased 30x” (Olanoff, 2012). By 10:00 pm on
October 30, 2012, the top shared terms on social media sites included “we are ok,”
“power” (lost power, have power, no power), and “damage” (Garun, 2012).
With 20 million tweets, social media analysts formulated chronological and
thematic patterns from the trending topics and hashtags that were posted. According to
social mapping of Twitter’s most prominent hashtags, the time frame before and during
the storm reflected a spread of information and feelings of anxiety and frustration. Such
hashtags include: #Sandy, #HurricaneSandy, #RomneyStormTips, #FrankenStorm,
#StaySafe, #ThanksSandy and #FuckYouSandy. Conversely, the most popular Sandy-
related hashtags on November 3 following the storm reflected feelings of resilience with
an emphasis on relief efforts and donations. These hashtags include: #RedCross,
#JerseyStrong, #RestoreTheShore, and #SandyHelp (SocialMedia, 2012). This cycle of
Lam – 3
responses and it correlating timeline relate back to traditional psychology theories of
stages humans undergo in reaction to crises, such as natural disasters. A general cycle of
emotions can be broken down into three stages: anticipation, experience, and recovery.
The extent to which these traditional ideas are upheld in new technology, specifically
Twitter, is the principal discussion of this study.
METHOD
The purpose of this investigation is to analyze how the psychological effects of
natural disasters are expressed in social media, specifically Twitter. To do this, the
project first identified what psychological effects it was expecting to find. By
establishing a cycle of responses, the exhibits of this investigation, which are the trending
topics and hashtags on Twitter, are analyzed. By establishing a correlation between the
themes of those posts over time, this study examined to what extent the responses to
Hurricane Sandy on social media in 2012 are a reflection of the traditional psychological
theories of stages to recovery.
Although they portray similar ideas, theories of human psychological responses to
disasters differ slightly from psychologist to psychologist. For this reason, the method of
analysis for this investigation combined psychological processes outlined by two sources:
Recovery from Psychological Trauma by Judith L. Herman (2002) and Response to
Social Crisis and Disaster by Quarantelli and Dynes (1977). Herman states that recovery
unfolds in three stages: the establishment of safety, mourning and remembrance, and
reconnection with ordinary life. The first stage reflects patterns of anxiety preceding the
storm. The last two reflect support and relief efforts expressed on social media during and
after the storm. Quarantelli and Dynes state that there are at least four major references
Lam – 4
for the term “disaster:” the physical agent, the consequences of the agent, the impact, and
the social disruption and social changes brought by the impact. The first reference refers
to the information and spread of information regarding the actual disaster. The second
and third references relate to the damages created by the disaster and its impact on its
victims. The last reference reflects efforts to stabilize the impacted areas through support
and relief efforts.
Combining these theories, this investigation divided the psychological effects of
trauma, specifically natural disasters, into three stages: anticipation, experience, and
recovery. Stage 1, anticipation and the time period preceding the event, is associated
with the spread of information and feelings of anxiety (such as concern for the wellbeing
of loved ones and oneself). Stage 2, experience and the time period during the event,
focuses on reporting the physical agent itself and one’s relationship with the event (such
as live-tweeting, photo sharing, and video sharing). Stage 3, recovery and the time period
after the event, reflects the disruption caused by the agent and what efforts are being
made to recover (such as memorials and relief efforts).
To apply this method, this investigation analyzed the top Sandy-related trending
topics as exhibits. Each trending topic or hashtag was associated with one of the three
stages established above with a reason explaining its connection to the particular stage
(Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). The time frame for this experiment was confined to October 22,
2012, when Tropical Storm Sandy first formed, to November 22, 2012, a month after
Sandy’s formation (FEMA, 2013). At this time, trending topics related to the hurricane
returned to pre-Sandy norms.
Lam – 5
Using the Twitter search engine, Topsy Pro, this experiment formulated key
words, hashtags, users, and domains associated with each trending topic (Figures 1, 3, 4,
and 5). Topsy Pro was used to record the number of tweets regarding each trending topic
per day from October 22, 2012 to November 22, 2012 (see Supplemental Data). Graphs
were then created to visually represent the patterns of each trending topic in respect to its
associated stage (Figures 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, and 7b). In doing so, this investigation
determined to the extent to which the psychological effects of natural disaster was
evident in social media.
Figure 1: Symbol Legend
Symbol Significance
“Red Cross”
The quotation marks signify a specific phrase or key words.
When used, the search engine will pull data regarding tweets
using the words in quotations.
#RedCross
The # symbol is known as a “hashtag” on Twitter—allowing
users to search tweets by topic. When used, the search engine
will pull data regarding tweets using the specified hashtag.
@RedCross
The @ symbol hyperlinks a Twitter user to a tweet. When
used, the search engine will pull data regarding tweets that tag
a specify user.
Domain: Instagram
The domain signifies that a particular website or application is
being shared using the tweet. In this investigation, Instagram
will be the only example of this. When posting a picture on
Instagram, there is a “share to Twitter” option. The search
engine will pull data regarding these posts.
Figure 2: Criteria for Stage Categorization
Stage Time Frame Characteristics
1 – Anticipation
Before the event
(Oct. 22-Oct.
28)
Stage 1 is associated with the spread of
information and feelings of anxiety and
precaution. This includes the concern for the
wellbeing of loved ones and oneself.
2 – Experience During the event Stage 2 focuses on reporting the physical agent
Lam – 6
(Oct. 29-30) itself and one’s relationship with the event.
Examples of this are live tweeting, photo sharing,
and video sharing.
3 – Recovery
After the event
(Oct. 31-Nov.
22)
Stage 3 reflects on the disruption caused by the
agent and what efforts are being made to recover.
This can range from memorials to relief efforts.
Figure 3: Stage 1 – Trending Topics
Trending Topic:
Words/Phrases Searched
Associated Psychological
Stage Reason
Be Safe//Stay Safe:
“Be Safe,” #BeSafe, “Stay
Safe,” #StaySafe
1 Anxiety, precautions
Emergency:
“Sandy Forecast,” “Sandy
State,” “Sandy
Evacuation,” “Sandy
Prepare,” “Sandy
Emergency”
1 Spread of information
Family/Friends:
“Friends Sandy,” “Family
Sandy”
1 Anxiety, concern for the
wellbeing of others
Frankenstorm/Storm:
“East Coast,” “Storm,”
“Frankenstorm,”
#Frankenstorm
1 Spread of Information
Thoughts/Prayers:
“Thoughts Sandy,”
“Prayers Sandy,” “Pray
Sandy”
1 Anxiety, concern for the
wellbeing of others
Weather:
“Hurricane Weather,”
“Sandy Weather”
1 Spread of information
Figure 4: Stage 2 – Trending Topics
Trending Topic /
Hashtag
Associated Psychological
Stage Reason
Instagram:
Domain: Instagram
“Hurricane Sandy,”
#HurricaneSandy,
“Sandy,” #Sandy
2 Photo sharing
Lam – 7
Figure 5: Stage 3 – Trending Topics
Trending Topic /
Hashtag
Associated Psychological
Stage Reason
Help/Victims:
“Sandy Help,” “Sandy
Victims”
3 Relief efforts
Red Cross:
“Red Cross,” #RedCross
@RedCross
3 Relief efforts
Relief/Donate:
“Relief Sandy,” “Donate
Sandy”
3 Relief efforts
Restore the Shore:
“Jersey Shore,” “NJ
Sandy,” “Restore the
Shore,”
#RestoreTheShore
3 Relief efforts
Power:
“Power,” “Have Power,”
“No “Power”, “Lost
Power”
2 Relationship with the
event
Reaction/Weather:
“Sandy Crazy,” “Sandy
Scary,” “Sandy Rain,”
“Sandy Wind,” “Sandy
Flood,” “Sandy Flooding”
2 Live reporting and
relationship with the event
Thanks//Fuck You:
“Fuck You Sandy,”
“Thanks Sandy,”
#ThanksSandy, “Thank
You Sandy”
2 Reaction and relationship
to the event
Update/Photo/Video:
“Sandy Update,” “Sandy
Photo,” “Sandy Video”
2 Live reporting, photo
sharing, and video sharing
Lam – 8
Figure 6a: Stage 1
Figure 6b: Stage 2
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 24
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 30
No
v. 1
No
v. 3
No
v. 5
No
v. 7
No
v. 9
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
3
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
7
No
v. 1
9
No
v. 2
1
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Stage 1
Stay Safe//Be Safe
Emergency
Family/Friends
Frankenstorm/Storm
Thoughts/Prayers
Weather
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
Oct
. 22
O
ct. 2
4
Oct
. 26
O
ct. 2
8
Oct
. 30
N
ov
. 1
No
v. 3
N
ov
. 5
No
v. 7
N
ov
. 9
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
3
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
7
No
v. 1
9
No
v. 2
1
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Stage 2
Power
Reaction/Weather
Thanks//Fuck You
Update/Photo/Video
Lam – 9
Figure 6c: Stage 3
Figure 7a: Stage 1 (Oct. 22-Nov. 7: Excluding Stay Safe//Be Safe)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 24
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 30
No
v. 1
No
v. 3
No
v. 5
No
v. 7
No
v. 9
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
3
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
7
No
v. 1
9
No
v. 2
1
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Stage 3
Help Victims
Red Cross
Relief/Donate
Restore the Shore
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 23
Oct
. 24
Oct
. 25
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 27
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 29
Oct
. 30
Oct
. 31
No
v. 1
No
v. 2
No
v. 3
No
v. 4
No
v. 5
No
v. 6
No
v. 7
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Stage 1 (Oct. 22-Nov. 7: Excluding Stay Safe//Be Safe)
Emergency
Family/Friends
Frankenstorm/Storm
Thoughts/Prayers
Weather
Lam – 10
Figure 7b: Stage 2 (Oct. 22-Nov. 7: Excluding Power)
FINDINGS
Prior to examining the increase/decrease patterns and chronology of the tweets, it
is important to note that the actual value of the y-variable, “Number of Times Used,” is
irrelevant in studying the psychological response to natural disasters and trauma.
Because this investigation examines the trends on Twitter in association with three stages
of reaction, trends will be evaluated relative to chronology, and not relative to other
trends. This means that the data is assessed by how popular it is at one particular moment
in comparison to its own popularity over the remaining days. If a trend is congruent with
the patterns of its associated stage, it will have a notable Twitter presence during that
period of time.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 23
Oct
. 24
Oct
. 25
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 27
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 29
Oct
. 30
Oct
. 31
No
v. 1
No
v. 2
No
v. 3
No
v. 4
No
v. 5
No
v. 6
No
v. 7
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Stage 2 (Excluding Power)
Reaction/Weather
Thanks//Fuck You
Update/Photo/Video
Lam – 11
In Figure 6a, the data shows that the trend “Stay Safe//Be Safe” was the most
popular by nearly fivefold. While this y-value is insignificant, a separate graph (Figure
7a) was created excluding this anomaly for a clearer representation of the remaining
Stage 1 trends. All Stage 1 trends return to pre-Sandy norms by November 7, 2012 so
Figure 7a is also confined to the time frame October 22 to November 7 for visual
purposes. In Figure 6b, the data also shows that the trend “Power” was an anomaly.
Another graph (Figure 7b) was created and confined to the time frame October 22 to
November 7 for the same visual clarifications purposes as Figure 7a.
Beginning with Stage 1, the data shows that the trend “Stay Safe//Be Safe” starts
to uncharacteristically increase on October 25, 2012. On October 25, “Stay Safe//BeSafe”
see a 41% increase from its popularity on October 22. By October 27, there is a 150%
increase, and by its peak on October 29, the trend had increased 3,200% from its October
22 value (see Supplemental Data).
The remaining Stage 1 trends show two distinct patterns. The trends “Emergency,”
“Frankenstorm/Storm,” and “Weather” are categorized under the spread of information
characteristic of Stage 1. The trends “Family/Friends” and “Thoughts/Prayers” are
categorized under the anxiety/precaution characteristic of Stage 1 that focuses on concern
for the wellbeing of others. Figure 7a shows that use of trends in the “spread of
information” category begins to increase on October 24. “Frankenstorms/Storms” see the
most dramatic increase by October 25. However, the three trends each reach a peak in
usage on October 29 during Hurricane Sandy. In contrast, Figure 7a shows that use of
trends in the anxiety/precaution category begins to increase on October 27. While
“Family/Friends” reaches a peak in usage on October 29, “Thought/Prayers” trends
Lam – 12
continue to increase until October 30. Stage 1 trends return to pre-Sandy use by
November 1. The only exception is “Thoughts/Prayers,” which continues to have
significant use until November 5.
Similar to “Stay Safe//Be Safe,” the Stage 2 trend, “Power” showed very dramatic
increase patterns during this time period. The trend begins to uncharacteristically grow
on October 28, increasing 69% from its usage on October 22. By its peak on October 30,
“Power” increased by 850% of its starting value pre-Sandy (see Supplemental Data).
Unlike Stage 1, which can be subdivided into different categories, all of the Stage
2 trends regarded a relationship to the event. This could be expressed through activities
such as live tweeting, photo sharing, and video sharing. Excluding the anomaly, “Power,”
Figure 7b shows that all of the remaining Stage 2 trends start to significantly increase on
October 27. While “Instagram,” “Reaction/Weather,” and “Thanks//Fuck You” peaked
during the storm on October 29, “Update/Photo/Video” continued to increase until
October 30. By November 1, all of the Stage 2 trends had dramatically decreased from
peak activity during the storm. Most continued to dwindle until November 7, when they
returned to pre-Sandy norm. However, “Power” continued to have significant use until
November 10. It is worthwhile to note that in Figure 7b “Instagram” showed a unique
pattern of trend sustainability. From October 29 to October 30, Instagram posts to Twitter
only decreased by 1%.
Unlike Stages 1 and 2, the graph of Stage 3 in Figure 6c shows a more sustained
presence of these trends up until late November. In the first two stages, every trend had a
distinct increase period, moment of peak usage, and decrease period. Stage 3 strays far
from this norm with sporadic increase/decrease patterns. “Help/Victims” reached notable
Lam – 13
peaks on October 30, November 3, and November 5. “Red Cross” reached notable peaks
on October 30 and November 3. “Relief/Donate” reached notable peaks on November 3
and November 9-10. “Restore the Shore” reached notable peaks on October 29,
November 2, and November 16.
DISCUSSION
The analysis of Twitter trends during Hurricane Sandy support the psychological
theories of trauma recovery as outlined by Herman (2002), and Quarantelli and Dynes
(1977). Following the criteria for these three stages as outlined by Figure 2, the Twitter
trends during Hurricane Sandy were to be analyzed chronologically and thematically. If
reaction to the natural disaster was congruent to the psychological models, then is was
expected that Stage 1 trends would have a noticeable presence on Twitter in the days
preceding the event. The findings show that Stage 1 trends can be divided into two
categories: the spread of information and anxiety/precaution. The first category includes
the trends “Emergency,” “Frankenstorm/Storm,” and “Weather.” Following the
formation of the storm on October 22, the use of these trends begins to
uncharacteristically increase on October 24. The second category includes the trends
“Family/Friends” and “Thought/Prayers.” These trends begin to increase on October 27.
According to Herman, the establishment of safety is the first step to recovery; and
Quarantelli and Dynes state that the details of the physical agent are first to be recognized.
These theories are supported by Twitter activity on October 24 and 27, which both take
place before Hurricane Sandy’s landfall on October 29. This supports the correlation
between anticipation and Stage 1 trends. However, trends associated with the spread of
information begin to increase a full three days before trends associated with
Lam – 14
anxiety/precaution. Two main functions of social media are information dissemination
and information gathering (Chan, 2010). As Sandy’s destruction potential increased, the
spread of information began trending five days before the storm hit. This spread of
information only translated into feelings of anxiety/precaution on October 27. One’s
proximity to the location of a natural disaster can decrease their optimistic bias
(Weinstein, Lyon, Rothman, & Cuite, 2000). Therefore it was only after Hurricane
Sandy moved closer to the United States, that there was an influx of tweets on October 27
regarding concern for the wellbeing of others and oneself.
It is imperative to recognize that the three stages outlined in the methods section
can overlap chronologically. While Stage 1 trends supported theories of pre-event
anticipation, the peak usage of all Stage 1 actually occurred during Hurricane Sandy.
Social media has provided unprecedented opportunity to voice simple and instantly
accessible information at any time (Johnson, 2012). Therefore at the height of crisis, the
spread of information and anxiety remained popular trends on Twitter despite the end of
anticipation. As shown by Figure 7a, the trend “Thoughts/Prayers” is the only Stage 1
trend to peak on October 30 rather than October 29. This can be explained by Hackbarth,
Pavkov, Wetchler, and Flannery, who argue that in addition to anxiety, the resiliency of
victims who have experienced natural disasters is greatly dependent on factors such as
spirituality/religiosity (2011). Furthermore, while the remainder of Stage 1 trends return
to pre-Sandy norms by November 1, “Thoughts/Prayers” continues to have increased
Twitter presence until November 5. Showing characteristics that extend beyond Stage 1
trends, this supports the argument that culture, and thus religion, will play an integral role
in how people of a particular region cope with natural disasters (Varghese, 2010).
Lam – 15
Taking place during Hurricane Sandy, Stage 2 covered Quarantelli and Dyne’s
references to the physical agent and the consequences of the agent (1977). Each Stage 2
trend related to one’s relationship to the event, which could be broadcasted as an
emotional reaction, live reporting, photo sharing, or video sharing. Stage 2 trends
showed above-average Twitter presence from October 27 to November 1 then dwindle
back to pre-Sandy norms by November 7. Trends “Reaction/Weather” and
“Thanks//Fuck You” peak on October 29. In response to natural disasters, new problems
emerge such as strategies between victims, researchers, managers, policy makers, and
stakeholders in the community (Mitchell, 1995). The reactions of these trends, which
occurred at the height of the storm, reflect frustration with these conflicts.
Figure 6b shows that “Power” is a clear anomaly. Prior to the storm, “Power”
was a consistent topic of 200,000 tweets per day. On October 30, this trend reached a
high of 1,725,000. As stated, the actual y-value is irrelevant in assessing the relative
increase/decrease patterns. However, it is worthwhile to note that the influx of power-
related tweets builds off an already prominent pre-Sandy status. Its pronounced
popularity is explained by social media applications of info-sharing, situation awareness,
and rumor control (NASEO, 2013). Unlike other Stage 2 trends, “Power” retains
increased Twitter presence until November 10. At this point, trends are expected to
reflect Stage 3. But “Power” remains an extended Stage 2 trend as the loss of power
remained an issue for damaged regions weeks following Sandy.
In Figure 7b, the trend “Instagram” shows a unique characteristic of trend
sustainability. In contrast to all other trends, “Instagram” shows a mere 1% decrease
from October 29 to October 30. In combination with live reporting, Instagram was used
Lam – 16
to express the immediate consequences of Sandy. One of the most effective ways for
victims of an emotional crisis to recover is by finding other outlets of expressions such as
art (Wahl-Alexander & Sinelnikov, 2013). As technology advances, media applications
such as Instagram are new artistic mediums.
As the last psychological response to trauma, Stage 3 is defined by remembrance
and reconnection (Herman, 2002) as well as the impact and social changes caused
(Quarantelli and Dynes, 1977). All Stage 3 trends in this experiment focus on relief
efforts following Hurricane Sandy. Differing from Stages 1 and 2, Stage 3 data does not
show any specific time frames in which all of the trends displayed peaking patterns.
Rather the use of each trend varies greatly per day, resulting in the multitude of steep
slopes in Figure 6c.
In Figure 5, it is stated that phrases under the trend “Restore the Shore” included:
“Jersey Shore,” “NJ Sandy,” “Restore the Shore,” and #RestoreTheShore. Similar to
“Power,” this trend had a substantial pre-Sandy Twitter presence with an average of
10,000 daily tweets. By including the term “Jersey Shore,” this investigation
inadvertently recorded tweets regarding the MTV reality TV show, The Jersey Shore.
This is apparent during the show’s October 26th
series finale, which resulted in a spike of
24,000 tweets in Figure 6c. However, because tweets referring to The Jersey Shore are
included in pre-Sandy norms, the “Restore the Shore” trend can still be observed by
increase/decrease values relative to its initial presence.
Following a peak on October 29, “Restore the Shore” exhibited a decreasing
pattern until November 16 when it increased by 505% of its starting value. Using Topsy
Pro, it was discovered that the most popular tweets regarding this trend were a reaction to
Lam – 17
MTV’s Restore the Shore Hurricane Sandy Telethon. The promotion of this event by
Jersey Shore cast members were broadcasted to millions of their Twitter followers and
led to nearly 64,000 related tweets on November 16. Twitter accounts with large fan
bases and response to celebrity commentary proved to have significant impacts on the
results of Stage 3. Twitter highlights popular trends on the website’s sidebar. Upon
reading popular posts, users can choose to respond with a tweet of their own or “retweet,”
which reposts the message onto their own account. These functions quicken the spread
of information and increase their popularity. For this reason, high points in Figure 6c
were analyzed for notable tweets from prominent Twitter personalities.
Trends “Help/Victims” and “Red Cross” show similar patterns to obtain relief
effort support. On October 30, both show significant spikes. This corresponds to a
popular tweet released by the official Barrack Obama account, which encouraged
Hurricane support and donations through a hyperlinked Red Cross site. When the Red
Cross account tweeted, “Text RED CROSS to 90999 to donate $10,” the aforementioned
trends once again spiked. This resulted from celebrity endorsement (including retweets)
to millions of their followers. On November 9 to November 10, tweets from Justin
Bieber’s official account resulted in the peak of “Relief/Donate.” At the time Bieber had
the largest fan base on Twitter with over 45 million followers (Johnson, 2012). On
November 9 to November 10, his Believe Tour hit New Jersey and he announced a
portion of all ticket sales would be donated to Sandy relief efforts.
The results of Stage 3 are congruent with characteristics of post-crisis behavior.
The emphasis of relief supports coping mechanisms such as participation, social
integration, and resilience that are vital to holistic recovery (Natural Hazard and Research
Lam – 18
Applications Information Center, 2002). It also identifies social media functions of
collaborative problem solving, decision-making, and information gathering (Chan, 2010).
In regards to chronology, Stage 3 trends reached high levels of popularity following
Hurricane Sandy. Unlike anticipation and experience, recovery is a timely process. This
is highlighted in the data through the sustained presence of Stage 3 trends throughout the
month following Sandy’s impact.
Although traditional psychology theories were upheld in the analysis of Hurricane
Sandy’s impact on Twitter, there are variables that were inevitably affected by the use of
new technology. This is primarily seen in Stage 3. Traditionally, a strong sense of
community, participation, and resilience arises in the aftermath of crisis (Natural Hazard
and Research Applications Information Center, 2002). Before the revolution of
communication via social media, this community was typically confined to local areas
and then federal assistance. However, with the expansiveness of the Internet, verbal and
monetary support can be provided from any location in the world. Through the
endorsement of prominent Twitter figures, relief efforts and awareness have reached
volumes unprecedented in the history of trauma recovery.
Conversely, this endorsement questions whether the data of Stage 3 reflects a
natural human reaction or if celebrity promotion has created an artificial response. It is
important to note that even traditionally, Stages 1 and 2 different from Stage 3 in that the
first two reflect individual responses. In contrast, recovery and relief are less of an
individual project and more so a combined action. Thus, the sporadic peaks of Figure 6c
are a fair representation of different measures used to rally collective support. Through
Lam – 19
this analysis, the investigation found evidence that the psychological effects of natural
disasters were in fact expressed on Twitter during Hurricane Sandy.
CONCLUSION
Applying traditional psychological theories of trauma recovery to the modern use
of social media, this study effectively concludes that the stages of anticipation,
experience, and recovery derived from Herman (2002), and Quarantelli and Dynes (1977)
were accurately portrayed on Twitter during the October 2012 disaster, Hurricane Sandy.
In regards to chronology, the findings of Stage 1 are consistent with patterns of anxiety
and the spread of information prior to the event. The influx of tweets regarding one’s
relationship to Hurricane Sandy directly correlates to Stage 2 experience. In Stage 3, the
support of relief efforts follows patterns of recovery and coping mechanisms in the
aftermath of the event.
While the stages outlined are valuable in assessing the foundations of human
response, they are not static. This investigation concluded that depending on
circumstances, the stages of anticipation, experience, and recovery largely overlap. The
first two stages exist short term while the recovery stage is maintained long term.
Additionally, traditions models do not consider the accessibility and utility of social
media in instantaneously spreading news. During this computerized era, this
investigation examined the hybridization of traditional psychology and new technology.
While holding true to traditional theories, this study showed that social media acts a
forum to produce volumes of awareness unprecedented in the history of trauma recovery.
Lam – 20
REFERENCES
Chan, J.C. (2010). The role of social media in crisis preparedness, response, and
recovery. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2013). 6 months report: Superstorm Sandy
from pre-disaster to recovery. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland
Security.
Garen, Natt. (2012). Hurricane Sandy by the social media numbers. Digital Trends.
Retrieved
October 27, 2013 from: http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/hurricane-
sandy-by-social-media-numbers/
Hackbarth, M., Pavkov, T., Wetchler, J., & Flannery, M. (2011). Natural disasters: an
assessment
of family resiliency following Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 38(2), 340-351. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00227.x
Herman, J. L. (2002). Recovery from psychological trauma. Psychiatry and Clinical
Neurosciences, 52(1), 98-103. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1819.1998.0520s5S145.x
Johnson, D. R. (2012). Social media: redefining crisis management. National Provisioner,
226(5), 10. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1022030177?accountid=11243
Mitchell, J. K., (1995). Coping with natural hazards and disasters in megacities:
perspectives on
the twenty-first century. GeoJournal , 37(3), 303-311. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41146630
National Association of State Energy Officials. (2013). Lessons learned: social media
and Hurricane Sandy. Colorado Springs, Colorado: U.S. Department of Homeland
Security.
Natural Hazard and Research Applications Information Center. (2002). Holistic disaster
recovery. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado.
Olanoff, D. (2012). Twitter releases numbers related to Hurricane Sandy: more than
20M tweets sent during its peak. TechCrunch. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/02/twitter-releases-numbers-related-to-hurricane-
sandy-more-than-20m-tweets-sent-between-october-27th-and-november-1st/
Quarantelli, E. L. & Dynes, R. R. (1977). Response to social crisis and disaster. Annual
Review of Sociology, 3, 23-49. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2945929
Lam – 21
Social Flow. (2012). #Sandy: social media mapping. Social Flow. Retrieved October 27,
2013 from: http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120245759
Varghese, S. B. (2010). Cultural, ethical, and spiritual implications of natural disasters
from the survivors’ perspective. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America,
22(4), 515-522. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2010.09.005
Wahl-Alexander, Z., Sinelnikov, O.A. (2013). Using physical activity for emotional
recovery
after a natural disaster. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(4),
23-28. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2013.767729
Weinstein, N. D., Lyon, J. E., Rothman, A. J., & Cuite, C. L. (2000). Changes in
perceived vulnerability following natural disaster. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 19(3), 372-395. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/224875562?accountid=11243
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
STAGE 1
Figure 8a: Stage 1 – Be Safe//Stay Safe
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Be Safe//Stay
Safe:
“Be Safe,”
#BeSafe,
“Stay Safe,”
#StaySafe
1 Anxiety,
precautions
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 17,433
Oct. 23 19,649
Oct. 24 23,382
Oct. 25 24,552
Oct. 26 35,558
Oct. 27 43,424
Oct. 28 161,681
Oct. 29 578,434
Oct. 30 384,705
Oct. 31 137,724
Nov. 1 58,242
Nov. 2 34,497
Nov. 3 30,668
Nov. 4 26,482
Nov. 5 28,133
Nov. 6 24,241
Nov. 7 38,130
Nov. 8 30,129
Lam – 22
Nov. 9 25,901
Nov. 10 37,332
Nov. 11 31,011
Nov. 12 22,517
Nov. 13 21,847
Nov. 14 20,298
Nov. 15 24,595
Nov. 16 27,498
Nov. 17 28,681
Nov. 18 27,238
Nov. 19 24,682
Nov. 20 28,083
Nov. 21 39,033
Nov. 22 69,244
Figure 8b: Stage 1 – Emergency
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Emergency:
“Sandy
Forecast,”
“Sandy
State,”
“Sandy
Evacuation,”
“Sandy
Prepare,”
“Sandy
Emergency”
1 Spread of
information
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 190
Oct. 23 570
Oct. 24 1,070
Oct. 25 2,400
Oct. 26 11,040
Oct. 27 10,840
Oct. 28 16,090
Oct. 29 26,250
Oct. 30 13,940
Oct. 31 7,480
Nov. 1 3,600
Nov. 2 3,360
Nov. 3 2,460
Nov. 4 3,520
Nov. 5 3,650
Nov. 6 1,840
Nov. 7 2,110
Nov. 8 1,790
Nov. 9 810
Nov. 10 400
Nov. 11 320
Nov. 12 600
Nov. 13 480
Nov. 14 520
Nov. 15 570
Lam – 23
Nov. 16 1,270
Nov. 17 410
Nov. 18 200
Nov. 19 450
Nov. 20 360
Nov. 21 450
Nov. 22 280
Figure 8c: Stage 1 – Family/Friends
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Family/
Friends:
“Friends
Sandy,”
“Family
Sandy”
1
Anxiety,
concern for
the
wellbeing of
others
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 90
Oct. 23 190
Oct. 24 630
Oct. 25 640
Oct. 26 1,140
Oct. 27 1,670
Oct. 28 9,740
Oct. 29 35,440
Oct. 30 28,950
Oct. 31 8,830
Nov. 1 4,460
Nov. 2 4,780
Nov. 3 4,030
Nov. 4 2,740
Nov. 5 2,230
Nov. 6 1,650
Nov. 7 1,320
Nov. 8 1,940
Nov. 9 1,260
Nov. 10 820
Nov. 11 640
Nov. 12 860
Nov. 13 770
Nov. 14 730
Nov. 15 670
Nov. 16 550
Nov. 17 1,620
Nov. 18 1,000
Nov. 19 570
Nov. 20 540
Nov. 21 490
Nov. 22 1,720
Lam – 24
Figure 8d: Stage 1 –
Frankenstorm/Storm
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Frankenstorm/
Storm:
“East Coast,”
“Storm,” “Frankenstorm,”
#Frankenstorm
1 Spread of
Information
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 0
Oct. 23 0
Oct. 24 0
Oct. 25 8,248
Oct. 26 57,836
Oct. 27 35,866
Oct. 28 64,500
Oct. 29 116,591
Oct. 30 40,788
Oct. 31 7,904
Nov. 1 3,372
Nov. 2 2,084
Nov. 3 1,076
Nov. 4 781
Nov. 5 760
Nov. 6 1,307
Nov. 7 536
Nov. 8 305
Nov. 9 202
Nov. 10 149
Nov. 11 127
Nov. 12 91
Nov. 13 95
Nov. 14 159
Nov. 15 259
Nov. 16 114
Nov. 17 61
Nov. 18 100
Nov. 19 75
Nov. 20 56
Nov. 21 63
Nov. 22 141
Figure 8e: Stage 1 – Thoughts/Prayers
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Thoughts/
Prayers:
“Thoughts
Sandy,”
“Prayers
Sandy,”
“Pray Sandy”
1
Anxiety,
concern for
the
wellbeing of
others
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 25
Oct. 23 90
Oct. 24 512
Lam – 25
Oct. 25 709
Oct. 26 960
Oct. 27 1,414
Oct. 28 8,146
Oct. 29 72,745
Oct. 30 91,087
Oct. 31 30,923
Nov. 1 10,759
Nov. 2 9,236
Nov. 3 7,518
Nov. 4 3,537
Nov. 5 5,942
Nov. 6 3,700
Nov. 7 2,097
Nov. 8 1,700
Nov. 9 1,240
Nov. 10 441
Nov. 11 432
Nov. 12 407
Nov. 13 368
Nov. 14 377
Nov. 15 240
Nov. 16 385
Nov. 17 2,771
Nov. 18 835
Nov. 19 273
Nov. 20 219
Nov. 21 162
Nov. 22 819
Figure 8f: Stage 1 – Weather
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Weather:
“Hurricane
Weather,”
“Sandy
Weather”
1 Spread of
information
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 382
Oct. 23 497
Oct. 24 1,263
Oct. 25 4,018
Oct. 26 7,643
Oct. 27 7,710
Oct. 28 25,103
Oct. 29 59,276
Oct. 30 28,313
Oct. 31 6,867
Nov. 1 3,888
Nov. 2 3,610
Nov. 3 1,815
Lam – 26
Nov. 4 1,823
Nov. 5 1,928
Nov. 6 1,255
Nov. 7 2,158
Nov. 8 1,622
Nov. 9 891
Nov. 10 501
Nov. 11 747
Nov. 12 1,101
Nov. 13 515
Nov. 14 354
Nov. 15 290
Nov. 16 326
Nov. 17 160
Nov. 18 183
Nov. 19 305
Nov. 20 313
Nov. 21 407
Nov. 22 789
Lam – 27
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 25
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 31
No
v. 3
No
v. 6
No
v. 9
No
v. 1
2
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
8
No
v. 2
1
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Stay Safe//Be Safe
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 30
No
v. 3
No
v. 7
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
9
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Emergency
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 25
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 31
No
v. 3
No
v. 6
No
v. 9
No
v. 1
2
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
8
No
v. 2
1 N
um
be
r o
f T
ime
s U
sed
Date (2012)
Family/Friends
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
100000 120000 140000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 30
No
v. 3
No
v. 7
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
9
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Frankenstorm/Storm
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
100000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 25
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 31
No
v. 3
No
v. 6
No
v. 9
No
v. 1
2
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
8
No
v. 2
1 N
um
be
r o
f T
ime
s U
sed
Date (2012)
Thoughts/Prayers
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 30
No
v. 3
No
v. 7
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
9 N
um
be
r o
f T
ime
s U
sed
Date (2012)
Weather
Lam – 28
STAGE 2
Figure 9a: Stage 2 – Instagram
Trending Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Instagram:
Domain:
“Hurricane
Sandy,”
#HurricaneSandy,
“Sandy,” #Sandy
2 Photo
sharing
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 120
Oct. 23 220
Oct. 24 580
Oct. 25 1,490
Oct. 26 3,120
Oct. 27 6,530
Oct. 28 31,010
Oct. 29 143,660
Oct. 30 142,250
Oct. 31 30,090
Nov. 1 15,230
Nov. 2 12,980
Nov. 3 13,620
Nov. 4 8,230
Nov. 5 6,120
Nov. 6 3,400
Nov. 7 2,690
Nov. 8 2,630
Nov. 9 2,300
Nov. 10 2,360
Nov. 11 1,910
Nov. 12 1,540
Nov. 13 1,440
Nov. 14 1,140
Nov. 15 1,390
Nov. 16 1,390
Nov. 17 1,290
Nov. 18 1,120
Nov. 19 850
Nov. 20 800
Nov. 21 850
Nov. 22 800
Figure 9b: Stage 2 – Power
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Power:
“Power,”
“Have
Power,” “No
“Power”,
“Lost Power”
2
Relationship
with the
event
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Lam – 29
Oct. 22 203,040
Oct. 23 196,320
Oct. 24 184,200
Oct. 25 193,570
Oct. 26 184,800
Oct. 27 181,030
Oct. 28 343,130
Oct. 29 1,269,000
Oct. 30 1,725,000
Oct. 31 692,040
Nov. 1 535,430
Nov. 2 527,700
Nov. 3 403,390
Nov. 4 340,290
Nov. 5 335,450
Nov. 6 303,920
Nov. 7 398,050
Nov. 8 306,700
Nov. 9 217,850
Nov. 10 186,020
Nov. 11 202,670
Nov. 12 237,570
Nov. 13 222,400
Nov. 14 245,870
Nov. 15 210,950
Nov. 16 209,900
Nov. 17 167,430
Nov. 18 197,030
Nov. 19 196,460
Nov. 20 188,350
Nov. 21 192,480
Nov. 22 173,400
Figure 9c: Stage 2 – Reaction/Weather
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Reaction/
Weather:
“Sandy Crazy,”
“Sandy Scary,”
“Sandy Rain,”
“Sandy Wind,”
“Sandy Flood,”
“Sandy
Flooding”
2
Live
reporting
and
relation
with the
event
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 90
Oct. 23 430
Oct. 24 1,720
Oct. 25 2,900
Oct. 26 4,850
Oct. 27 9,240
Oct. 28 32,850
Oct. 29 66,120
Lam – 30
Oct. 30 51,100
Oct. 31 10,470
Nov. 1 6,240
Nov. 2 6,770
Nov. 3 7,530
Nov. 4 3,120
Nov. 5 2,160
Nov. 6 1,730
Nov. 7 2,410
Nov. 8 2,050
Nov. 9 800
Nov. 10 540
Nov. 11 530
Nov. 12 680
Nov. 13 760
Nov. 14 600
Nov. 15 690
Nov. 16 740
Nov. 17 460
Nov. 18 950
Nov. 19 580
Nov. 20 440
Nov. 21 400
Nov. 22 550
Figure 9d: Stage 2 – Thanks//Fuck
You
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Thanks//Fuck
You:
“Fuck You
Sandy,”
“Thanks
Sandy,”
#ThanksSandy,
“Thank You
Sandy”
2
Reaction
and
relation to
the event
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 130
Oct. 23 240
Oct. 24 570
Oct. 25 1,290
Oct. 26 2,390
Oct. 27 3,930
Oct. 28 26,840
Oct. 29 61,620
Oct. 30 48,110
Oct. 31 14,470
Nov. 1 7,560
Nov. 2 8,130
Nov. 3 5,330
Nov. 4 3,330
Nov. 5 3,890
Nov. 6 2,470
Lam – 31
Nov. 7 3,000
Nov. 8 2,270
Nov. 9 2,010
Nov. 10 1,150
Nov. 11 910
Nov. 12 5,530
Nov. 13 2,700
Nov. 14 1,280
Nov. 15 1,130
Nov. 16 1,060
Nov. 17 710
Nov. 18 560
Nov. 19 840
Nov. 20 780
Nov. 21 710
Nov. 22 950
Figure 9e: Stage 2 –
Update/Photo/Video
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Update/
Photo/Video:
“Sandy
Update,”
“Sandy
Photo,”
“Sandy
Video”
2
Live
reporting,
photo
sharing, and
video
sharing
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 320
Oct. 23 450
Oct. 24 1,410
Oct. 25 2,540
Oct. 26 3,810
Oct. 27 5,360
Oct. 28 12,330
Oct. 29 41,950
Oct. 30 47,540
Oct. 31 19,580
Nov. 1 13,760
Nov. 2 12,230
Nov. 3 8,100
Nov. 4 5,710
Nov. 5 7,270
Nov. 6 4,990
Nov. 7 2,840
Nov. 8 4,350
Nov. 9 3,010
Nov. 10 1,450
Nov. 11 1,580
Nov. 12 2,860
Nov. 13 1,750
Lam – 32
Nov. 14 1,780
Nov. 15 1,540
Nov. 16 1,330
Nov. 17 1,030
Nov. 18 750
Nov. 19 910
Nov. 20 1,120
Nov. 21 690
Nov. 22 630
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 25
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 31
No
v. 3
No
v. 6
No
v. 9
No
v. 1
2
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
8
No
v. 2
1
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 30
No
v. 3
No
v. 7
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
9
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Power
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 25
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 31
No
v. 3
No
v. 6
No
v. 9
No
v. 1
2
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
8
No
v. 2
1
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Reaction/Weather
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 30
No
v. 3
No
v. 7
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
9 N
um
be
r o
f T
ime
s U
sed
Date (2012)
Thanks//Fuck You
Lam – 33
STAGE 3
Figure 10a: Stage 3 – Help/Victims
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Help/Victims:
“Sandy Help,”
“Sandy
Victims”
3 Relief
efforts
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 33
Oct. 23 49
Oct. 24 120
Oct. 25 260
Oct. 26 760
Oct. 27 950
Oct. 28 9,230
Oct. 29 21,180
Oct. 30 51,760
Oct. 31 30,810
Nov. 1 30,550
Nov. 2 50,060
Nov. 3 56,360
Nov. 4 42,000
Nov. 5 50,530
Nov. 6 27,750
Nov. 7 21,020
Nov. 8 24,280
Nov. 9 18,040
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Update/Photo/Video
Lam – 34
Nov. 10 11,840
Nov. 11 8,530
Nov. 12 10,070
Nov. 13 11,770
Nov. 14 11,970
Nov. 15 13,630
Nov. 16 9,880
Nov. 17 4,680
Nov. 18 4,360
Nov. 19 8,800
Nov. 20 5,890
Nov. 21 5,780
Nov. 22 5,140
Figure 10b: Stage 3 – Red Cross
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Red Cross:
“Red Cross,”
#RedCross
@RedCross
3 Relief
efforts
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 1,364
Oct. 23 2,028
Oct. 24 2,037
Oct. 25 2,291
Oct. 26 3,111
Oct. 27 3,023
Oct. 28 6,842
Oct. 29 19,311
Oct. 30 64,556
Oct. 31 38,503
Nov. 1 33,670
Nov. 2 54,062
Nov. 3 75,511
Nov. 4 39,801
Nov. 5 38,407
Nov. 6 19,009
Nov. 7 18,507
Nov. 8 17,753
Nov. 9 12,260
Nov. 10 9,021
Nov. 11 6,126
Nov. 12 7,405
Nov. 13 5,985
Nov. 14 5,872
Nov. 15 5,695
Nov. 16 4,643
Nov. 17 3,520
Nov. 18 2,367
Nov. 19 3,670
Lam – 35
Nov. 20 3,459
Nov. 21 3,145
Nov. 22 2,744
Figure 10c: Stage 3 – Relief/Donate
Trending
Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Relief/Donate:
“Relief Sandy,”
“Donate Sandy”
3 Relief
efforts
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 0
Oct. 23 1
Oct. 24 11
Oct. 25 19
Oct. 26 203
Oct. 27 97
Oct. 28 1,381
Oct. 29 4,515
Oct. 30 14,130
Oct. 31 15,079
Nov. 1 20,497
Nov. 2 33,169
Nov. 3 40,712
Nov. 4 34,811
Nov. 5 36,349
Nov. 6 18,316
Nov. 7 16,422
Nov. 8 28,596
Nov. 9 50,452
Nov. 10 46,737
Nov. 11 16,502
Nov. 12 30,038
Nov. 13 14,261
Nov. 14 8,882
Nov. 15 8,156
Nov. 16 7,124
Nov. 17 4,035
Nov. 18 2,716
Nov. 19 6,554
Nov. 20 5,240
Nov. 21 2,958
Nov. 22 1,771
Figure 10d: Stage 3 – Restore the
Shore
Trending Topic /
Hashtag
Associated
Psychological
Stage
Reason
Restore the
Shore:
“Jersey Shore,”
“NJ Sandy,”
“Restore the
Shore,”
#RestoreTheShore
3 Relief
efforts
Lam – 36
Date (2012) Number of Times
Used
Oct. 22 10,556
Oct. 23 9,389
Oct. 24 9,259
Oct. 25 10,052
Oct. 26 24,004
Oct. 27 10,885
Oct. 28 24,973
Oct. 29 72,627
Oct. 30 64,367
Oct. 31 37,951
Nov. 1 25,216
Nov. 2 49,865
Nov. 3 23,106
Nov. 4 22,473
Nov. 5 22,147
Nov. 6 20,907
Nov. 7 15,504
Nov. 8 15,661
Nov. 9 26,012
Nov. 10 11,559
Nov. 11 16,615
Nov. 12 13,482
Nov. 13 14,987
Nov. 14 12,253
Nov. 15 17,081
Nov. 16 63,896
Nov. 17 10,959
Nov. 18 11,284
Nov. 19 11,059
Nov. 20 10,157
Nov. 21 8,415
Nov. 22 7,633
Lam – 37
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 25
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 31
No
v. 3
No
v. 6
No
v. 9
No
v. 1
2
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
8
No
v. 2
1
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Help/Victims
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 30
No
v. 3
No
v. 7
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
9
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Red Cross
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 25
Oct
. 28
Oct
. 31
No
v. 3
No
v. 6
No
v. 9
No
v. 1
2
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
8
No
v. 2
1
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Relief/Donate
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
Oct
. 22
Oct
. 26
Oct
. 30
No
v. 3
No
v. 7
No
v. 1
1
No
v. 1
5
No
v. 1
9
Nu
mb
er
of
Tim
es
Use
d
Date (2012)
Restore the Shore
Top Related