The distress felt by those directly affected does not end with the victims of mass violence, such as the Bondi Beach terrorist attack that occurred on Sunday.
Media and social networks spread fear, anger and insecurity. This can increase the harm to survivors and communities targeted.
Services and the community often support those closest to an event. The public’s influence on the outcome of an event is not limited to those closest to it.
Three ways to reduce secondary harm
A ripple effect
The impact of disasters and violent mass events can be felt far beyond the immediate victims.
Many people experience temporary symptoms, but a small percentage develops more persistent ones. has evolved human threat detection systems to react quickly to danger.
When threat systems are activated, the body is mobilised and focus narrowed. You might feel irritable or tense, experience intrusive images or thoughts, be on high alert or lose sleep. These reactions say nothing about the strength of a person. These are common patterns that come from an anxious nervous system, but the intensity of people’s reactions can vary.
Socially, , the feeling of danger is also transmitted. People are very sensitive to other people’s emotions, particularly in situations that are unclear. People look to others to get clues on what is happening, who is at risk and what they should do after terror attacks like the one that occurred in Bondi. This can calm people down, but can also increase their fear.
Media exposure is a major factor in shaping modern crises. According to research, heavy media coverage of mass violence is associated with increased short-term stress as well as post-traumatic symptoms.
Even people who are not directly involved can be affected. News coverage can prolong distress by causing people to check the news repeatedly. The threat response can be activated by repeated replays, even after the immediate danger is over.
Distance is important
Distance is not just geographical. Distance is not just about geography. It also includes what you heard or saw, the perceived risk and how close it feels to your community.
Early on, shock, grief, and practical needs are often the dominant emotions for survivors and their families. Coping can look more like surviving through unreal hours than “processing”.
Locals, witnesses, and first responders may experience a place-based anxiety, in which familiar places begin to feel unsafe. A shared threat can be felt by communities who feel they are being targeted. In these cases, a sense of increased safety is understandable.
Remote observers aren’t immune. Even from afar, vivid imagery and emotionally charged discussions can trigger the body’s threat response. The nervous system goes into flight or fight mode but there is no action to be taken and no endpoint.
Rumours and blame-shifting
Uncertainty itself can be stressful when threatened. Even if the facts are not complete, people feel safer when they hear a clear story. After an attack, people are more likely to spread rumours.
Researchers have found that exposure to rumours in crisis situations is associated with higher levels of distress. This can lead to more information seeking and create a feedback cycle.
Stress increases emotional memory, so even after correction, false statements can remain in the mind. Social media accelerates this dynamic. Fast, emotional content is more likely to be shared on many platforms than slow, verified corrections because platforms tend to reward engagement over accuracy.
For example, a Sydney-based man named Naveed AKRAM, who was falsely alleged online to be one of the alleged Bondi Beach gunmen, received abuse and was afraid to leave his home.
Artificial intelligence (AI), on the other hand, can cause confusion. For instance, X’s chatbot Grok incorrectly identified a bystander that disarmed an attacker and mislabeled verified footage of the incident. This is a good reminder that AI outputs, even when they are confident, can be wrong during a crisis.
Similar reasons are behind the spread of outrage. Anger can reduce helplessness and focus fear. It may help those who are directly affected to survive. It can be inflaming or performative for those who are at a distance.
is another common response . This involves blaming an entire group for the actions of one individual. When under stress, the mind can become narrower and it can be difficult to understand complex explanations.
It can be empowering to blame because it removes uncertainty and makes scapegoating easier. It can also increase the risk of harm to innocent people, and create fear in targeted communities.
Reduce secondary harm
Disaster Psychology distinguishes between the event and the conditions that influence recovery. These conditions include safety and trust, as well as connection, manageable exposure, and connection.
Psychological First Aid is widely used during disaster response. It focuses on reducing feelings of overwhelm, strengthening social support and connecting people with reliable information and services.
The principles do not only apply to individuals, but also to the entire population when it comes what we share and see online.
The public can do three things that are backed by evidence:
1. Repetition of sharing graphic content can increase fear and distress in communities. Where possible, avoid reposting graphic material. Ask yourself: Is this content verified and necessary or is it just amplifying fears?
2. Information that is too early can be incomplete. Verification should be given priority over speed in order to avoid false claims that can continue to cause fear even after they have been corrected.
3. Avoid group blame. It is not necessary to suspect entire groups in order to condemn violence. Scapegoating undermines recovery and breaks down trust.
The Bondi Beach terror attack was designed to spread fear far beyond the victims. We can fight this and help the community recover after such horrors.
Tara-Lyn Camilleri received previous funding from Australian Graduate Women. She is currently the Vice President of Graduate Women Victoria.
