Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Juno Aftermath: Why Did We Watch 24 Hours of Snow Coverage for a Disappointing Snow?

The great blizzard of 2015 came in like a lion and went out like a lamb shorn of her woolly fleece; embarrassed and disappointing to look at. However, in the day leading up to what was hyped up to be the storm of the century, our daily routines came to a screeching halt; halfway through “The Price is Right” television viewers were subjected to panicked news reporters urging people to stay off the roads, make sure they had enough supplies to last them days indoors, call their loved ones and let them know how much they mean to them. At 4pm, CBS decided that the 5 o’clock and 6 o’clock news hours were simply not enough to discuss this snow storm, and instead of airing Judge Judy (as I had been looking forward to all day), spent an extra hour repeating what has already been said. Al Roker created “Rokerthon” in which he spent HOURS ON END narrating what was happening outside our windows. The Onion, always on point with pop culture satire, accurately captured the ridiculousness of our dooms day predictions by publishing the article, “NYC Mayor: ‘Reconcile Yourselves with Your God, ForAll Will Perish in the Tempest.’” I’ll admit it, I bought into the hype a little bit. I stocked up on junk food, I built a tent out of sheets in my room, I took a quiz on Buzzfeed titled “What you should watch on Netflix during the Blizzard.” But it was all tongue in cheek for me, recognizing that there was no real need to panic. However, that was not the case for many who spent the day holed up inside watching their televisions for minute by minute updates. Now, the morning after, many people are filled with disappointed sentiments, wondering what the heck happened and whether or not it was important for DeBlasio to put on his Chris Christie fleece and address his constituents, particularly during Judge Judy.
"Worst. Blizzard. Ever."
Psychologists have gained insight into the phenomenon of information seeking behavior and peoples' reactions in the face of threat. Interestingly enough, psychologists (See Carey, 2014, Lane, 2009, and Rock, 2009) have found that public hysteria catches like wildfire, even in the absence of a genuine threat. Explained through the Ebola scare of 2014, Carey noted that risks are often judged by both reasoning as well as emotional responses. Emotion can often overtake reasoning, especially if the emotions are stoked by repeated images of previous natural disasters and news anchors repeating warnings nonstop. If people feel threatened, they will act accordingly, despite evidence that there is no real threat. In order to quell this mounting fear, people need to feel that they can trust those supplying information. 
Let’s return to my disappointment in not being able to watch the sassy rulings of Judge Judy.  Lane and Rock  addresses this repetition of information as a form of quenching the basic human need for information. Both psychologists assert through their research that there is a biological desire for knowledge and information on a neural level, driven by a need for certainty. When people receive this information, there is a reward. When people feel rewarded for watching Countdown to Snowpacolypse on the news, they are more likely they are to stay tuned, and the higher that news stations’ ratings, and thus the constant barrage of snow updates and risk management plans throughout the day.We manage threats by making predictions, because making predictions makes us feel better about an uncertain future. 

No comments:

Post a Comment