After mass violence such as the Bondi Beach terrorist attack on Sunday, distress does not stop with those directly affected.
Fear, anger and uncertainty spread through the media and social networks. This can intensify harm for survivors and targeted communities.
People closest to an event are often supported by services and the community. But the wider public also shapes what happens next.
Here are three ways you can help reduce secondary harm.
A ripple effect
Research on disasters and mass violence shows distress can ripple beyond those directly affected.
For many people, it’s real but temporary, while a smaller proportion develop longer-lasting symptoms. Human threat detection systems evolved to respond quickly to danger, prioritising survival over nuance.
When threat systems activate, they mobilise the body and narrow focus. You may feel on high alert, lose sleep, have intrusive thoughts or images, feel irritable, or feel driven to seek information and certainty.
These responses say nothing about a person’s strength. They’re common patterns from a nervous system experiencing uncertainty, though people’s responses vary widely in intensity.
The feeling of threat also spreads socially. Humans are sensitive to others’ emotions, especially in unclear situations. After terror attacks such as the one in Bondi, people look to others for cues about what’s happening, who’s at risk, and what to do. This can steady people, but it can also amplify fear.
Distance matters
Distance from an event isn’t just geographic. It includes what you saw or heard, perceived ongoing risk, and how close the event feels through your community or identity group.
For survivors and bereaved families, the early phase is often dominated by shock, grief and practical demands. Coping may look less like emotional “processing” and more like survival through hours that feel unreal.
Witnesses, first responders and locals may develop place-based fear, where familiar places start to feel dangerous. Communities that feel targeted can experience a shared sense of threat. In those cases, being on high alert reflects an understandable change in their sense of safety.
Remote observers are not immune. Vivid imagery and emotionally charged discussion can trigger the body’s threat response, even from a distance. The nervous system shifts into fight or flight mode, but there’s no direct action to take and no clear endpoint.
Rumours, rage and scapegoating
Under threat, uncertainty itself becomes stressful. Clear stories feel safer than unresolved ones, even when facts are incomplete. This makes people more likely to spread rumours after attacks.
Research suggests that being exposed to rumours during crises is linked to higher distress, which can drive more searching for information and create a feedback loop.
Early false claims can still stick emotionally after correction, because high stress strengthens emotional memory. Social media accelerates these dynamics.
On many platforms, fast, emotionally charged content tends to travel further than slow, verified corrections, because most platforms reward engagement more than accuracy.
Outrage spreads for similar reasons. Anger can focus fear and reduce helplessness. For those directly affected, it may support survival. For those at a distance, it can become performative or inflammatory, especially when rewarded with attention.
Scapegoating is another common response – blaming a whole group for one person’s actions. Under high stress, focus can narrow and complex explanations can be harder to think through. (The Conversation)
