This past week we learned that Kristoff St. John, an actor who spent decades playing Neil Winters on The Young and the Restless, died by suicide. We learned about St. John's death in three waves, as has become a disturbing trend in popular media. We first learned that St. John died, then that he died by suicide, and finally the likely cause of his death. (I will not mention the cause of death for reasons that will soon become apparent.)

The media is cautioned to approach suicide reportage gingerly. Specifically, it’s a bad idea for journalists to dwell on sensationalism or means of death when a notable celebrity dies by suicide. Research findings indicate that well-known celebrities who die by suicide can inadvertently inspire their fans to carry out .

Little is known, however, about how fans react to celebrity suicide on social media platforms like Twitter. Thomas Niederkrotenthaler, Benedikt Tilla, and David Garcia recently published a study in the Journal of Affective Disorders examining the suicide of superstar Swedish DJ Avicii (real name Tim Bergling) who died on April 2018. They looked at the following:

The reaction of Twitter users to the revelation of Avicii’s death in terms of activity over time and suicide-related tweets.

An analysis of the emotional content of tweets linked to three waves of reporting, which represented emerging knowledge of Avicii’s death, as compared with content of random tweets.

An analysis of interactions related to the three waves of reportage and the dissemination of potentially harmful information among Twitter users such as means of suicide.

The researchers mined the Twitter Application Programming Interface (API), which is a tool made free to the public, to record and analyze millions of tweets regarding Avicii’s death for linguistic content. They then compared these tweets with millions of random tweets.

Source: iconisa/123RF

The first wave of tweets occurred immediately after Avicii’s death was announced on April 20, 2018, and were not related to suicide. Instead this peak, which climaxed at 300,000 tweets an hour, was charged both positively and negatively and centered on terms like death, RIP, and Twitter. These first tweets mostly reflected outpourings of love and sadness and were typically short messages.

Although voluminous, this first wave of tweets lasted only briefly—peaking at about 12 hours—which concurs with previous research that indicates that tweet volumes involving behavioral health announcements dissipate after about 2 days.

The second wave of tweets regarding Avicii’s passing came after his family announced that the death was a suicide on April 26, 2018. The increase in Twitter activity by fans took place over a longer period of time than the first wave. This finding could be a result of the need for users to discuss and reflect on the suicide. It could also reflect an increased desire for response among people who felt close to Avicii.

Tweets in the second wave were negatively charged and typified by expressions of and sadness, but according to the researchers, these tweets did not pose a danger to impressionable fans. Of note, these tweets were longer than tweets analyzed during the first wave.

Regarding tweets in the second wave, the investigators write:

The style of reporting on suicide was also more consistent with current media recommendations for suicide reporting than in the third peak. These recommendations emphasize that a focus on the celebrity's life, i.e. what he or she contributed to the arts and to the society, is important and should be given priority instead on focusing on the suicidal act. Reporting in accordance with these recommendations might help in process and prevent possible copycat effects.

The third wave of tweets occurred after Avicii’s method of suicide was disclosed on May 1, 2018. (Again, I won’t write how he killed himself.) Linguistic content in the third wave of tweets was more negative and focused on the means of suicide. But much fewer people tweeted during the third wave, indicating decreased interest.

Overall, focus on the method of Avicii’s suicide was low, which suggests that most Twitter users found the information neither urgent nor newsworthy. Furthermore, there weren’t that many interactions or discussions about Avicii’s death during any of the three peaks, implying that Twitter users weren’t considering detrimental decisions based on the tweets.

Twitter users who focused on the means of suicide had more followers, which is concerning. Moreover, these tweets regarding suicide specifics may have been disseminated by traditional media outlets. Suicide is a public health problem, and if traditional news outlets are playing a role on social media or otherwise, they could be targeted in preventive efforts.

The researchers suggest that the Twitter API may be used to monitor harmful messages stemming from celebrity suicide disseminated by news organizations on social media. Suicide prevention organizations can monitor harmful tweets and take preventive action if the volume of concerning tweets is high. Fortunately, in the current study at least, fewer Twitter users focused on how Avicii carried out his suicide.

If you’re thinking about suicide, please know that there is help and hope out there. You are not alone. A good place to start the process of healing is the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, where 24-hour help is only a phone call away: 1-800-273-8255.