|
|
|
|
|
New
Study on Effects of 9/11 Attacks Charts Impacts &
Effective Coping Mechanisms
|
 |
One of the first studies of the long-term impact of the 2001
terrorist incidents on ordinary Americans who were not
direct victims has found that the majority of the survey's
participants (73%) felt that the 9/11 events had changed
them or their outlook on life. The most common responses
were that they felt more vulnerable, were shocked by the
attacks, and experienced a change in how they want to live
their lives with a focus on living life to the fullest
Funded by the National Science Foundation, Suzanne Thompson,
professor of Psychology at Pomona College in Claremont CA,
and her research assistants interviewed 501 people, who were
not direct victims, in the second year following the attacks
(September 2002 to July 2003) and focused on feelings of
distress (anxiety, loss of control, personal vulnerability)
and fear of flying.
According to Thompson, "Most participants felt more distress
(65%) and a stronger fear of flying (55%) immediately after
the event than they did before the attacks. Anxiety is at a
lower level now, but is still significantly higher than
pre-attack levels. In fact, the current levels of distress
and concern about flying remain surprisingly high even in
this one- to two-year period following the incident." Of
those whose distress increased immediately after the
attacks, almost one-half are currently still experiencing
heightened anxiety, loss of control, and vulnerability. Fear
of flying and reluctance to fly also remain elevated for a
substantial number of people (31%).
The study also examined the actions and coping strategies
that were associated with experiencing distress. According
to cognitive adaptation theory, actively processing
threatening material, finding understanding and meaning, and
keeping a sense of control should lead to successful coping
with a traumatic experience. Consistent with this,
participants who reported that they used avoidance and
distraction are currently more distressed and have more fear
of flying, while those who tend to think about and deal with
their problems are less distressed.
In addition, the participants who felt they understood why
the attacks happened and who focused on ways in which their
risk is low are less distressed. It is likely that thinking
about the terrorist attack and engaging with one's fears may
have helped people make sense of what happened and find
adaptive ways to think about their personal risk.
Because feeling that the attacks were understandable and
judging that one's risk was low were both important
correlates of good coping, participants' perceptions about
these two topics were examined in further detail.
Participants identified a wide variety of reasons why the
attacks occurred ranging from US foreign relations policy to
the actions of zealots and crazy people. Three reasons were
most strongly associated with feeling a sense of
understanding and meaning: Believing that the attacks were
due to misguided U.S. foreign policy, economic disparity
between the U.S. and other countries, and the actions of
crazy people. Although these are very different
explanations, a belief in any one of them seemed to satisfy
the need for understanding.
The participants who felt that they were at low risk of
being involved in a terrorist attack focused on the fact
that flying is safer than driving, or felt that due to
increased security and the singular nature of the attacks
they would not happen again. People who did not feel that
the risk was low did a very different analysis. They were
not reassured by the changes in security and felt they could
be easily breached by future terrorists. The vivid nature of
the attacks and even the presence of numerous security
personnel at airports increased their sense that a repeat
attack was possible.
Some people have made an effort to reduce their risk of
being in a future attack by flying only in some areas of the
country, screening fellow passengers, or planning how to
attack hijackers if that is necessary. These strategies to
control one's personal risk were not associated with
distress or fear of flying, so they did not seem to work to
reduce concern. Although people with a stronger sense of
personal control were less distressed, it appears that
actively working to decrease one's risk did not reduce
anxiety.
There were gender differences in the impact of the attacks.
Women were more strongly affected than were men. The gender
difference in reactions to a public disaster has been found
in other studies and may be due to women's propensity to
report emotional distress or their stronger sense of
vulnerability to physical attack.
"The results have important implications," explains
Thompson. "From 1 to 2 years after the 9/11 attacks, a
significant number of Americans are still experiencing
increased anxiety, loss of control, and concerns about their
safety. This suggests that distress is not gradually
dissipating in the general public and the long-term effects
are more widespread than is usually recognized."
"People who are still feeling distressed by the events
should understand that their reactions are not abnormal,"
says Thompson. "It also appears that more open discussion of
people's concerns about the 2001 attacks could be useful. A
number of interviewees commented that they welcomed the
chance to talk about their reactions and did not have other
opportunities. Open discussion can help people find ways to
understand why the attacks happened and could expose them to
an optimistic perspective that focuses on lower personal
risk." |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quick Links |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explore Pomona's Web |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Find It |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
