Context The September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States provide a
unique opportunity to examine longitudinally the process of adjustment to
a traumatic event on a national scale.
Objective To examine the degree to which demographic factors, mental and physical
health history, lifetime exposure to stressful events, September 11–related
experiences, and coping strategies used shortly after the attacks predict
psychological outcomes over time.
Design, Setting, and Participants A national probability sample of 3496 adults received a Web-based survey;
2729 individuals (78% participation rate) completed it between 9 and 23 days
(75% within 9 to 14 days) after the terrorist attacks. A random sample of
1069 panelists residing outside New York, NY, were drawn from the wave 1 sample
(n = 2729) and received a second survey; 933 (87% participation rate) completed
it approximately 2 months following the attacks. A third survey (n = 787)
was completed approximately 6 months after the attacks.
Main Outcome Measures September 11–related symptoms of acute stress, posttraumatic stress,
and global distress.
Results Seventeen percent of the US population outside of New York City reported
symptoms of September 11–related posttraumatic stress 2 months after
the attacks; 5.8% did so at 6 months. High levels of posttraumatic stress
symptoms were associated with female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence
interval [CI], 1.17-2.31), marital separation (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.06-6.14),
pre–September 11 physician-diagnosed depression or anxiety disorder
(OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.33-2.56) or physical illness (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99),
severity of exposure to the attacks (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11–1.55), and
early disengagement from coping efforts (eg, giving up: OR, 1.68; 95% CI,
1.27-2.20; denial: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07-1.64; and self-distraction: OR,
1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.59). In addition to demographic and pre–September
11 health variables, global distress was associated with severity of loss
due to the attacks (β = .07; P = .008) and early
coping strategies (eg, increased with denial: β = .08; P = .005; and giving up: β = .05; P =
.04; and decreased with active coping: β = −.08; P = .002).
Conclusions The psychological effects of a major national trauma are not limited
to those who experience it directly, and the degree of response is not predicted
simply by objective measures of exposure to or loss from the trauma. Instead,
use of specific coping strategies shortly after an event is associated with
symptoms over time. In particular, disengaging from coping efforts can signal
the likelihood of psychological difficulties up to 6 months after a trauma.
Most people encounter stressful events that can alter the course of
their lives. Clinicians often see the mental and physical health consequences
of such events.1 On September 11, 2001, everyone
in the United States was exposed to an incident unprecedented in scope and
traumatic impact. Tens of thousands of people directly witnessed the terrorist
attacks against the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon; others viewed
the attacks and their aftermath via the media—most within half an hour
after they occurred.2 It has been argued that
this national trauma "influenced and will continue to influence the clinical
presentation of patients seeking health care services" across the country3 and that it offers "an unfortunate opportunity to
find out more about what something like this does to a country as a whole."4
Research after the Oklahoma City, Okla, bombing suggests that emotional
responses to a terrorist attack can be highly variable.5
Emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses vary even within homogeneous
samples of individuals who have been exposed to loss and trauma more generally.6-8 Yet, information about
the range and rates of distress to be expected following such a national trauma
is limited. Unfortunately, potentially harmful myths about coping remain prevalent
in lay and professional communities,8 such
as the expectation that subjective responses to trauma are proportional to
the degree of objective loss experienced. Gaining information concerning the
adjustment process can aid clinicians by identifying risk factors9,10 and can inform the design of interventions
for individuals coping with stressful life events.11
We conducted a longitudinal study of acute responses to the terrorist
attacks of September 11 in a national probability sample of US residents,
examining the emotional and behavioral impact of a single event within a representative
adult sample. Respondents' mental and physical health histories were collected
before the attacks, stress and coping responses were assessed 9 to 23 days
after September 11, and follow-up assessments were made at approximately 2
and 6 months after the attacks. Because traumatic experiences may find expression
in both trauma-specific and general outcomes, the present study examined the
impact of the attacks on posttraumatic stress symptoms (eg, repeatedly reliving
the trauma, repeatedly avoiding the trauma, hyperarousal), anxiety about future
risk, and global distress. The goals of our study were to document over time
the range of psychological responses to a national traumatic event; examine
pre–September 11 and September 11–related factors that may explain
variability in responses; and identify early predictors of global distress
and posttraumatic stress symptoms in response to the attacks.
Knowledge Networks Inc (KN), a Web-based survey research company, has
recruited about 60 000 households to participate in their nationally
representative Web-enabled panel, constituting the only Internet-based national
probability sample in the United States. The distribution of the final sample
in the KN panel closely tracks the distribution of US Census counts for the
population on age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, geographic region, employment
status, income, education, etc.12 Knowledge
Networks provides households in the panel with free Web access and an Internet
appliance that uses a telephone line to connect to the Internet and uses a
television as a monitor (WebTV). In return, panel members participate in 10-
to 15-minute Internet surveys 3 to 4 times a month. The panel does not respond
significantly differently over time to surveys than more "naive" survey respondents.13 Survey responses are confidential; identifying information
is never revealed without respondent approval. When panel members are assigned
surveys, they receive notice in their password-protected e-mail account that
the survey is available for completion. Surveys are self-administered and
accessible any time of day for a designated period. Participants can complete
a survey only once. Members may leave the panel at any time, and receipt of
the WebTV and Internet service is not contingent on completion of any particular
survey.
The KN panel is developed using traditional probability methods for
creating national survey samples and is recruited using stratified random-digit-dialed
telephone sampling. Random-digit dialing provides a known nonzero probability
of selection for every US household that has a telephone.
At the time of the wave 1 survey, the panel recruitment response rate
was 44%, and 36% of the recruited panel was active and available for selection.
To correct for possible nonresponse bias from panel recruitment and attrition,
representative samples are selected for panel surveys by poststratification
weighting of the panel to match the benchmarks from the most recent US government
statistics for sex, age, race, ethnicity, education, and region. Samples are
drawn with probabilities proportional to the panel weights using a systematic
sample applied to the eligible panel members. The distributions for the panel
samples resemble, within sampling error, the national population distributions
for key demographic variables.
The design and all procedures for this study were approved by the institutional
review boards of the University of California, Irvine, and the University
of Denver, Denver, Colo.
Knowledge Networks administered the wave 1 survey between September
20 and October 4, 2001, assessing early coping strategies and acute stress
symptoms in a national random sample of individuals. In total, 2729 adult
KN panel members completed this survey, representing 78% of the 3496 sampled
panelists. More than 75% of respondents completed this survey within 9 to
14 days after the attacks; the remainder completed it the following week.
A wave 2 survey designed by our research team was administered between
November 10 and December 3, 2001, a 3-week span beginning 2 months after the
attacks. Budgetary constraints and lack of full panel availability precluded
follow-up of all wave 1 participants. A random sample of 1069 wave 1 adult
panelists (aged ≥18 years) who completed the wave 1 measures and lived
outside New York, NY, were contacted. Eighty-seven percent (n = 933) completed
the survey within the designated period. All wave 1 and wave 2 analyses were
conducted on the 933 individuals who completed both surveys.
A wave 3 survey similar to wave 2 was sent to all adult panelists who
completed waves 1 and 2 and remained part of the KN sample 6 months after
the attacks. Ninety-two percent (n = 787/860) of those fielded the survey
completed it between March 16 and April 11, 2002, representing 84.4% of the
wave 2 sample.
Surveys included background information, questions about experiences
surrounding the terrorist attacks, and other constructs described herein.
Several demographic variables were assessed for all KN panel members, including
sex, age, marital status, race/ethnicity, education, and household income.
Respondents received $5 for completion of the second and third surveys.
Mental and physical health history was assessed with a survey completed
by 96.4% of our respondents between June 17, 2000, and September 4, 2001.
Sixty percent of our sample completed these measures before December 31, 2000.
Respondents reported whether they had ever had an anxiety disorder (eg, obsessive-compulsive
disorder, generalized anxiety disorder) or depression and whether they had
received such a diagnosis from a physician. Two scores were computed: the
number of self-diagnosed and the number of physician-diagnosed mental health
disorders (none, anxiety or depression, or both). Respondents also reported
whether they had ever received a diagnosis from a physician of any of 28 disorders
(eg, asthma, diabetes, hypertension). The total number of conditions endorsed
provided a pre–September 11 physical health history.
Estimates from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey were compared
with 25 000 interviews from the KN database on a variety of health measures.
The average difference was only 1.0 percentage point across measures of past
smoking, current smoking, and self-reported diabetes, ulcer, migraine headache,
and stroke, supporting the validity of these health data (J. Michael Dennis,
PhD, written communication, June 27, 2002).
To assess early acute stress symptoms, at wave 1 respondents completed
a modified and abbreviated version of the Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire
(SASRQ),14 a measure often used to assess acute
stress disorder (ASD).15 Items on the SASRQ
were modified to read at a 6.5-grade Kincaid reading level, and respondents
reported whether they "experienced" or "did not experience" acute stress symptoms
specific to the September 11 attacks. Rates of acute stress symptoms were
determined using several of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for ASD (≥3 dissociative symptoms, ≥1 reexperiencing/intrusive
symptom, ≥1 avoidance symptom, and ≥1 arousal/anxiety symptom).15 Individuals meeting these cutoffs were classified
as having high levels of acute stress symptoms. The SASRQ also assesses social
(eg, the attacks "caused problems in my relationships with other people")
and work-related (eg, the attacks "made it difficult for me to perform my
work or other things I needed to do") functioning, enabling calculation of
the percentage of respondents who reported acute stress symptoms with functional
impairment. Because we did not assess all DSM-IV
criteria (eg, feelings of fear, horror, or helplessness; duration of symptoms),
respondents were not assumed to have ASD.
Because the SASRQ is specifically tailored to assess ASD within a month
following an event, we used the Impact of Events Scale–Revised,16 a well-validated and highly reliable measure, to
assess posttraumatic stress symptoms at waves 2 and 3. This 22-item measure
specifically assessed the extent to which respondents were distressed by September
11–related symptoms of intrusion, avoidance, and arousal as experienced
in the past week, using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 to 4. Two scores were
computed from these data: a continuous mean score of all items and a dichotomous
index of high vs low posttraumatic stress symptoms. When computing the dichotomous
score, symptoms were considered present if respondents reported having been
at least moderately distressed by them in the prior week (score of 2 on a
scale of 0-4).17 Rates of posttraumatic stress
symptoms were determined using several of the DSM-IV
criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (≥1 reexperiencing symptom, ≥3
avoidance symptoms, and ≥2 arousal symptoms).15
Individuals meeting these cutoffs were classified as having high levels of
posttraumatic stress symptoms. Participants also indicated the degree to which
they felt that they or someone close to them was personally in danger as a
result of the September 11 attacks, enabling calculation of the percentage
of respondents who reported posttraumatic stress symptoms with this additional
criterion. Because we did not assess all DSM-IV criteria
(eg, degree of functional impairment, duration of symptoms), respondents were
not assumed to have posttraumatic stress disorder. The symptom counts for
the acute stress and posttraumatic stress measures were highly correlated
(r = 0.55; P<.001).
Anxiety about future terrorist attacks was assessed at waves 2 and 3
with 2 items modified from the Vaughan perceived risk scale (Elaine Vaughan
and Carolyn Wong, unpublished data, 2002). Respondents reported how often
in the past week they had fears about the possibility of another terrorist
attack (eg, bioterrorism, hijacking) or whether they worried that an act of
terrorism would personally affect them or a family member in the future. This
scale demonstrates high internal consistency across diverse community populations
(eg, elderly poor, Latinos, lower-income African Americans and whites, college
students) (the Cronbach α ranges from .79-.87; for our sample, α
= .83), high test-retest reliability (coefficient = 0.86), and acceptable
discriminant validity (Elaine Vaughan and Carolyn Wong, unpublished data,
2002).
Global distress in the prior week was assessed at wave 2 with the Hopkins
Symptom Checklist (HSCL),18 a standardized
scale of psychological symptoms, and at wave 3 with the 18-item Brief Symptom
Inventory (BSI-18),19,20 a related
standardized scale that has substantial methodological and conceptual overlap
with the HSCL.19,20 Both measures
assess the degree to which respondents are distressed by symptoms of depression,
anxiety, and somatization. These measures have demonstrated excellent reliability
in field studies.18-20
The HSCL provides a global index of psychological symptoms (mean of 25 items)
that is similar to the Global Severity Index from the Symptom Checklist 90,
with excellent internal reliability for this sample (Cronbach α = .94).
The BSI-18 provides an analogous global distress score across 18 items measured
on a scale of 0 to 4, as described in the BSI-18 user's manual.20
The internal consistency for this sample was excellent (Cronbach α =
.93). Global distress scores from waves 2 and 3 were highly correlated (r = 0.64; P<.001).
Prior Exposure to Stressful Life Events
Occurrence of stressful events before the attacks was assessed at wave
2 using a checklist on which participants reported whether they had ever experienced
any of 30 negative life events (eg, natural disaster, death of family member,
child abuse) and, if so, at what age(s) these events occurred (and, if chronic,
their duration). This measure was developed based on open-ended coding of
lifetime traumas reported by a primary care community sample1
and has provided overall rates of specific traumas in this sample that map
onto epidemiological surveys conducted in other representative community samples.21-23 The number of stressful
events during childhood, adulthood, and the prior year were computed and each
was used as a continuous variable.
September 11–Related Experiences
Respondents completed several items exploring their September 11–related
experiences, including the hours per day they watched TV coverage of the attacks
and their degree of exposure to and loss due to the attacks. Items were modified
from our prior work on the southern California firestorms24
and from the work of Koopman and colleagues.25
Severity of exposure was assessed with an item measuring physical proximity
to the attacks on a 7-level continuum measured as a continuous variable, with
0 indicating no firsthand exposure to the attacks as they occurred; 1, watching
the attacks live on TV; 2, talking on the telephone with someone in the WTC,
Pentagon, or on a plane during the attacks; 3, close enough to hear or feel
the attacks, the building(s) collapse, or the planes crash; 4, close enough
to witness the attacks and/or people evacuating, falling, or jumping from
the WTC or Pentagon; 5, within a few blocks of the WTC, Pentagon, or Pennsylvania
crash site at the time of attacks; and 6, inside the WTC or Pentagon at the
time of the attacks. The severity of September 11–related loss was assessed
using a 6-level continuum, with 0 indicating no loss; 1, property loss of
someone close; 2, personal loss of property; 3, injury of someone close; 4,
death of someone close; and 5, personal injury in the attacks. The number
of losses (a continuous variable) was also computed.
At wave 1, respondents completed the Brief COPE,26
a measure of 14 different coping strategies (2 items per strategy) used in
response to a particular stressor: self-distraction, active coping, denial,
substance use (alcohol or other drugs), emotional support seeking, instrumental
support seeking, behavioral disengagement (ie, "giving up"), venting, positive
reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Participants
indicated on a 4-point scale (1 indicates "I didn't do this at all" and 4,
"I did this a lot") the frequency with which they used each strategy to cope
with the terrorist attacks. Because emotional and instrumental support seeking
were highly correlated, they were combined into a single measure of "support
seeking."
Statistical analyses were conducted with Stata, version 7.0 (Stata Corp,
College Station, Tex). Data were weighted to adjust for differences in the
probabilities of selection and nonresponse both within and between households.
Poststratification weights were calculated by deriving weighted sample distributions
along various combinations of sex, age, race/ethnicity, region, metropolitan
status, and education. Similar distributions were calculated using the most
recent US Census Bureau Current Population Survey data and the KN panel data.
Cell-by-cell adjustments over the various univariate and bivariate distributions
were calculated to make the weighted sample cells match those of the US Census
and the KN panel. This process was repeated iteratively to reach convergence
between the weighted sample and benchmark distributions from the 2001 Current
Population Survey and the US Census Bureau.27
All statistics calculated from the KN panel are subject to sampling
variability as well as nonsampling error. Quality control and edit procedures
are used to minimize the effects of these errors on final survey estimates.
Sampling error and confidence intervals (CIs) can be estimated from the sample.
For example, the 90% CI for a statistical estimate of 50% from a sample size
of 933 is 50% ± 3.4 or 46.6-53.4. The estimated design effects are
1.2, 1.6, and 1.7 for waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Analyses were designed to address (1) levels of posttraumatic stress
symptoms and psychological distress during the 6 months following the terrorist
attacks; (2) how pre–September 11 physical and mental health status,
lifetime and recent stressors, and September 11–related experiences
were associated with patterns of posttraumatic stress symptoms and distress
over time; and (3) the relation between early coping strategies and patterns
of posttraumatic stress symptoms and distress over the 6 months following
the terrorist attacks after adjusting for relevant demographics, pre–September
11 physical and mental health status, lifetime and recent stressors, and September
11–related experiences.
Weighted rates of acute and posttraumatic stress symptoms were examined
using descriptive analyses of SASRQ and Impact of Events Scale–Revised
symptoms. Generalized estimating equation population-averaged models with
a logit link28 were used to estimate odds ratios
(ORs) for predictors of patterns of posttraumatic stress symptoms during the
6 months following the attacks. Outcome variables in these models were the
dichotomized (high vs low) acute (wave 1) and posttraumatic (waves 2 and 3)
stress symptom scores. Continuous posttraumatic stress symptom scores were
also analyzed longitudinally with random-effects maximum likelihood regression
models. These analyses produced essentially identical results to those using
the dichotomized symptom scores; analyses using the dichotomized scores are
presented. Random-effects maximum likelihood regression models were used to
examine how pre–September 11 physical and mental health status, lifetime
and recent stressors, September 11–related experiences, and coping behaviors
(all examined as continuous variables) were associated with patterns of global
distress over time. Continuous global distress scores assessed at waves 2
and 3 were the outcome of interest in these models.
In each analysis, significant predictors from 5 groups of variables
(demographics, pre–September 11 health, September 11–related exposure
and loss, lifetime exposure to trauma, and coping behaviors) were tested for
inclusion in the final models. Nonsignificant variables (P>.05) were removed from analyses to provide the most parsimonious
model. The final models were estimated adjusting for demographics, pre–September
11 mental and physical health, September 11–related experiences, and
time. Tables present adjusted ORs and standardized β levels as the relative
effect size for each variable.
Missing values for income were imputed by KN using the mean income score
for each respondent's census block. Cases with missing data on other variables
(eg, race/ethnicity, marital, physical, mental health status) were dummy coded
to allow inclusion in the analyses and maintain the size and integrity of
the sample.
Table 1 presents the weighted
demographic breakdown of participants from waves 1 and 2 and provides a comparison
with September 2001 Current Population Survey benchmarks from the US Census
Bureau.27 Unweighted data are very similar
and are available on request from the author. Table 1 suggests that we were successful in obtaining a representative
sample of the US population at each wave with respect to key demographic characteristics.
Most weighted differences are within sampling error, although middle-income
households tend to be overrepresented.
Analysis of Nonparticipants
Individuals who completed the wave 2 survey (n = 933) were not significantly
different from nonrespondents (n = 136) on pre–September 11 physical
and mental health history, sex, marital status, race/ethnicity, education,
or income. Nonrespondents were, however, significantly younger (mean, 42 years)
than respondents (mean, 48 years; t1066
= 4.99; P<.001). There were no significant differences
in wave 1 coping responses or wave 1 acute stress symptoms between those who
completed the wave 2 survey and those who did not.
Of the wave 2 respondents, 84.4% (n = 787) completed the assessment
at wave 3. Individuals who completed the wave 2 survey but did not complete
wave 3 were no different from the wave 3 respondents on pre–September
11 physical and mental health history, sex, marital status, race/ethnicity,
education, or income. Nonrespondents to the wave 3 survey were, however, significantly
younger (mean, 45 years) than respondents (mean, 49 years; t930 = 2.33; P = .02).
Exposure to the September 11 Attacks
Thirty-eight percent (weighted n = 358) of the sample reported no direct
firsthand exposure to the attacks as they occurred and 60% (weighted n = 560)
reported watching them occur live on TV. Of the 2% of the sample with direct
firsthand exposure, 3 individuals were on the telephone with someone in the
WTC, Pentagon, or a plane when the attacks occurred; 1 was close enough to
hear or feel the attacks or a plane crash; 1 was close enough to witness them
and/or people evacuating, falling, or jumping; 2 were within a few blocks
of the attacks; and 2 were in the WTC or Pentagon at the time. Ninety-six
percent (weighted n = 896) did not experience loss in the attacks, 14 knew
someone close who lost property in the attacks, 3 personally lost property,
5 knew a close person who was injured, 8 knew a close person who died, and
1 person was personally injured in the attacks.
At wave 1, respondents indicated how much they watched TV news coverage
about the attacks in the week following them. Fifteen percent watched coverage
less than 1 hour per day; 43% watched approximately 1 to 3 hours per day;
26% watched 4 to 6 hours per day, and 16% watched more than 6 hours per day.
Only 6 individuals (0.6 % of our sample) reported watching no TV coverage
of the attacks during the week following September 11.
Acute and Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms
Table 2 presents the adjusted
percentages of individuals who reported acute stress symptoms as well as those
who reported symptoms with functional impairment at wave 1. These symptoms
were strongly correlated with self-reported functioning in the acute period
for the sample as a whole (r = 0.67; P<.001). Table 2 also
presents the adjusted percentages of individuals at waves 2 and 3 who reported
posttraumatic stress symptoms and the percentage who met the additional requirement
of feeling that they or someone close to them was in danger as a result of
the September 11 attacks.
On average, respondents reported 4.99 (95% CI, 4.61-5.38) positive acute
stress symptoms at wave 1, 4.22 (95% CI, 3.74-4.49) positive posttraumatic
stress symptoms at wave 2, and 1.81 (95% CI, 1.52-2.10) positive symptoms
at wave 3. The mean level of posttraumatic stress symptoms (scale, 0-4) 2
months after the attacks was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.73), and dropped significantly
by 6 months (0.36; 95% CI, 0.32-0.40).
Fears of Future Terrorism
Two months after the attacks, nearly two thirds of the sample (64.6%;
n = 606) reported fears of future terrorism at least sometimes, and 59.5%
(n = 557) reported fear of harm to family as a result of terrorism. Six months
after the attacks, fears of future terrorism were still present at least sometimes
for 37.5% (n = 306) and fear of harm to family was reported by 40.6% (n =
332).
Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms
Table 3 presents the adjusted
ORs for predictors of posttraumatic stress symptoms during the 6 months following
the attacks. After adjusting for pre–September 11 mental and physical
health and time of survey, the odds of experiencing high levels of posttraumatic
stress symptoms were significantly higher for women and for individuals who
used denial, self-distraction, or self-blame; sought social support; or disengaged
from coping efforts. The odds of experiencing high levels of posttraumatic
stress symptoms were reduced by the use of acceptance. Substance use was not
independently associated with posttraumatic stress symptoms. We also assessed
severity of exposure as a dichotomous variable of direct exposure (including
"watching the attacks live on TV") vs no direct exposure. Direct vs no direct
exposure was a significant predictor in model 1 (P
= .01) but not in model 2 (P = .37). Watching the
attacks on live TV was also a significant predictor in model 1 (P = .03) but not in model 2 (P = .45). After
adjusting for wave 1 avoidance symptoms, behavioral disengagement (OR, 1.34;
95% CI, 1.01-1.76), self-blame (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.03-2.28), and denial (OR,
1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.67) remained significant predictors of subsequent posttraumatic
stress symptoms. This suggests that the ability of the behavioral disengagement
strategy to predict these symptoms is not due simply to it being confounded
with avoidance symptoms at wave 1.
Predictors of Global Distress
Mean levels of global distress were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.31-0.38) at 2 months
and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.31-0.40) at 6 months after the attacks. Table 4 presents unstandardized and standardized adjusted regression
coefficients for predictors of global distress over the 6 months. After adjusting
for pre–September 11 mental health status, demographics, and time, the
severity of loss experienced in the attacks and several coping behaviors significantly
predicted higher levels of distress. Specifically, individuals who used denial,
self-distraction, or self-blame; sought social support; or disengaged from
coping efforts had significantly higher levels of distress, whereas those
who engaged in active coping reported significantly lower levels of distress
during the 6 months following the attacks. Substance use was not independently
associated with global distress. In analyses that adjusted for wave 1 acute
stress symptoms to account for possible confounding by personality dimensions,
active coping (β = −.08; P = .006), self-blame
(β = .14; P<.001), and denial (β = .07; P = .01) all remained significant predictors of global
distress over time. When direct exposure (including watching the attacks live
on TV) was compared with no direct exposure, direct exposure was a significant
predictor of global distress in model 1 (P = .02)
but not in model 2 (P = .07). Watching the attacks
on live TV was also a significant predictor in model 1 (P = .03) but not in model 2 (P = .10).
Correlates of Coping Strategies
To help explain these results, we identified preexisting factors associated
with respondents' use of specific coping strategies shortly after the attacks. Table 5 presents correlations between significant
coping strategies and lifetime exposure to stress and pre–September
11 mental and physical health status. Despite the relations between several
coping strategies and these preexisting factors, they do not explain the relations
between coping and psychological outcomes because the coping strategies were
significant even after pre–September 11 factors were controlled for
in the analyses presented in Table 3
and Table 4.
We also examined relationships between particular coping strategies
and demographic characteristics. Although several coping strategies were related
to sex, age, marital status, race/ethnicity, income, and education, the effects
of coping strategies were consistently stronger than the demographic effects
in all analyses reported in Table 3
and Table 4, and interactions
between coping strategies and demographic variables were not significant in
the analyses.
The unparalleled nationwide impact of the September 11 attacks, coupled
with the representative nature of this national sample, the pre–September
11 assessment of mental and physical health histories, and the early collection
of emotional and behavioral responses to these events, has allowed a longitudinal
examination of individuals' responses to a major traumatic event. Overall,
our data show that 6 months after the events of September 11, the effects
continued throughout the country among individuals who were, for the most
part, not directly affected by the attacks (although lack of any exposure
to the attacks was very rare in our sample). Posttraumatic stress symptoms,
while declining over the 6 months, still remained elevated. Moreover, individuals
continued to have substantial anxiety about future terrorist attacks personally
affecting themselves or those close to them.
There is a growing body of literature on reactions to the September
11 events.29-31
However, several methodological differences between investigations make comparisons
of rates of trauma-related symptoms across studies difficult. First, the time
frame for data collection has varied. Because a series of national events
have occurred since the original September 11 attacks (eg, anthrax in the
mail, the initiation of military action in Afghanistan, an initially suspicious
plane crash in New York City), the timing of assessments is critical. Second,
studies have differed in their mode of survey administration. We used a relatively
new method that offers greater anonymity than face-to-face or telephone interviews,
and research that has compared interview modes has found that Web-based data
collection improves the accuracy of reports of sensitive topics.32-34
Third, studies have differed in the measures used to assess psychological
outcomes. Unfortunately, at this point there is no single accepted self-report
measure of posttraumatic symptoms, although many have been developed.35 Thus, differences in rates of symptoms across samples
may be attributable to differences in timing, methods, and/or measures.
In our study, demographic factors, pre–September 11 mental and
physical health status, and severity of exposure to and loss due to the September
11 events played a significant role in explaining posttraumatic stress symptoms
and global distress over time. Strikingly, however, the use of several specific
coping strategies in the immediate aftermath of the attacks consistently and
significantly predicted psychological outcomes over time, even after adjusting
for all relevant demographics, pre–September 11 mental and physical
health status, prior lifetime exposure to stressful events, and severity of
exposure to or loss as a result of the attacks. In fact, coping strategies
assessed shortly after the attacks were the strongest predictors of posttraumatic
stress symptoms, and their strength as predictors of global distress was second
only to prior mental health disorders. Actively coping in the immediate aftermath
of the attacks was the only strategy that appeared to be protective against
ongoing distress. In fact, the absence of greater numbers of "protective"
coping strategies (eg, planning, support seeking) was indeed surprising. However,
immediately disengaging from coping efforts (eg, "giving up," denial, self-distraction)
appeared to increase the likelihood of experiencing ongoing distress and posttraumatic
stress symptoms.
This is not the first time that an early giving-up response has been
identified as problematic: it has signaled distress prospectively among breast
and prostate cancer patients36,37
as well as severe negative health consequences over time among gay men with
human immunodeficiency virus infection.38,39
In fact, early efforts to avoid or disengage from a stressor may be particularly
dysfunctional in the face of an ongoing threat,40,41
which is unfortunately true about terrorist attacks in the United States today.
Our findings suggest that individuals who report such responses may be at
particular risk for subsequent difficulties.
This study addresses several methodological limitations that have plagued
prior research on trauma-related stress.9,42
Only a few previous studies were able to collect acute responses24,29,43
or investigate the long-term progression of responses to trauma starting with
early baseline assessments.24,43-45
Moreover, samples are typically small and demographically or ethnically homogeneous;
the median sample size for studies of adjustment following disaster is 159,9 and most current research following trauma is conducted
on nonminority, middle-class respondents.9,42
Finally, very few studies have been able to collect data before the stressful
event has occurred46-49;
yet, without information on preevent functioning, one cannot disambiguate
the effects of the incident on later outcomes.
However, our study also has some limitations. First, although we successfully
obtained a broad representative sample of the US population, our sample overrepresented
middle-income (and underrepresented high-income) respondents. Study respondents
were also somewhat older than nonrespondents, although both had a mean age
in their 40s. Our use of poststratification and design weights in our analyses
also ensured that this factor did not unduly bias our results.
Second, some of our assessments were necessarily retrospective (eg,
assessment of life events), and, although our outcome measures overlapped
substantially, the actual instruments used were not identical over time. Moreover,
our mental and physical health history data were self-reports of physician
diagnoses and self-diagnoses, and we had measures of only 2 preexisting psychiatric
conditions (depressive and anxiety disorders). However, they are 2 of the
most common types of mental disorders50 and
they were successful in predicting both our post–September 11 outcomes.
Third, we only assessed coping strategies at a single point. However,
there is substantial evidence for the temporal stability of coping responses.51-54 Importantly,
early assessments of coping in our study predicted psychological outcomes
over time. It is possible that dysfunctional coping responses shortly after
a trauma set a number of other adverse forces into play, which, in turn, help
to sustain the negative effects.
Fourth, although we have conducted a number of statistical controls
in our analyses (eg, controlling for preexisting mental health history and
acute stress symptoms) that support the plausibility of a causal role for
coping strategies in psychological outcomes over time, the nature of survey
data precludes a conclusion about causality. No nonexperimental study can
demonstrate whether coping responses and symptoms are causally related. Even
after careful evaluations of key alternative explanations, our data can only
support this interpretation.
Finally, although we were guided by the DSM-IV
in the diagnostic criteria we used for both acute and posttraumatic stress
symptoms, we did not measure all criteria for ASD and posttraumatic stress
disorder (eg, symptom duration). Due to space and time limitations, we could
not assess functional impairment at waves 2 or 3. While we clearly specified
that the symptoms be September 11–specific, it is possible that respondents
could have attributed preexisting symptoms to the events of September 11.
Whereas such posttraumatic stress symptoms appear to mimic the pattern of
symptoms identified in the DSM-IV, most of our respondents
were not directly exposed to the trauma and, therefore, cannot meet full DSM-IV criteria (or caseness).55
In fact, a series of design and sampling decisions, as well as budgetary constraints,
precluded data collection on New York City residents at all 3 waves, and they
were not included in these longitudinal analyses. Without a representative
sample of individuals who were directly exposed to the attacks, it is unclear
whether the findings from this report would be generalizable to individuals
with such exposure.
In sum, this investigation demonstrates that the effects of a major
national trauma are not limited to those directly affected by it and that
the degree of response cannot be predicted simply by objective measures of
exposure to or loss as a result of the trauma. This is important information,
as it suggests that relying on unfounded assumptions about who will be most
affected by a traumatic event is not useful. Health care professionals should
be aware that potentially disturbing levels of trauma-related symptoms can
be present even in individuals who are not directly exposed to a trauma, particularly
when the trauma is a massive national tragedy such as the September 11 attacks.
Rather than considering these symptoms as evidence of psychiatric disorders
per se, their presence in a substantial proportion of individuals may in fact
represent a normal response to an abnormal event. Information gleaned from
this ongoing study of a representative sample of the country may help identify
individuals at risk for subsequent difficulties. With these data, we hope
trauma-related educational and intervention efforts that are designed and
implemented among health care professionals and the community at large will
be better informed, more cost-effective, and more sensitive to the needs of
the populace.
1.Holman EA, Silver RC, Waitzkin H. Traumatic life events in primary care patients: a study in an ethnically-diverse
sample.
Arch Fam Med.2000;9:802-811.Google Scholar 2.Smith TW, Rasinski KA, Toce M. America Rebounds: A National Study of Public Response
to the September 11 Terrorist Attacks. Chicago, Ill: National Opinion Research Center; 2001.
3.Yehuda R. Post-traumatic stress disorder.
N Engl J Med.2002;346:108-114.Google Scholar 4.Stephenson J. Medical, mental health communities mobilize to cope with terror's psychological
aftermath.
JAMA.2001;286:1823-1825.Google Scholar 5.North CS, Nixon SJ, Shariat S.
et al. Psychiatric disorders among survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing.
JAMA.1999;282:755-762.Google Scholar 6.Silver RL, Wortman CB. Coping with undesirable life events. In: Garber J, Seligman MEP, eds. Human Helplessness:
Theory and Applications. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1980:279-340.
7.Wortman CB, Silver RC. The myths of coping with loss.
J Consult Clin Psychol.1989;57:349-357.Google Scholar 8.Wortman CB, Silver RC. The myths of coping with loss revisited. In Stroebe MS, Hansson RO, Stroebe W, Schut H, eds. Handbook of Bereavement Research: Consequences, Coping, and Care. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association; 2001:405-429.
9.Norris FH, Byrne CM, Diaz E. 50,000 Disaster Victims Speak: An Empirical Review
of the Empirical Literature, 1981-2001. White River Junction, Vt, and Rockville, Md: National Center for
PTSD and the Center for Mental Health Services; 2001.
10.North CS, Spitznagel EL, Smith E. A prospective study of coping after exposure to a mass murder episode.
Ann Clin Psychiatry.2001;13:81-87.Google Scholar 11.Chemtob CM, Tomas S, Law W, Cremniter D. Postdisaster psychosocial intervention.
Am J Psychiatry.1997;154:415-441.Google Scholar 12.Dennis JM, Krotki K. Probability-based survey research on the Internet. Paper presented at: Conference of the International Statistical Institute;
August 29, 2001; Seoul, South Korea.
13.Dennis JM. Are Internet panels creating professional respondents?
Marketing Res.Summer 2001:34-38.Google Scholar 14.Cardena E, Koopman C, Classen C, Waelde LC, Spiegel D. Psychometric properties of the Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire
(SASRQ).
J Trauma Stress.2000;13:719-734.Google Scholar 15.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1994.
16.Weiss DS, Marmar CR. The Impact of Event Scale—revised. In: Wilson JP, Keane TM, eds. Assessing Psychological
Trauma and PTSD. New York, NY: Guilford; 1997:399-411.
17.Mollica RF, Sarajlic N, Chernoff M.
et al. Longitudinal study of psychiatric symptoms, disability, mortality,
and emigration among Bosnian refugees.
JAMA.2001;286:546-554.Google Scholar 18.Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhut EH, Covi L. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report inventory.
Behav Sci.1974;19:1-15.Google Scholar 19.Derogatis LR, Savitz K. The SCL-90-R and Brief Symptom Inventory in primary care. In: Marvish ME, ed. Handbook of Psychological Assessment
in Primary Care Settings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2000:297-334.
20.Derogatis LR. BSI-18: Administration, Scoring, and Procedures Manual. Minneapolis, Minn: NCS Assessments; 2001.
21.Breslau N, Kessler RC, Chilcoat HD, Schultz LR, Davis GC, Andreski P. Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community.
Arch Gen Psychiatry.1998;55:626-632.Google Scholar 22.Kessler RC, Sonnega A, Bromet E, Nelson CB. Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey.
Arch Gen Psychiatry.1995;52:1048-1060.Google Scholar 23.Norris FH. Epidemiology of trauma.
J Consult Clin Psychol.1992;60:409-418.Google Scholar 24.Holman EA, Silver RC. Getting "stuck" in the past: temporal orientation and coping with trauma.
J Pers Soc Psychol.1998;74:1146-1163.Google Scholar 25.Koopman C, Classen C, Spiegel D. Predictors of posttraumatic stress symptoms among survivors of the
Oakland/Berkeley, Calif., firestorm.
Am J Psychiatry.1994;151:888-894.Google Scholar 26.Carver CS. You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: consider the
Brief COPE.
Int J Behav Med.1997;4:92-100.Google Scholar 28.Rabe-Hesketh S, Everitt B. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using STATA. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, Fla: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2000.
29.Schuster MA, Stein BD, Jaycox LH.
et al. A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks.
N Engl J Med.2001;345:1507-1512.Google Scholar 30.Galea S, Ahern J, Resnick H.
et al. Psychological sequelae of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New
York City.
N Engl J Med.2002;346:982-987.Google Scholar 31.Schlenger WE, Caddell JM, Ebert L.
et al. Psychological reactions to terrorist attacks.
JAMA.2002;288:581-588.Google Scholar 32.Chang L, Krosnick JA. The accuracy of self-reports: comparisons of an RDD telephone survey
with Internet Surveys by Harris Interactive and Knowledge Networks. Paper presented at: American Association for Public Opinion Research
Annual Meeting; May 19, 2001; Montreal, Quebec.
33.Reips U-D. The Web experiment method: advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In: Birnbaum MH, ed. Psychological Experiments
on the Internet. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press; 2000:89-117.
34.Krantz JH, Dalal R. Validity of Web-based psychological research. In: Birnbaum MH, ed. Psychological Experiments
on the Internet. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press; 2000:35-60.
35.Wilson JP, Keane TM. Assessing Psychological Trauma and PTSD. New York, NY: Guilford; 1997.
36.Carver CS, Pozo C, Harris SD.
et al. How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress: a study of women with early
stage breast cancer.
J Pers Soc Psychol.1993;65:375-390.Google Scholar 37.Perczek RE, Burke MA, Carver CS, Krongrad A, Terris MK. Facing a prostate cancer diagnosis.
Cancer.2002;94:2923-2929.Google Scholar 38.Ironson G, Friedman A, Klimas N.
et al. Distress, denial, and low adherence to behavioral interventions predict
faster disease progression in gay men infected with human immunodeficiency
virus.
Int J Behav Med.1994;1:90-105.Google Scholar 39.Reed GM, Kemeny ME, Taylor SE, Visscher BR. Negative HIV-specific expectancies and AIDS-related bereavement as
predictors of symptom onset in asymptomatic HIV-positive gay men.
Health Psychol.1999;18:354-363.Google Scholar 40.Carver CS, Scheier MF. Stress, coping, and self-regulatory processes. In: Pervin LA, John OP, eds. Handbook of Personality. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford; 1999:553-575.
41.Carver CS. Stress, coping, and health. In: Friedman HS, Silver RC, eds. Oxford Handbook
of Health Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. In press.
42.Compas BE, Connor JK, Saltzman H, Thomsen AH, Wadsworth ME. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence.
Psychol Bull.2001;127:87-127.Google Scholar 43.Shalev AY, Peri T, Canetti L, Schreiber S. Predictors of PTSD in injured trauma survivors: a prospective study.
Am J Psychiatry.1996;153:219-225.Google Scholar 44.Koopman C, Classen C, Spiegel D. Multiple stressors following a disaster and dissociative symptoms. In: Fullerton CS, Ursano RJ, eds. Posttraumatic
Stress Disorder: Acute and Long-term Responses to Trauma and Disaster.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1997:21-35.
45.North CS, Smith EM, Spitznagel EL. One-year follow-up of survivors of a mass shooting.
Am J Psychiatry.1997;154:1696-1702.Google Scholar 46.Carnelley KB, Wortman CB, Kessler RC. The impact of widowhood on depression: findings from a prospective survey.
Psychol Med.1999;29:1111–1123.Google Scholar 47.Harlow SD, Goldberg EL, Comstock GW. A longitudinal study of the prevalence of depressive symptomatology
in elderly widowed and married women.
Arch Gen Psychiatry.1991;48:1065-1068.Google Scholar 48.Mendes de Leon CF, Kasl SV, Jacobs S. A prospective study of widowhood and changes in symptoms of depression
in a community sample of the elderly.
Psychol Med.1994;24:613-624.Google Scholar 49.Reifman A, McIntosh DN, Ellsworth PC. Depression and affect among law students during law school: a longitudinal
study.
J Emotional Abuse.2000;2:93-106.Google Scholar 50.Leon AC, Olfson M, Broadhead WE.
et al. Prevalence of mental disorders in primary care: implications for screening.
Arch Fam Med.1995;4:857-861.Google Scholar 51.Compas BE, Forsythe CJ, Wagner BM. Consistency and variability in causal attributions and coping with
stress.
Cognit Ther Res.1988;12:305-320.Google Scholar 52.Dolan CA, White JW. Issues of consistency and effectiveness in coping with daily stressors.
J Res Pers.1988;22:395-407.Google Scholar 53.Stone AA, Neale JM. New measure of daily coping: development and preliminary results.
J Pers Soc Psychol.1984;46:892-906.Google Scholar 54.Terry DJ. Determinants of coping.
J Pers Soc Psychol.1994;66:895-910.Google Scholar 55.North CS, Pfefferbaum B. Research on the mental health effects of terrorism.
JAMA.2002;288:633-636.Google Scholar