The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were the worst acts of terrorism on American soil to date. Designed to instill panic and fear, the attacks were unprecedented in terms of their scope, magnitude, and impact on the American psyche. The vast majority (over 60 percent) of Americans watched these attacks occur live on television or saw them replayed over and over again in the days, weeks, and years following the attacks.


https://twitter.com/user/status/774291914237640704

As we reflect on the 15th anniversary of this tragic event, it’s time to ask ourselves how 9/11 has impacted individuals who are too young to remember a world before 9/11. An applied social psychologist, I study responses to natural and human-caused adversities that impact large segments of the population—also called “collective trauma.” My research group at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) has found that such exposures have compounding effects over the course of one’s lifespan. This is particularly relevant for children who have grown up in a post-9/11 society.

PTSD and Ground Zero

Many of the outcomes on which my team and I focus involve mental health, such as post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTS) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Post-traumatic stress symptoms include feeling the event is happening again (e.g., flashbacks, nightmares), avoiding situations that remind individuals of the event (e.g., public places, movies about an event), negative feelings and beliefs (e.g., the world is dangerous) or feeling “keyed up” (e.g., difficulty sleeping or concentrating).

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]Those who reported watching 4-to-7 hours of TV coverage were almost four times as likely to report PTSD symptoms.[/quote]

In order to meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD, an individual must have been directly exposed to a “traumatic event” (e.g., assault, violence, accidental injury). Direct exposure means that an individual (or their loved one) was at or very near the site of the event. It might be somewhat obvious that people directly exposed to a collective trauma like 9/11 might suffer from associated physical and mental health problems. What is less obvious is how people geographically distant from the epicenter or “Ground Zero” might have been impacted.

This is particularly relevant when considering the impact of 9/11 on children and youth across America: Many reside far from the location of the actual attacks and were too young to have experienced or seen the attacks as they occurred. The point is that people can experience collective trauma solely through the media and report symptoms that resemble those typically associated with direct trauma exposure.

Impact on physical and mental health

The events of 9/11 ushered in a new era of media coverage of collective trauma, when terrorism and other forms of large-scale violence are transmitted into the daily lives of children and Americans families.

I have been exploring these issues with my collaborators Roxane Cohen Silver and E. Alison Holman. My colleagues surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 3,400 Americans shortly after 9/11 and then followed them for three years after the attacks. In the weeks and months following the 9/11 attacks, media-based exposure was associated with psychological distress. This included acute stress (which is similar to PTS but must be experienced in the first month of exposure), post-traumatic stress, and ongoing fears and worries about future acts of terrorism (in the months following the attacks).

These harmful effects persisted in the years following 9/11. For example, the team found measurable impact on the mental and physical health (such as increased risk of heart diseases) of the sample three years after the attacks. Importantly, those who responded with distress in the immediate aftermath were more likely to report subsequent problems as well.

These findings bear close resemblance to research led by psychologist William Schlenger, whose team found that Americans who reported watching more hours of 9/11 television in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were more likely to report symptoms resembling PTSD. For example, those who reported watching four to seven hours were almost four times as likely to report such symptoms compared to those who watched less.

https://twitter.com/user/status/642533659367612416

These findings were echoed in work conducted by Michael W. Otto, who also found that more hours of 9/11-related television watching was associated with higher post-traumatic stress symptoms in children under 10 in the first year following the attacks.

9/11’s impact on children

However, it is also the case that studies have found the number of children who reported longer-term distress symptoms to be relatively low. Among other factors, children whose parents had low coping abilities or themselves had learning disabilities tended to report higher distress.

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]Parental coping abilities and parental availability to discuss the attacks made a difference.[/quote]

For example, my collaborator Virginia Gil-Rivas, who studied American adolescents exposed to 9/11 only through the media, found that symptoms of post-traumatic distress decreased in most adolescents at the one-year mark. An important finding of her study was how parental coping abilities and parental availability to discuss the attacks made a difference.

Furthermore, children who had prior mental health problems or learning disabilities tended to be at higher risk for distress symptoms. That could be because children prone to anxiety in general experienced increased feelings of vulnerability. Despite the number of studies that have followed children over the course of several years, no studies have comprehensively examined the long-term impact of 9/11 on children’s development and adjustment. That is because it is difficult to compare American children who lived through 9/11 with those who did not, since almost every American child was exposed to images of 9/11 at some point in time.

This limits the ability of researchers to examine how children’s lives might have changed over time. However, some researchers believe that even media-based exposure to collective trauma could likely have a longer-term impact on the attitudes and beliefs of those who grew up in a post-9/11 world. It is possible, for example, that exposure to 9/11 and other acts of terrorism has led to fears of perceived threats, political intolerance, prejudice and xenophobia in some American children.

How 9/11 trauma impacts people today

Fifteen years later, a bigger question is: How does the collective trauma of 9/11 affect people today?

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]As media exposure increased, so did respondents’ acute stress symptoms.[/quote]

Over the past several years, my team and I have sought to address many of the issues that remained unanswered in the scientific literature after 9/11. We sought to replicate and extend the findings initially produced after 9/11 through an examination of responses to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the worst act of terrorism in America since 9/11.

To this end, we surveyed 4,675 Americans. Our sample was demographically representative, meaning that our sample proportionally matched the U.S. Census data on key indicators such as ethnicity, income, gender and marital status.

This allowed us to make stronger inferences about how American” responded. Within the first two to four weeks of the Boston Marathon bombings, we surveyed our sample about their direct and media-based exposure to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing and their subsequent psychological responses.

Our study found that as media exposure (a sum of daily hours of Boston Marathon bombing-related television, radio, print, online news and social media coverage) increased, so did respondents’ acute stress symptoms. This was even after statistically accounting for other variables typically associated with distress responses (such as mental health).

People who reported more than three hours of media exposure had higher probability of reporting high acute stress symptoms than were people who were directly exposed to the bombing.

Then, last year, we sought to explore whether the accumulation of exposure to events like 9/11 and other collective trauma might influence responses to subsequent events like the Boston Marathon bombing.

Once again, we used data from demographically representative samples of people who lived in the New York and Boston metropolitan areas. We assessed people who lived in the New York and Boston areas to facilitate a stronger comparison of direct and media-based exposure to 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing: people who lived in New York or Boston were more likely to meet criteria for “trauma exposure.”

This study had two primary, congruent findings. First, people who experienced greater numbers of direct exposure to prior collective trauma (e.g., 9/11, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Superstorm Sandy) reported higher acute stress symptoms after the Boston Marathon bombings.

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]The positive finding is that most people are resilient in the face of tragedy.[/quote]

Second, greater amounts of media-based live exposure (i.e., people watched or listened to the event as it occurred on live television, radio, or online streaming) to prior collective trauma were also associated with higher acute stress symptoms after the Boston Marathon bombing.

So greater direct and media-based exposure to prior collective trauma was linked with greater acute stress responses (e.g., anxiety, nightmares, trouble concentrating) after a subsequent event.

Stay informed, but limit exposure

Overall, our research indicates that the impact on children growing up post-9/11 likely extends well beyond the physical and mental health effects of exposure—be it direct or media-based. Each tragic incident that individuals witness, even if only through the media, likely has a cumulative effect.

Nevertheless, the positive finding is that most people are resilient in the face of tragedy. In the early years following 9/11, several studies examined how 9/11 impacted children nationally. Like adults, children exposed both directly and through the media tended to be resilient in the early years following the attacks and symptoms generally decreased over time.

Even so, being aware of the potential for distress through media exposure is important. Even when small percentages of the population are impacted, there are larger implications for our nation’s physical and mental health as a whole. For example, in the case of 9/11, 10 percent of a nationally-representative sample reporting post-traumatic stress represents 32,443,375 Americans with similar symptoms.

Ultimately, it’s best to should stay informed in times of stress—but limit repeated exposure to disturbing images as much as you’re able, as they can elicit post-traumatic stress and lead to negative psychological and physical health outcomes.

  • Foreign aid’s hidden benefit: Recipients are more likely to pay the generosity forward
    Photo credit: Kim Hong-Ji/Getty ImagesSouth Korean soldiers oversee the arrival of a batch of Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen COVID-19 vaccines donated by the U.S. government on June 5, 2021.

    Foreign aid may not improve how recipients view donor countries – but it can set off a chain of goodwill that spreads far beyond the original act of giving.

    That is what a colleague and I found when we studied how South Koreans responded to COVID-19 vaccines donated by the United States.

    The South Korean government reserved donated Johnson & Johnson vaccines for military reservists and, for medical reasons, excluded anyone under 30. As a result, we could compare the views of South Koreans just above and below that threshold.

    We found that the donated vaccines did not improve people’s views of the United States. South Koreans who received American vaccines reported similar views of the U.S. as those who had not been vaccinated.

    Yet the results were striking in another way. Those who received donated American vaccines became more supportive of their own government sending aid abroad. Recipients shifted from neutrality on the matter to expressing moderate support for foreign aid, scoring about one point higher on a seven-point scale than those who didn’t make the eligibility cutoff.

    There is also evidence that these effects extend beyond direct recipients. South Koreans who were simply told that the U.S. was providing vaccine aid to developing countries also became more supportive of their own government doing the same – though this effect was concentrated among political moderates.

    Together, these patterns point to what social scientists call “generalized reciprocity” – the impulse not to repay kindness directly but to pass it on. In this way, one act of aid can prompt another, and spread across borders.

    Why it matters

    From Washington and London to Berlin and Tokyo, foreign aid budgets have been cut. In November 2020, former U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Samantha Power invoked a common assumption when she argued that providing vaccines abroad would restore American leadership – that the value of aid lies in the goodwill it generates toward the donor.

    Our findings suggest this is one way aid can matter, but not necessarily the most important.

    Instead, aid may foster a form of international cooperation that does not depend on treaties or direct reciprocity between nations but emerges from ordinary people’s willingness to pass on goodwill.

    A nurse administers a vaccine shot to an elderly lady.
    A South Korean woman receives a COVID-19 vaccine on April 1, 2021. Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

    If aid can trigger chains of giving across borders, then how we assess its value may need to change. Current frameworks tend to emphasize donor nations’ direct returns or strategic benefits, but the cooperative effects we identify are largely invisible to those metrics.

    This suggests that current cuts may be shutting down effects that policymakers have not yet learned to measure – a form of international cooperation that, once set in motion, can generate cascading effects well beyond what any single donor nation could achieve alone.

    What we don’t know

    Important questions remain: Do similar patterns emerge with other forms of aid – such as disaster relief, food assistance or long-term development programs? And how long do these effects last?

    There are also hints that the threshold for triggering this response may be lower than previously thought. The effect persisted even when using eligibility for donated vaccines, rather than actual receipt, as the measure – suggesting proximity to aid, not just receipt, may be enough to activate the impulse to give.

    If evidence that past recipients of aid have themselves become donors strengthens public support for giving in donor countries, then aid may be more self-sustaining than critics assume – reinforced not just by its immediate effects, but by the example it sets.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Photographic memory is a myth – here’s what research really says about remembering
    Photo credit: F.J. Jimenez/Moment via Getty ImagesYour memory is not a camera.

    Hollywood loves a superpower. Not all involve capes or cosmic rays. Some are cognitive: characters who can remember everything. In movies and on TV, viewers repeatedly encounter those with extraordinary minds who glance once at a page, a room or a face – and later recreate every detail with surgical precision.

    You see it everywhere: “Suits,” “Sherlock” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Even in children’s literature there’s fifth grader Cam Jansen, who activates her photolike memory by saying “Click!”

    Most recently, it appeared in the television series “The Pitt,” set in a hospital emergency department. When the digital patient board suddenly went offline, medical student Joy Kwon saved the day by effortlessly reciting from memory every lost detail – names, rooms, doctors, conditions, vitals. It’s a gripping moment. The stakes are high, recall is perfect, and the implication is clear: Some people have minds that function like high-resolution cameras.

    The idea of photographic memory is simple and powerful: Experience is captured objectively, stored completely and retrieved perfectly. See it once, keep it forever.

    There’s just one problem. There’s no scientific evidence it exists.

    Your memory doesn’t record, it reconstructs

    As a memory researcher, I understand that belief in photographic memory is common and the idea is compelling. But it is simply wrong.

    Human memory does not work like a recording device. It’s a reconstructive process even among those with the most extraordinary skills. When you recall an event, memory doesn’t just hand you your experiences the same way every time. It’s never a matter of simply accessing, retrieving and playing back a static record of a stored slice of the past.

    hands with photo negatives on a lightbox, with magnifying glass
    Memory doesn’t scan through a bank of static, stored memories. janiecbros/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Rather, you reconstruct the past by piecing together the remnants of experience available to you in the moment of recollection. It’s a process shaped by a range of factors, including the search cues you use; your present knowledge, attitudes and goals; and your current state of mind or mood.

    Because each of these factors is dynamic and changing, you’ll remember the past differently today – if ever so slightly – from how you remembered it yesterday, and differently from how you’ll remember it tomorrow. What you remember is not only incomplete but also inexact.

    A closer look at extraordinary memory

    Some people, such as memory competition champions, do have extraordinary memories. They can memorize thousands of digits or entire decks of cards in minutes. Their feats are real, but they don’t come from a memory that takes mental snapshots.

    Instead, these people rely on strategies – mental frameworks built through thousands of hours of deliberate practice to scaffold their memory in specific domains. Without these strategies and in other aspects of life, their recall looks pretty much like everyone else’s. Experts’ performance reflects better methods, not different machinery.

    In the scientific literature, the ability that comes closest to photographic memory is eidetic imagery: a form of visual mental imagery in which people claim they can briefly continue to “see” pictures they carefully studied and that are then removed from view.

    This ability is rare, is seen mostly in children, and usually disappears by adolescence. Even at its peak, however, it falls short of the Hollywood ideal. Eidetic images fade quickly and are not perfectly accurate. They can include distortions and even details that were not seen.

    It’s exactly what you’d expect from a reconstructive memory system – and exactly what you would not expect from a literal recording.

    Forgetting is a feature and not a flaw

    The myth about photographic memories feeds into the idea that your memory has failed if you can’t remember – that if your memory worked right, it would operate like a camera. When you can’t retrieve information or you lose it entirely, it can feel like something has gone wrong.

    In reality, forgetting is functional. Without it, we’d never get by.

    For instance, people use their memories of the past to forecast the future. Perfect memory would be a liability. Forgetting washes out the details of specific episodes and retains the gist so you can apply past experiences to novel situations, not just those that exactly match what happened before.

    Forgetting also guards your emotional health. The dulling of memories for negative events, like say an embarrassing episode, makes it easier for you to move on than if you reexperienced all the details in full force every time the event came to mind.

    Forgetting protects your sense of self as well. Memories of your past form the foundation of your identity. To help maintain a stable self-concept, people selectively modify or even forget those memories that challenge their views of themselves.

    view from above of two people looking at black and white photos in an album
    Even mundane moments can be recalled by the rare people with highly superior autobiographical memory. Slavica/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The rare individuals who come closest to having near-perfect memory often reveal the downsides. People with highly superior autobiographical memory can remember nearly every day of their lives in vivid detail. If you ask one of these people to recall what they did on Nov. 24, 1999, they likely can tell you.

    Their extraordinary ability seems to come from a habitual, even compulsive, reflection on their past and a focus on anchoring memories to dates. However, this skill is limited to autobiographical events, and they are prone to various kinds of memory distortions and errors just like everyone else.

    While this ability might sound like an advantage, many people with highly superior autobiographical memory describe it as exhausting. They struggle to move past negative experiences because their memories make them seem as sharp as ever.

    Accurate – and empowering – view of memory

    Beliefs about “perfect memory” shape how people judge studentseyewitnessespatients and even themselves. They influence legal decisions, educational practices and unrealistic expectations about what human minds can – and should – do.

    Letting go of the camera metaphor could be a step toward better understanding how memory works. The brain is not a roll of film, it’s a storyteller – one that edits, interprets and reshapes the past in light of the present.

    And that’s not a limitation. It’s a superpower.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • How workplace stress hijacks the nervous system to cause headaches − and a neurologist’s guide to managing them
    Photo credit: Sean Gladwell/Moment via Getty ImagesOngoing stress can send the nervous system into a state of heightened sensitivity.

    Many people finish the workday not just tired but wired. Their mind keeps racing, their body feels tense, and even in moments that should be restful they feel a lingering sense of urgency. Conversations replay in their mind, unfinished tasks resurface, and their nervous system seems unwilling to power down.

    You may recognize this experience. It has become so common that it is often accepted as the norm in modern professional life. Yet this persistent state of activation carries consequences for physical health, especially for people prone to headaches.

    As a board-certified neurologist who specializes in headache medicine, I see a lot of patients whose pain increases from the high-pressure work culture prevalent today. While it might seem beyond your control, there are some steps you can take.

    Stress and the nervous system

    Stress is not inherently harmful. In fact, when experienced in short bursts, stress can be beneficial by increasing focus, improving performance and preparing the body to handle challenges. However, problems arise when stress becomes chronic and relentless.

    The nervous system perceives and processes both stress and pain. Built to be highly adaptable, it continually responds to internal signals and external factors, constantly recalibrating to maintain balance. When the brain continuously perceives ongoing demands without adequate recovery, it keeps the body in a prolonged state of alertness.

    During these periods of ongoing stress, hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline remain persistently elevated. In this sensitized state, signals that would typically be ignored or interpreted as minor can start to feel much more intense.

    This state leads to an increase in heart rate and sustained muscle tension, with the nervous system transitioning into continuous fight or flight mode. In the context of headaches, this sensitization can lower the threshold for pain, making it easier for a headache to start and harder for it to stop.

    Over time, this constant activation can disrupt the body’s natural balance and create an environment for headache disorders to develop or worsen.

    Chronic stress acts as both a trigger and an exacerbating factor for migraines. The neurological system of people who experience migraines is comparatively more responsive to environmental changes, including variations in sleep patterns, the environment, hormonal fluctuations and stress intensity.

    This means that persistent exposure to stress may drive up frequency and severity of migraine episodes. In addition, muscle tension in the neck, shoulders and scalp – a frequent effect of stress – can cause tension headaches, too.

    Extended periods of sitting, sustained concentration and physical tension during the workday can contribute to the development of tension headaches in the later hours of the day.

    Young desk worker at a desk in an office, looking at charts, straining his eyes and holding up his head
    Poor sleep, too much desk time and other factors can exacerbate the effects of stress on the nervous system, leading to headaches. ChadaYui/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The role of sleep

    Chronic stress can also have a profound impact on sleep quality. Many people who feel persistently wired at the end of the workday struggle to fall asleep or stay asleep. That fitful sleep may lack the restorative qualities necessary for recovery.

    Poor sleep can, in turn, perpetuate the stress cycle, leaving the brain further sensitized and increasing the likelihood of headaches the following day. This loop can be difficult to break, as fatigue reduces resilience and amplifies the sense of being overwhelmed that comes with stress.

    In addition to affecting sleep, chronic stress impairs concentration and cognitive function. When the brain remains in a state of constant vigilance, scanning for demands and threats, it becomes harder to focus, be creative and solve problems. As a result, productivity declines, errors become more frequent and frustration mounts, adding to the overall stress burden.

    Headaches that occur alongside these cognitive challenges can further disrupt daily life, making even routine tasks feel difficult.

    Managing work stress

    Understanding the connection between stress and the nervous system points to some steps you can take to shift the nervous system out of its constantly activated state. You’ll never eliminate stress entirely – that’s neither realistic nor necessary. But it is possible to create intentional space for the body to reset:

    Small, consistent strategies that address both biological and lifestyle causes of headaches can minimize the effects of chronic stress and encourage nervous system regulation. Over time, these strategies can gradually reduce headache frequency and severity, improving overall quality of life.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Science

Pocket gardens: The tiny urban oases with surprisingly big benefits

Society

This elementary school banned screens in the middle of the year. Will it solve their reading crisis?

Technology

‘A study showed…’ isn’t enough – scientific knowledge builds incrementally as researchers investigate and revisit questions

Society

Americans care more about future generations than many think – and that gap could matter for policy