|
It is easy to assume in the post-9/11 world
that the psychological impact of the continued
threat of terrorism would be considerable. Across
the globe, terrorist attacks kill and maim thousands
each year and cause massive economic damage.
Images of the aftermath of bombings and other
atrocities are rarely absent from the media.
In such a context it would be natural to expect
that the fear and threat of terrorism would
have a crippling psychological effect on society.
Yet is this the case?
In some respects the evidence is surprisingly
optimistic. Even in the wake of catastrophic
attacks such as 9/11, American society overall
displayed a quick recovery. In the days immediately
after the attacks, stress reactions and anxiety
were very common, but these symptoms did not
persist; they quickly returned to pre-9/11 levels
for most. Psychologists found that the American
public tended to be remarkably resilient in
dealing with terrorism and this has also been
the finding in regions which experience terrorist
attacks on a frequent and widespread basis.
Israel and Northern Ireland represent two good
examples. Both regions have experienced intense
and long-running campaigns of terrorist violence.
In the case of Northern Ireland, there were
tremendous fears in the 1970s, in the initial
stages of the conflict, that the violence would
cripple Northern Ireland psychologically. Terrorist
attacks were occurring on a daily basis and
the expectation was that this would have a lasting
detrimental impact. The psychological collapse
of the population, however, never happened.
Even at the height of the Troubles, Northern
Irish society displayed a remarkable resilience
to the violence.
A review of hospital referrals and admissions
for mental health problems, parasuicide and
suicide rates, and psychoactive drug prescriptions
found there were no significant increase in
any of these measures which could be linked
with terrorist violence. According to the International
Handbook of Traumatic Stress Syndromes (Cairns,
Wilson; 1992), ‘only a very small proportion
of the population not directly involved in the
civil violence in Northern Ireland have become
psychiatric casualties as a result of the political
violence’.
This is not to say that society overall showed
complete immunity to the effects of frequent
terrorist attacks. On the contrary, it was very
clear that while Northern Irish society on a
whole seemed to have escaped relatively unscathed
from the violence, small groups did show signs
of suffering. Proximity to terrorist violence
was an important factor. The closer one was
to an attack, the more of an impact it had on
average. Suffering physical injuries as a result
of an attack was strongly associated with increased
psychological trauma - the more serious the
injuries, the more serious the trauma. Survivors
of terrorist attacks show high levels of Post-traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Why was the constant threat of terrorism not
more psychologically damaging in Northern Ireland?
A number of reasons have been given to explain
the low impact of the violence on wider society
apart from standard human resilience. The first
answer is that the threat of terrorism made
communities more cohesive. In the face of a
shared threat, individuals identified more strongly
with the community around them. In the wake
of terrorist attacks - and with the threat of
further attacks to come – the Northern
Irish communities bonded closer together, providing
increased support to members. The result was
that the psychological ill effects felt by the
direct victims of terrorism could be ‘buffered
by a state of rebound psychological well-being
in the rest of the community’, according
to the British Journal of Psychiatry (Curran;
1998). This effect was very obvious in suicide
rates in Northern Ireland. Trends in suicide
rates and terrorist-related deaths in Northern
Ireland from 1966 to 1999 show a direct relationship
between the two – when terrorism increased,
suicide fell and vice versa. The lowest year
for suicide deaths was 1972 when 47 people took
their own lives. This was also the year when
the highest number of people were killed as
a result of political violence, 497. It is an
irony that the success of the Peace Process
in Northern Ireland has been accompanied by
a steady increase in the region’s suicide
rate.
This was not the first time such effects had
been seen. After serious riots in America, research
found that significant proportions of the local
populations actually reported a long-term improvement
in their mental well-being. Research published
in the British Journal of Psychiatry also showed
that: ‘A certain number of people develop
psychological distress as might be expected
of those who witness terrifying situations or
tragedies or catastrophes, but remarkably, a
larger number may actually improve psychologically.’
Terrorist violence – and the threat of
such violence – can work to bind communities
together with a sense of common purpose and
common outrage. Not only do terrorist attacks
give a perception that there is a shared enemy
out there, such attacks also bolster an individual’s
ties to their local community, deepening their
sense of belonging and their identification
with others living in the area. This is a powerful
social effect which has been witnessed many
times before. For example, during the London
Blitz in World War II, many people noted the
widespread camaraderie and closeness of what
became known as the Blitz Spirit. Some aspects
of this effect have already been seen in the
US after 9/11. While many commentators talked
about the sense of fear and panic sweeping the
country, it was equally clear that there was
a massive and widespread sense of shared community.
Sales of American flags rocketed and millions
of homes flew flags in a very public display
of shared identity. Similar trends have been
seen in Israel, where relentless terrorist attacks,
rather than shattering society psychologically,
have instead witnessed a remarkable resilience
effect.
Social psychologists have long understood that
a strong sense of community in a population
is associated with a wide range of positive
benefits including better physical and psychological
health. In fostering a greater sense of community,
terrorism can actually end up working to improve
the ability of most people to cope and respond
positively to it. While recognizing that individual
victims can still be profoundly and negatively
affected by their experience, the overall reality
is that the psychological impact of terrorism
on wider communities has often been surprisingly
mild even in countries where terrorist attacks
are very common.
A further way in which people adapt to terrorist
threats is through what psychologists refer
to as "mortality salience," which
is the effect of overexposure to death-related
thoughts or imagery, including even very subtle
cues relating to death or cues not consciously
recognized by the person involved. The images
of death, dying and killing, which are inherent
in most media coverage of terrorism, are usually
sufficient to produce a mortality salience effect.
Mortality salience can lead to an increase
in identification with and pride in one’s
country, religion, gender, race, etc. Crucially,
mortality salience can lead to an increase in
support for extremism when it is linked to group
identity. For example, one study found that
under mortality salience conditions, white Americans
expressed more sympathy and support for other
whites who expressed racist views. Also, individuals
experience exaggerated tendencies to stereotype
and reject those who are different from themselves.
Research has demonstrated that mortality salience
produces especially harsh reactions to those
who are seen to be breaking the rules.
Thus, the mortality salience created by the
coverage of terrorism can be expected to lead
to an increase in sympathy and support for the
government, and increased hostility toward the
country’s perceived enemies.
While populations tend to cope fairly well
with ongoing terrorist threats, media coverage
often adds a destabilizing factor to the mix.
Media attention certainly fosters a widespread
belief that terrorist attacks are both more
common and more dangerous than is actually the
case. Psychologists have also found that intense
media coverage by itself can have some damaging
impact with some adults and children appearing
to suffer serious psychological problems as
a result of long exposure to media coverage
of terrorist attacks. They often had trouble
sleeping, suffered from nightmares, anxiety
problems or depression. Yet, these people had
not been at the scene when the attack occurred
and they were not connected to direct victims.
They had not lost family members, friends, neighbors
or colleagues in the devastation, but they had
witnessed a great deal of media coverage. Researchers
found that in some groups of schoolchildren,
media exposure alone seemed to be a primary
cause of PTSD in the aftermath of the attacks.
A survey of residents of Manhattan in the months
after the destruction of the World Trade Center
published by the New England Journal of Medicine
in 2002 found that 7.5% of the respondents reported
symptoms consistent with PTSD and 9.7% reported
symptoms consistent with depression. There was
a direct link between how close one lived to
the Twin Towers and the likelihood that you
would develop PTSD. Twenty percent of those
living in the vicinity of the World Trade Center
showed signs of PTSD. The findings also emphasized
the vicarious impact of the attacks: most of
those displaying negative symptoms of PTSD and
depression had not been physically at the Center
when the attack occurred, they had not been
in immediate danger and they were not related
to direct victims. Instead, these people turned
to television, radio, and the Internet, to learn
about what had happened, and for some, the media
had then become an extremely significant vector
of fear.
The Impact of No Attacks but Frequent
Warnings
There have been no terrorist attacks in the
US since 2001. Yet despite the absence of violence,
terrorism has never left the public consciousness
and has remained a high profile political and
public issue. Enormous debate and coverage is
given to the issue of the threat of terrorism.
In the past ten years, the average American
is much more likely to have been struck by lightning
than to have been caught up in a terrorist attack.
Such statistics appear to have done little to
reassure, however.
A further problem is the enormous attention
given to terrorist alerts. Research in New York
has found that changes in the color coded alert
system are associated with increased signs of
distress among a survey of nearly 2000 people.
When the color alert changed from yellow to
orange these people showed increased levels
of depression, anxiety, phobic responses and
other signs of PTSD. When the alert levels dropped
back, the symptoms again spiked indicating that
public reminders of the danger acted as a stressor
regardless of the direction of the change.
Reminders of the threat posed by terrorists
also bolster society. Approval ratings for the
President show a small rise every time the threat
levels are changed – regardless of whether
the level is increased or decreased.
One explanation for this consequence is to
return to mortality salience effect: when we
are reminded of danger we tend to show increased
support to our own group and to leaders of that
group. This, naturally, has led to accusations
that announcements regarding terrorist threats
since 9/11 (including changes to the official
threat levels) have occasionally been politically
motivated.
Terrorism can be dangerous, callous and cruel,
but in general the evidence is that society
adapts. Even in very violent conflicts where
terrorist attacks are happening sometimes on
an almost hourly basis, society does not collapse
under the psychological strain. Most people
adapt and cope, displaying remarkable resilience.
Indeed, the most psychological strain is often
not seen when attacks are frequent and common,
but rather when they are rare and unpredictable.
In the latter circumstances it is harder to
develop a sense of control over the situation,
and in the end, having a sense of control is
important – without it we are much more
susceptible to our fears. In some respects,
the US today faces the worst of both worlds.
The welcome absence of any terrorist attacks
in the homeland since 2001 at one level creates
an impression of normality, yet this impression
is constantly being jostled by the frequent
warnings and public announcements of a continuing
threat. It is an unhappy balancing act which
shows no sign of ending soon.•
Professor Andrew Silke
is a psychologist and Director of Terrorism
Studies at the University of East London, UK.
He is author of several books and articles including
Terrorists, Victims and Society: Psychological
Perspectives on Terrorism and its Consequences.
|
