Psychological concomitants of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews 118 empirical studies detailing the psychological implications of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Negative outcomes are summarized under five major headings: sub‐clinical distress, acute stress disorder and post‐traumatic stress disorder, depression, substance abuse and suicide, and the use of health services and prescription drug use. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, a significant minority of those residing in New York City and Washington, DC showed evidence of poor mental health. Within six months of the attacks, however, symptoms typically returned to baseline or lower levels. Within the rest of the United States, the psychological impact of the attacks was minimal; in other countries, it was almost non‐existent. Important psychological and demographic moderators of these outcomes are discussed, in addition to some positive psychological outcomes of the attacks. The paper concludes with a brief review of the empirical research conducted following the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings in order to assess the generalizability of the 9/11 research literature to psychological reactions to other similar events. Implications for practice and policy are discussed, along with the shortcomings of the literature and some suggestions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".