CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMental Health via WritingIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Linguistic predictors of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms following 11 September 2001

Open access
D'Andrea, Wendy, Chiu, Pearl H., Casas, Brooks R., Deldin, Patricia·2012·Applied Cognitive Psychology
DOI 10.1002/acp.1830
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Summary: Prior research has linked content analysis drawn from text narratives to psychopathology in trauma survivors. This study used a longitudinal design to determine whether linguistic elements of narrative memories of first hearing about the events of 11 September 2001 predict later post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Narratives and self‐report PTSD symptoms were collected within 1 week and again 5 months after 9/11 in 40 undergraduates. People who used more “we” words at Time 1 had fewer acute PTSD symptoms. Use of more cognitive mechanism words, more religion words, more first‐person singular pronouns, and fewer anxiety words at Time 1 were related to more chronic PTSD symptoms. Linguistic characteristics accounted for variance in chronic PTSD symptoms above and beyond acute PTSD symptoms. This study provides evidence that lasting PTSD symptoms can be predicted through language in the immediate aftermath of the trauma. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.1830

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An increase in cognitive processing words could reflect heightened engagement with trauma content, potentially leading to more symptoms at first.

    “Conversely, other research 41,48,74 indicated that an increase in cognitive processing words could reflect heightened engagement with trauma content, potentially leading to more symptoms at first.”

    From Linguistic markers for identifying post-traumatic stress disorder and associated symptoms: a systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Interpretation of data section says greater use of cognitive-mechanism words shortly after 9/11 predicted greater hyperarousal symptoms months later, and suggests those words may reflect attempts to process trauma-related information. It measured greater use, not an increase in word use, and did not find more symptoms initially; it also offers emotional distancing as an alternative interpretation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A decrease in first-person plural pronouns was noted, highlighting a possible sense of isolation or disconnection from others.

    “On the other side, a decrease in first-person plural pronouns (eg, “we”) was also noted, highlighting a possible sense of isolation or disconnection from others.47,48”

    From Linguistic markers for identifying post-traumatic stress disorder and associated symptoms: a systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as [48]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [7]7. Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). The psychological function of function words. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Frontiers of social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
  2. [12]12. Gonzales, A. L., Hancock, J. T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language indicators of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37(1), 3-19.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
D'Andrea, W., Chiu, P. H., Casas, B. R., & Deldin, P.
Affiliations
  • The New School (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
D'Andrea, Wendy
ORCID
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-10-24
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
316-323
ISSN
  • 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0720
DOI
10.1002/acp.1830
OpenAlex
W2095740796
Semantic Scholar
73749868e7be99191d1cb4b7dea79599160da225
Cited by
62
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Applied Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Harvard University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, September 11 attacks, narrative memory, first-person pronouns, trauma survivors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review