Reactions to 9/11 as a function of terror management and perspective taking
Abstract
The authors used terror management theory to investigate people's reactions to the terrorist attacks of 09/11/01. According to the theory, people have a primary need to eliminate or reduce existential terror in response to such horrific events as 9/11. The authors obtained people's reactions to 9/11, an event in which the threat to one's existence was more authentic than those of previous events that were imagined. The authors of the present study collected data two weeks after 9/11 from young adults on a large university campus in the U.S. Midwest. The authors asked participants about their proximal and distal reactions to 9/11 and their reasons or motives for those reactions. The results indicated that the vast majority of participants' proximal reactions to 9/11 were shock and/or disbelief, whereas their distal reactions included performing altruistic or prosocial behavior, searching for meaning or value in life, seeking or sharing information, spending time in talking to others, and making bigoted remarks about Arab Muslims. The main finding was that interpersonal communication is an important means of eliminating or reducing existential terror.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A growing but limited body of research has examined TMT validity in real-life threatening situations such as terrorist attacks through qualitative studies and social media data analysis.
“a growing—albeit limited—body of research has emerged to examine the validity of TMT in real-life threatening situations, such as terrorist attacks, by conducting qualitative studies (Yum & Schenck-Hamlin, 2005) and analyzing social media data (Fischer-Preßler et al., 2019).”
From Understanding user responses to the COVID-19 pandemic on Twitter from a terror management theory perspective: Cultural differences among the US, UK and India (2022) · cites this paper as Yum & Schenck-Hamlin, 2005
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 36 · Cited by 78
- Authors
- Yum, Y.-O., & Schenck-hamlin, W.
- Affiliations
- Kansas State University (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 145
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-286
- ISSN
- 0022-4545 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-1183
- OpenAlex
- W2019583514
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- September 11 attacks, terror management theory, perspective taking, altruism, prosocial behavior, interpersonal communication, meaning in life, young adults
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Existentialism, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Psychological Theory, Social Behavior, Midwestern United States, Terrorism
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