Rob Wild, Washington University
Pat Somers, Ph.D.
University of Texas at Austin
Corresponding author
374 SZB, Mail Stop 5400
Austin, TX 78712
512.585.2364
Patrick Biddix, Washington University
Steve Bierman, Ozarks Technical College
rwild@charter.net
Ken Wetstein, St. Louis College of Pharmacy
Gwen Deloach-Packnett, University of Missouri – St. Louis
Jean Hofer, University of Missouri at Rolla
The terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 marked a significant cultural turning point for Americans. Across America that morning, most college students woke up to gut-wrenching re-runs of the Twin Towers being broadsided by airplanes and crumbling to the ground. Within hours, images of a portion of the Pentagon lying in smoky ruin, and a dark crater from another hijacked plane in Pennsylvania suggested just how vulnerable our nation was. Students frantically called home. They huddled together in dormitory lounges, glued to the news coverage. Many colleges and universities cancelled classes. The reaction on campuses around the country mirrored that of the general population: disbelief, horror, fear, and sadness.
At the University of Michigan, there was a 100% increase in visits to the campus counseling center the week following September 11, 2001. Students reported feelings of anxiety about their personal safety and intense feelings of homesickness (Herpert & Wingert, 2001). The response among students on college campuses mirrored that of the general population. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that four out of ten adults had at least one of five substantial stress symptoms following the attacks, and nine of ten reported at least low levels of stress (Schuster & Stein, 2001). Clearly, the terrorist attacks on September 11 had an immediate effect on the psyche of most Americans, including college students.
This is an exploratory study of the direct (proximal) and indirect (distal) effects of the events of 9/11/01 on students at two-year and four-year, residential and non-residential colleges. We review the psychological literature as a foundation for our study and analyze the interviews with 50 students at five colleges. Further, we examine how students may have reacted differently than other populations to the attack and look for indicators of an emerging 9/11 generation.
Several areas of psychology and medicine potentially inform research on survivor reactions to terror attacks. Kubler-Ross’ (Greenburg, 2003; Kubler-Ross, 1969) theory illuminates how individuals deal with death, dying, and grieving death, which is particularly appropriate for those who lost loved ones on 9/11. Post-traumatic stress theory (Davis & McKearney, 2001; Friedman, 2005; Halgin & Whitbourne, 2000; Herman, 1992; Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986) has long been used as a general framework to explain how individuals respond to extreme stress. Developmental theory (see, for example, Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Erikson, 1993, 1994; Erikson & Cole, 2000; Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998; Levinson, 1986; Sheehy, 1977) suggests that individuals at different stages of life respond to events based on their intellectual, social, and emotional development. However, for this study, we chose the relatively new lens of terror management theory (TMT) as our theoretical framework.
Psychology of Terror
TMT was born in the laboratory, as a result of experiments by a group of psychologists. September 11, however, provided the first real-life application of the theory. TMT borrows from Becker’s Denial of Death (1973). Becker’s work suggested a testable relationship between awareness of mortality and hostility towards those who subscribe to a different worldview.
In the book, In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror, Pyszczynski, Solomon, and Greenberg (2003) use TMT to explore the national psychological response to 9/11. They explain that terror management theory “posits that the uniquely human awareness of death and our efforts to cope with this awareness provide the psychological impetus for a wide variety of superficially disparate human activities” (Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, p. 10). These researchers suggest that while most living things, including humans, are constantly striving for survival, humans are in the unique position of recognizing that death is inevitable. When these two core concepts (the fight to survive and the inevitability of death) collide psychologically, humans try to manage their terror by constantly justifying that the world around them will not suddenly end in their death, and that their lives have meaning and purpose.
Pyszczynski, Solomon, and Greenberg identify proximal and distal reactions to terrorist acts. Immediately following September 11, Americans had one or more of three direct (proximal) reactions that helped them cope with the horrific tragedy they witnessed either firsthand or on television. The first reaction was disbelief. There was a feeling that this type of violence could never happen on American soil. A second reaction was distraction. Americans tried to engage in activities that would take their minds off of the tragedy: they consumed more alcohol, gambled, rented more videos, and went shopping more often. Some Americans reacted by withdrawing from the larger community and taking steps to protect themselves from future attacks. These people avoided large crowds and purchased items that they felt would offer them some level of protection, such as latex gloves, gas masks, duct tape, parachutes, and firearms.
There were four possible indirect or “distal reactions” to 9/11. First, people sought to better understand what led up to the attacks. Why did this happen? What could lead a group of individuals to bear so much hatred towards the United States? Many people turned to religion to help them understand this hatred. Bible sales and church attendance increased.
Second, Americans showed great feelings of patriotism. They purchased flags and displayed them on their homes, their cars, and their clothing. President Bush’s approval ratings soared to an all-time high. And there were significant signs of support for the women and men of the United States military.
A third distal reaction was censorship. Individuals who questioned government policy were quickly labeled as unpatriotic. The cognitive dissonance of providing any perceived aid to the enemy, even in the form of moderate political views, was too much for many people to bear.
And finally, there was an increase in bigotry. Racial profiling became an acceptable means of airport screening. There were numerous hate crimes against people of Arab descent. And, there were many reports of vandalism against mosques throughout the United States. This bigotry was an indirect response to the fear many Americans experienced following the terrorist attacks.
Significance of the Study
Very little research has been conducted on the impact of September 11, 2001 on college students. This study, part of a larger five-year-long study, begins to shed light on how the tragic events of 9/11 have changed the lives of today’s college students. Any shift in college student attitudes and perceptions following 9/11 will have a direct consequence on our future political leaders, our economic outlook, and on American society. This study will identify some of these trends and serve as a starting point for further research.
What is Gen 9/11?
For purposes of this study, we examine young people who were attending college on September 11, 2001. A broader definition comes from Paul McFedries, “The generation of people who were enrolled in high school or university on September 11, 2001” and more precisely “everyone born between 1978 and 1987” (http://www.wordspy.com/words/Generation9-11.asp).
In a cover story dated November 12, 2001, Newsweek used the term to identify the “generation that once had it all – peace, prosperity, the dotcom dream of retiring at 30. . .[that faced] its defining moment in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. . .” (Herpert & Wingert, 2001). Two months following 9/11, a Newsweek poll found that 57% of 18-29-year-olds said that they were more serious about relationships, 68% said they were more serious about their studies, and the majority were more likely to be considering careers related to public service (including the military), health care, and science than before the attacks. However, the article identified the period immediately following 9/11 as crucial to this age group, in order to “determine whether this generation of college students will be like those of 1941, when campuses and the country were united, or 1966, the beginning of an historic rift.”
While there have been numerous studies that examined the impact of 9/11 on distinct segments of the population in the United States (in particular, residents of New York City and Arab Americans), little has been published concerning the specific influence of September 11, 2001 on college students. To best define and understand the consequences of that day on the college population, a qualitative study is most appropriate. There are numerous, complex variables that may determine how an individual was affected by September 11. These include such factors as the student’s hometown, gender, and religious background. There are also a multitude of possible consequences of September 11. A college student might seek out religion to help with the grieving process or may reject his or her religion altogether. A student might seek greater understanding of the world he or she lives in and choose an academic major to achieve that end. And, September 11, 2001 could have a significant impact on students’ political views. A qualitative study serves as the most useful form of inquiry, as this will allow us to explore the complex interactions between the individual variables and the post-9/11 consequences.
Research Questions
For this preliminary and exploratory study, we asked students to focus on the six months following September 11, 2001. Our research questions were:
1. What were the direct effects of September 11, 2001 on college students?
2. What were the distal effects of September 11, 2001 on college students?
Interview Format
Individual interviews were conducted with students who were enrolled in college at the time of the attacks. Clearly, the most desirable method of research for a post-9/11 study would be to conduct interviews before, during, and after the events of September 11, 2001. However, with no crystal ball to predict the attacks, we were limited to post-hoc interviews. Therefore, the interview was divided into three sections relevant to this study. The first questions were demographic in nature. The second section asked for immediate responses to 9/11. The third section asked questions corresponding to the attack on Afghanistan. By asking for immediate and more long-terms responses, we were able to explore the proximal and distal effects of 9/11.
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards (or the equivalent) at all five colleges in this study. To protect the human subjects, we chose to limit our interviews to those over the age of 18 and those who had not lost an immediate family member in the attacks of 9/11/01.
In this article, we report on our first set of interviews (begun in 2004) with 50 college students from two-and four-year institutions. Interviews were done at a private research university (PRU), public doctoral university (PDU), a baccalaureate college (BC), a public comprehensive university (PCU) and a medium-sized community college (MCC). All but MCC and PCU are located in urban areas. Only PRU and PCU are primarily residential colleges. Of the students, 30% are minority group members and half are women. Because of the exploratory nature of this study and the large amount of data we collected, we focus on the typical reactions of college students to 9/11 and did not make comparisons across institutions.
In order to best analyze the significant amount of text we collected, the responses were divided into two areas: direct effects and indirect effects. The data were coded using the following scheme. The direct reactions included disbelief, confusion, anger, family, community, and fear. The distal effects were: patriotism, search for information, global awareness, political awareness, engagement, and career/academic choices. For our analysis, we coded descriptively, interpretively, and finally, by broad patterns (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Results
Direct Reactions
Immediately following September 11, our students experienced a variety of direct reactions. Pyszczynski, Solomon, and Greenberg (2003) suggest that one of three reactions typically characterize coping mechanisms, disbelief, distraction, then withdrawal from the larger community. An analysis of our data show some similarity to this conjecture, while suggesting several other reactions as well.
Students at all five institutions recalled disbelief (also remembered as shock) upon first hearing of the attacks or witnessing the replay on television. From the stories of the students and 9/ll documentaries, this disbelief was voiced most often in the phrase, “Holy shit, holy shit, holy shit!”
Disbelief. Of the students interviewed, the average of all five institutions (65.6%) experienced disbelief or shock as the primary direct reaction to September 11. One student said, “Even then I wasn’t thinking the terrorists could manage to hit both towers.” Another added, “we didn’t believe them [the media] - that sounded ridiculous,” while still another student echoed, “I thought it was a joke – I thought it was the stupid radio program, people thinking they were really funny. I seriously felt like it was Orson Wells, War of the Worlds or something. . .I was just like, this isn’t funny.”
My reaction was “definitely shock that something like that could happen. . .sad, especially when it started. “I was in a daze. . .things weren’t really real.” On student related, “[a friend told me] a plane crashed into the Word Trade Center. ..I was like you are so stupid, that is just not possible, I just couldn’t even picture [it].” One student describes using cold water for reality therapy, “I knew what was happening but I didn’t. . .I just couldn’t think. . .it was all kinda blank at that point, and I went into the bathroom and threw some water on my face and I didn’t even talk to anybody. . .” Finally, one student summed it up, “to hear a plane fly into a building is just so unusual that I couldn’t tie my mind around what was exactly happening. . .”
Pyszczynski, Solomon, and Greenberg (2003) suggest that disbelief is the foremost coping mechanism people use for dealing with terrorism. The authors define disbelief as the feeling that this type of violence simply could not happen in America. Other students used shock to describe this feeling. “I was just kind of shocked. . .I was just really trying to figure out what was going on,” one student said. Another added, “It was just overwhelming, I mean, I think we all were in just complete shock. I know I was.”
Confusion. PRU Students also said that confusion was a direct reaction to the terrorist attacks. This response accounts for 65% of the students interviewed, and was not a significant theme at any of the other institutions. Some were confused about the attack in general, others about the response of other students. One student said, “I saw something on CNN.com that had a little picture of the two towers and the plane. And I was very confused; I wasn’t exactly sure what that meant.” One student was confused about the motivation of the attackers. The student said, “I just didn’t understand… I had trouble understanding why people do things like that…” Another student, noting the attitude of others said, “A lot of other people were crying, people were really upset and even these were men in fraternity houses surrounded by other men. . .I just sort of sat there and just watched.” Still other students described the events and responses of others around them as “movie-like” or “surreal.”
Anger and response. Another frequent direct reaction was anger at the situation (45.6%) coupled with thoughts about how the U.S. should respond – immediate retaliation, negotiation and diplomacy, or other non-violent response. In many cases, this anger was not directed at the attackers, but towards the media or U.S. government. One student explained, “I remember being so angry with the news because it was already making blanket statements about who it was. . .and I just knew they didn’t know. . .” Another added, “I remember being extremely against the U.S. just going out and starting a war.” The anger many students expressed was directed more towards the handling of the situation than at the perpetrators. One student summed this attitude up, saying, “why don’t we sit down and talk about this and work it out like mature countries? [My reaction] was definitely no violence, a non-violent response.”
The need to be with family. Many students expressed the need to be with family (39.4%). Students noted that in order to cope, they needed to speak with their family to ensure that they were safe and to gain a measure of comfort. One student said, “My whole family talked and we called the people we knew to make sure everything was O.K.” Another added, “I remember just being with my family and showing them how much I love them, how much I cared about them.” A few students said it brought them closer and helped them realize the importance of family in their lives. One student said, “I think it kind of brought us together more as a family. We sat together, had dinner, spent time together more than we had probably done these past couple years.” Even students with families farther away noted increased contact with family as a direct effect. “I remember talking to my family a lot more every day,” one student said, “there was just something really bonding about it.”
Community. The need to be part of a larger community was the second most popular (45%) direct reaction to the attacks on 9/11. Students discussed how important being part of a community was to them. It should be noted that most students who responded in this way either lived on campus or attended an institution-sponsored vigil afterward.
Recalling communal importance, one student said, “People came down to [the TV] room, not necessarily to be together, but to feel that there were other people present and part of that situation.” After attending a vigil, another student noted, “that night I had felt community, and I did see other people’s outpouring of concern and love for one another.”
One student reported hearing of the first attack when phoned by a close friend, who was very frightened. Her response was, “Maybe, like, we need to get together to say good bye. Maybe this is the end.”
Others turned to smaller communities, bound by religious conviction, fraternal bonds, or simply geography. Recalling involvement in religious activities, one student said, “we made a concerted effort to make sure we got active again in the church community.” A fraternity member noted, “ just talking to my brothers” as a way of finding community and comfort. A student recalling geographic ties said, “I remember that night just everyone, all the Maryland students and the D.C. students, wanting to talk to each other.”
In contrast, one student in our study reported not having a community either on campus or at home that allowed him to discuss and process the issues and feelings raised by 9/11. As a result, he showed obvious emotion at several points during the interview and struggled to discuss his feelings about that fateful day.
Fear for others. Fear for others (32.5%) was cited as a direct effect of September 11. This fear emerged in two ways, first, that retaliation would hurt more innocent people, and second, that the Muslim community would suffer persecution after the identification of the attackers as radical Islamists. One student noted that the fear for others being harmed was the greatest concern. She said, “I think my biggest fear about going after them was just having a lot of innocent people hurt in the middle and just having more innocent deaths added on top of the whole thing.”
Displaying fear for the Muslim community, a student said, “I was so scared because I knew from then on, no Muslim, [nor] anyone who looked like they could possibly be Muslim, would ever be the same again.” Another student added, “I remember thinking in my head, ‘oh my gosh, we’re going to have a wave of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim violence in the U.S.. . .’”
The term “distal effect” is used to describe the long-term impact of September 11 on college students. Distal effects are those themes related to reactions and feelings about September 11 during the weeks and months following the attacks, roughly through the time of the invasion of Afghanistan. Four themes emerged: global awareness, patriotism/political involvement, civic engagement, and effect on major/career.
Students at three of the five institutions responded that patriotism was the strongest emotion that they felt after the attacks. Students described patriotism in one of three ways: patriotic, questioning but patriotic, or not patriotic. Other distal reactions included the need to be part of a larger community, fear for others, 9/11 as a defining generational moment, changing a political or religious view, and depression.
Patriotism. Students at three of the five institutions said that they experienced an increased sense of patriotism (50%) after September 11. This patriotism includes outward signs (displaying flags) and a sense of unity with other Americans. One student said, “I personally put a flag up and put flags on our cars.” Another added, “we had a patriotic day at school. Everyone at school had flags on their cars, everyone was more patriotic.”
Other students defined patriotism as a shared feeling of unity with Americans, rather than a display of symbols. One student said, “Just to see how quickly we acted when it happened, or reacted, I should say, to what happened, it made feel very proud to be an American.” Another added, “It showed us that when we do get attacked, truly attacked by an outside source, we will come together, at least initially, and we’ll have some common goals.”
“Questioning patriotism.” Students at PRU, a more socio-economically and intellectually elite institution, gave patriotism a different definition than students at the other colleges. This response was noted in 80% of the students interviewed, indicating a strong pattern of defining patriotism differently than the other students. Students at PRU were disenchanted by songs calling for retaliation and for “cheering for America as if it were a football team.”
PRU students viewed patriotic sentiments as not genuine, treated open displays of national identity (flags, ribbons, etc.) with skepticism, and in general separated loyalty from pride in the country. “I think patriotism blinds people to what’s really going on,” one student said. Another student called the widespread displays of patriotism “hypocritical and false.” A few recalled their perception of the national patriotism as “blind,” and worried that people had stopped questioning the government’s actions and simply followed, “waving a flag.”
Other students viewed the outward signs of patriotism as “commercialized.” One student noted that “Yea, America meant I had to boo someone else,” supporting the view many held that patriotism was becoming an expression of us versus them. A student summed up this sentiment in a redefinition of patriotism, “It was shocking and that’s what I felt patriotism meant. It meant revenge. . .and it meant getting back at people.”
The need for more information. Students talked of the need for more information. Many noted that they neglected their studies in their search for information in the days following 9/11. One student said, “I did spend a lot more time watching the news which was consuming a lot more of my personal schedule.” Another found, “I spent more time in my friend’s apartment because she had a TV and I didn’t.” One woman admitted to spending a lot of time watching the news, “In the wake of what happened, [I probably watched] 80 hours of CNN. . .[I was] just wanting to get more information.” One student admitted he was “definitely watching the news a lot more, doing my homework a lot less.”
More global information was a theme echoed by 65% of the students interviewed at PRU and was rarely noted at other institutions. This need was demonstrated by enrollment in courses on world politics and religion and an increased interest in national and world news. One student summed up many of the common questions students were asking:
Who were these people that we were making accusations about? What is their history? Where is this coming from? And then also terrorism in the 21st century, what does it mean for the future? How do experts look at terrorism? How’s terrorism understood within policy-making? It was really sad and stirring for me that through reading and lectures in my terrorism class last semester, I knew that more than likely the next terrorist attack would not occur by car, because when you make all these barriers and protection around certain avenues, they’re gonna look elsewhere. . .”
Other students were interested in learning about other religions, while others grew skeptical of the media. This is reflected in the caution of one respondent who said, “let’s make sure we’re right before we get into anything.”
The term global awareness is used to describe an interest or understanding in the world outside of the United States as it pertains to the September 11 attacks. Additionally, it can be used to describe the perceived level of understanding the student demonstrated in the global political and religious climate surrounding the terrorist attacks. For purposes of coding, global awareness was given two values: increased global awareness or no change in global awareness.
Of the four categories measured, global awareness showed the most significant change: 47% of the respondents made comments demonstrating an increased interest in the global community. There were numerous comments that indicated an increase in global awareness. A young woman from Illinois described her increased interest in foreign affairs. “I really wanted to learn about foreign policy issues in the United States and it inspired me to take those classes.” Another PRU student shared a similar belief. “I think the big change was probably just this broadened awareness of international issues… the fact that someone from outside could do something like that to us, and so I think it really made me aware of just, wanting to know more about politics in the United States and internationally.” When asked how he thought September 11 had changed his classmates, one student responded, “I think it made every single one of them more aware of foreign affairs in general, because even though I wasn’t personally affected at all, it did change my awareness of other countries outside America – I think that’s true of everyone no matter how much they knew or didn’t know beforehand…”
Responses to several questions provided some indication about student levels of political awareness. Their knowledge and interest in politics was assessed depending upon their responses. Respondents were assigned to one of two categories: political increase or no political increase. A “political increase” was assigned if they changed their political affiliation or if they reported a strengthening of their existing political beliefs.
The post-9/11 environment was very politically charged. This combined with the fact that all these interviews were conducted during an election year led many respondents (35.6%) to report that there was a change in their political values. Most of those who reported a change in their political values responded that the 9/11 attacks strengthened their existing beliefs. “I’m a liberal. I’ve always been a liberal. September 11 did not make me any less of a liberal. It may have even made me more of an activist about it.” Another, a student who leaned more to the Right stated that, “it put foreign policy and foreign affairs at the forefront of what I cared about, politically speaking… it might have made me stronger as a conservative Republican.”
There were only two respondents (5.9%) who described a change in their political affiliation. One moved from the political Left to the political Right, and the other switched from the Right to the Left. The latter described this change, “When I came to college in 2000, I was conservative because of the conservative background that I came from…A year later, I was completely different, completely changed…I think the way it’s related to 9/11 is that as I learned about Latin American politics in a class I took, I learned how seedy the U.S. is in terms of foreign policy and foreign aid.”
Engagement refers to an individual’s contributions to their community and to their peers. Students who reported engaging in more community service, joining social justice oriented organizations, or becoming more involved as a leader in their community were assigned a value of “civic engagement.” Those who did not report becoming involved in these types of activities were assigned a value of “no civic engagement.”
Again, about one third of those interviewed (32.3%) reported an increase in their levels of civic engagement following September 11, 2001. Many of those individuals were able to articulate specifically how the post-9/11 environment caused this increase. “I put together a forum called ‘Patriotism, can it lead to hate?’… and I remember that from then on, always trying to think about the other side of the story even more and trying to make sure that there are outlets on campus for this.” Another student described similar levels of involvement. “I think after 9/11 I made a vested interest in getting involved with various activities that related to diversity and dialogue… I did value that sense of community that was offered with the 9/11 vigil.”
Throughout the interviews, individuals were asked about their academic and career choices following September 11, 2001. They were asked if the attacks had any influence on their choices in this area. Respondents were assigned to one of two categories: effect on major or no effect on major. Even a reported slight change in an individual’s career or academic choices would be assigned to the “effect on major” category.
A small number of students (20.6%) reported that September 11, 2001 caused them to alter their career or academic path. However, if indeed, one in five students who were enrolled in college during the attacks reported a shift in their academic or career interests, this is significant. One individual changed his major to help with the war on terrorism. “I did decide to change my major from pre-law to microbiology to help with the bio-terrorism.” Another student, a chemistry major, describes benefiting from the war on terror in his admission to a graduate program. “Post 9/11, the Department of Defense is giving out these huge grants to scientists who have proposals related to anything that can be applied to security measures…. This will be somewhat lucrative for me.” One student explained how the attacks made them more interested in world affairs. “It made me realize I really need to start addressing some of the larger macro issues about world relations, the role of the U.S…I think after that is when I really started taking classes like ‘African Politics’ and ‘Indigenous People in Latin America.’”
This potential shift could have significant implications for the economy and the job market during the next five to ten years. Further research will need to be conducted to determine whether this trend is occurring consistently at other institutions.
Defining a Generation?
According to Strauss and Howe (1991, 1997), distinct generations exist in American society. There can be as many as four at a time, whose experiences shape their goals, aspirations, and accomplishments. Characteristic of each generation is the presence of a social movement, in which individuals perceive an historic event as altering their social environment. Two social movements defined by Strauss and Howe are a secular crisis (external reordering of public behavior) and a spiritual awakening (focus on internal values and behavior).
Students at three of the five institutions described September 11 in much the same way Straus and Howe identify a secular crisis. One student described the potential effects the attacks had, “I think this really shook people in my generation because it seemed to come out of left field, and that we didn’t. . .we just didn’t know how to handle something like this.” Others referred to 9/11 as a defining moment. One student said “for someone our age, this was something that never happened. . . even the Gulf [War] was, I was only like 10.” Another student echoed, “I think its probably going to be like my parents’ generation with JFK… and my grandparents’ generation with Pearl Harbor. I think most people are going to look back and say ‘I remember where I was and what I was doing when I found out.’ I don’t think that that’s going to leave me…”
The students in our study experienced much more nuanced reactions than terror management theory predicts. In part, two reactions – huddling and skepticism – diverge from TMT predictions.
For the proximal effects, the college students experienced shock, disbelief, anger, patriotism, and fear for others. Significantly, they reached out to their family and campus community. Some of this came in the form of huddling, gathering together in a fraternity or residence hall, or at a friends’ apartment for long periods of time.
The distal reactions of patriotism and global awareness also vary from what TMT predicts. Our students were more skeptical in their expression of patriotism. Their expressions of love for country were more muted and intellectual. They spoke of global awareness and backed up this rhetoric by taking courses that would provide a broader world view.
In their altruism, too, our students differed from TMT predictions. While many donated money, supplies, and blood, they also organized vigils, community discussions of diversity, and peace marches.
Our students were also more likely to be critical of government action. Perhaps some of the criticism hid fear of how young men and women might be drafted to serve in a messy and prolonged conflict in the Middle East. Yet and still, the students questioned military and political reactions following 9/11.
The students in our study reacted in typical ways to the attacks of 9/11. Significantly, however, they were more critical of the government, were more likely to engage in huddling or “group hugging,” were more skeptical and muted in their expressions of patriotism, and more activist in their altruism. All of the divergences from TMT could signal the evolution of a more involved, more civic generation 9/11.
Students we interviewed at five colleges in the Midwest reported direct and distal effects predicted by TMT: fear, anger, disbelief, need for family and community, patriotism, confusion, information seeking, global awareness, political awareness, and civic engagement.
But what of the larger question? Is there a Generation 9/11? While there is a short-term turn towards civic engagement, only time will tell the full story. Perhaps the September 11 Generation Organization has correctly identified the “moments” of 9/11. The first moment was compassion following the attacks and the second moment is when young people move beyond compassion to political action. Indeed, more moments may follow to create a civic generation. The disinterested and materialistic attitudes of “Generation X” may be in the process of being replaced by more socially conscious and activist values reminiscent of the 1960’s. After all, the veterans of World War II were only recently named “The Greatest Generation” by Tom Brokaw. So too, the 9/11 Gen may not come of age for years or decades. From our interviews, we would predict a more politically divided society based on the strong responses to questions about patriotism. This generation will be faced with difficult decisions related to the events of September 11th. The role of the United States as a military superpower means nothing in “war on terrorism.” Rising fuel costs, blamed partially on tension in the Middle East may have a drastic consequences on the U.S. economy. Generation 9/11, a more globally aware and politically divided generation, will lead America through these impending national struggles and shape the post-9/11 society.
Becker, E. (1997). The denial of death. New York: Free Press.
Brownstein, A., & Hoover, E. (2001) Destination unknown. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 48(16), 36-39.
Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, C.G., & McKearney, J.M. (2001). Post traumatic growth from the perspective of terror management theory. Carelton University, Department of Psychology.
Erikson, E.H. (1993). Childhood. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E.H. (1994). Identity and life cycle. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E.H., & Cole, D. (2000). The Erik Erickson Reader. New York: Norton.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Friedman, M.J. (2005). Posttraumatic stress disorder: An overview. National Center for PTSD.
Greenburg, M. (2003). Good grief: The different ways to cope with loss. Psychology Today, 36, 44.
Halgin, R.P., & Whitbourne, S.K. (2000). Anxiety disorder. Abnormal Psychology, 170-203.
Herman, J.L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Herpert, J., & Wingert, P. (2001, November 12) Generation 9-11: The kids who grew up with peace and prosperity are facing a defining moment. Newsweek. 132, 46-54.
Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: MacMillan.
Levinson, D. (1986). Season’s of a man’s life. New York: Ballantine Books.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. San Francisco: Sage.
One year later. (2002, September 6) The Chronicle of Higher Education. 49 (2), p. A6.
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1991) How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pyszczynski, T. & Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003) In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror, Washington: American Psychological Association.
Scheier, M., Weintraub, J.K., & Carver, C., (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies for optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1257-1264.
Schuster, M., & Stein, B. (2001) A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. New England Journal of Medicine, 345(20), 1507-1512.
Sheehy, G. (1977). Passages: Predictable crises of adult life. New York: Bantam.
Strauss, William & Howe, Neil. (1991) Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Strauss, William, & Howe, Neil. (1997) The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy. New York: Broadway Books.