Amy Mezulis
Science Student Council, Clinical Psychology Representative, University of
Wisconsin–Madison
(This article was first published in the Winter 2002 issue
of the APAGS Newsletter.)
Even as a committed researcher in psychology, I admit to being taken aback by
a recent New York Times article reporting that psychologists had started
stopping people on Manhattan streets to collect their self-reported memories of
what they were doing, where they were, and how they first heard of the 9/11
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers just one week after the horrific
event. Dr. William Hirst, a psychologist at New School University in New York
City, and his colleagues are investigating how people form so-called
"flashbulb memories" of traumatic events. Although previously believed
to be vivid and accurate depictions of salient, threatening, and unusual events,
Dr. Hirst hypothesizes that flashbulb memories for traumatic historical events
may actually change over time as people’s emotional reactions and
interpretations of the event change.
There is little doubt that psychologists have played an important role in
responding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks by providing clinical services such as
trauma counseling and educational programs for the media and public about
terror, trauma, and associated psychological responses. For example, the APA’s
Disaster Relief Network quickly worked with the Red Cross to supply
psychological services to victims, family members, rescue workers, and others
suffering psychological distress following the attacks. The APA Board of
Directors has recently issued a statement from the Subcommittee on Psychology’s
Response to Terrorism that delineates psychologists’ role in working with the
U.S. Government and media to understand and respond to related topics such as
terror in the workplace, hate crimes, and dealing with fear and anxiety. The
appropriateness and utility of psychology’s clinical response to trauma is
undisputed.
But what should be the role of basic psychological research in the aftermath
of 9/11? Before answering this question, keep in mind that many of these useful
clinical interventions have relied, directly or indirectly, on empirical
findings. Also keep in mind that, given existing ethical constraints on research
as enforced by human subjects committees and institutional review boards,
psychologists rarely get the opportunity to conduct basic research on
psychological processes related to traumatic events. Seen in this light, it
would be a shame not to take advantage of this unique opportunity to better
understand relevant psychological processes that can only be studied in contexts
of traumatic events.
There is a controversial concept in psychology called "experiments of
nature." There are some experiments that are simply unethical to conduct in
a controlled experimental design. For example, despite a desire to understand the predictors, correlates, and consequences of
child abuse, researchers obviously cannot randomly assign participants to
conditions of child abuse versus no child abuse. However, child abuse does exist
naturally in the population, and researchers may select participants from this
population for the study of these important questions. APA and institutional
review boards have enacted guidelines for such research to ensure that
participation in studies related to child abuse does not conflict with
researchers’ obligations to report current abuse to social services or other
authorities. In other words, the process of psychological research is ethical in
part because it does not bring about, foster, or allow the unacceptable
situation—child abuse—to continue.
The same may be said of psychological research in the wake of 9/11. Dr. Hirst’s
work on flashbulb memories is an excellent example of research into basic
cognitive processes—memory formation and change—that would be difficult to
conduct without an experiment of nature as the terrorist attacks. Are
researchers glad for such an opportunity? Undoubtedly not. But should they
forego this opportunity? Certainly not.
There are many important research questions following 9/11. One obvious set
of concerns is clinical outcomes. What factors affect who develops PTSD and who
does not? What is the role of individual difference variables, such as a history
of anxiety or proximity to Ground Zero, in comparison to variables such as
amount of time spent watching CNN? Another set of concerns is the formation of
prejudicial attitudes or stereotypes. What populations are most likely to
develop negative stereotypes of Arab-Americans or Muslims? What populations are
most likely to agree with a call for war versus arms-free negotiations? What
populations are most likely to act on their personal beliefs or attitudes with
hate crimes, aggressive behaviors, or enlisting in the armed services? Finally,
this unfortunate event presents an opportunity for researchers to follow-up a
previously studied sample. Some researchers suggest that a history of traumatic
events may predict PTSD. How are survivors of the Texas A&M bonfire tragedy,
the 1989 California earthquake, or Oakland Hills fires forming memories of this
event or responding with stress symptoms?
One valid concern often expressed by the public is that psychological
research involving traumatic events may add to the suffering of the people
involved. However, what the public may not realize is that, as ethical
scientists, psychologists do have procedures in place to protect the rights of
human subjects. Any psychologist wanting to conduct basic research in the
aftermath of 9/11 will have to get approval from his/her human subjects
committee, whose job it is to balance the value of the data to be collected
against the potential harm or distress to the participants.
It is perhaps trite and simplistic to suggest that basic research regarding
psychological processes related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks will directly
allow psychologists to suggest ways to prevent and better respond to such events
in the future. Not all basic research will yield such neat applications; some
will and some will not. But I can safely say that not taking advantage of this
tragic, horrific, and yes, unique, opportunity to conduct such basic
psychological research will yield no better understanding of traumatic events,
which would be a shame.
