O. Luminet, A. Curci, E. J. Marsh, I.Wessel, T. Constantin, F. Gencoz, and M.

Yogo

THE COGNITIVE, EMOTIONAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF

THE SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS: GROUP DIFFERENCES
IN MEMORY FOR THE RECEPTION CONTEXT AND ITS
DETERMINANTS
Olivier Luminet
University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, and Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research
Olivier.Luminet@psp.ucl.ac.be
Antonietta Curci
University of Bari, Italy
Elizabeth J. Marsh
Washington UniversitySt Louis, MO, USA
Ineke Wessel
Maastricht University, The Netherlands
Ticu Constantin
University of Iasi, Romania
Faruk Gencoz
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Masao Yogo
Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan

ABSTRACT were obtained for background knowledge and

This study examines group differences in
cognitive, emotional, and social responses to
hearing the news of the September 11th attacks.
Although all groups were hypothesized to
remember the reception context immediately
after the events, of interest was whether groups
differed initially in predictors of long-term
memory. One to 6 weeks after 9/11/01, a
questionnaire investigating memory for the
reception context and a set of critical
predictors wasdistributed to 3665 participants
in Belgium, France, Italy, Japan, Romania,
Switzerland, The Netherlands, Turkey, and the
US. US vs. non-US respondents showed large
differences in memory for event-related facts
and in self-rated importance of the news.
Moderate-level differences between groups
were found for background knowledge, and
small differences were observed for memory
for the reception context, ratings of novelty,
surprise, emotional feeling states and
rehearsal. Within non-US groups, large
differences were only found for emotional
feeling states, whereas moderate differences
attitudes towards the US. Finally, non-US
groups did not differ much in memory for the
reception context, memory for event-related
facts, or ratings of novelty, surprise,
importance, and rehearsal.
INTRODUCTION
For more than two decades, emotion and
memory researchers have been interested in
people’s memory for the circumstances in
which they first heard about major public
events, such as political assassinations (e.g.,
Brown & Kulik, 1977; Christianson, 1989) or
natural or man-made disasters (e.g.,
Christianson & Engelberg, 1999; Neisser &
Harsch, 1992; Wright, 1993). Brown and
Kulik (1977) introduced the term “flashbulb
memories” for these particularly vivid and
apparently long-lasting recollections.
Two different views of flashbulb
memories co-exist in the literature. The first
one emphasizes the detailedness of the
recollection, often defined by the number of
canonical categories endorsed at one time of

210
 Hearing the News of the 9/11 Attacks
measurement (e.g., exact location, ongoing
activity, type of informant, idiosyncratic
details often including perceptual aspects; for
an example, see Finkenauer et al., 1998). The
second perspective is adopted in studies
relying on a test-retest design (e.g., Conway et
al., 1994) and emphasizes consistency between
initial test (usually shortly after encoding) and
retest. Conway (e.g., 1995) argues that
flashbulb memories should be restricted to this
latter definition. According to him, in order to
be considered a flashbulb memory, a
recollection involves not only a “live” quality
accompanied by recall of minutiae, but also
preserves details of the reception events, and
remains unchanged over long periods of time.
Acceptance of these last two conditions means
that it is not technically possible to assess
flashbulb memories shortly after encoding,
because a delayed retest is required to assess
the preservation and consistency of details
over time. It is possible that shortly after a high
impact event, the majority of people will have
detailed memories of the reception event. Only
some of these memories will persist (i.e,
become flashbulb memories), whereas others
will fade or become distorted.
Consistent with Conway’s arguments, our
study is aimed at investigating memory for
reception context, a necessary but not
sufficient condition for flashbulb memories.
Shortly after the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks, we
assessed memory for first hearing the news of
the events. The aim of the study was to
examine group differences in memory for the
reception context and for its determinants.
PREDICTORS OF MEMORY FOR
RECEPTION CONTEXT
Research has identified several pre-
requisites for the formation of vivid memories
of the reception context: novelty, surprise, im-
portance/consequentiality, emotional feeling
states, rehearsal, background knowledge, atti-
tudes, and memory for event-related facts. We
will briefly discuss each of these.
Models generally support that memo-
ries for the reception context are initialized by
new situations and that this mechanism has
adaptive value (e.g., Brown & Kulik, 1977;
Conway, 1995; Finkenauer et al., 1998). The
appraisal of novelty is then followed by a non-
valenced emotional state of surprise. The ap-
praisal of importance/consequentiality devel-
ops almost simultaneously with the appraisal
of novelty and has been proposed as a critical
predictor for memory for the reception context
(Brown & Kulik, 1977; Christianson, 1989;
Christianson & Engelberg, 1999; Conway et
al., 1994; Finkenauer et al., 1998; Rubin &
Kozin, 1984). The appraisal of impor-
tance/consequentiality then leads to emotional
feeling states such as sadness, anger or fear
(Conway et al., 1995; Finkenauer et al., 1998;
Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 1987). The intensity
of emotional feeling states predicted memory
for the reception context in various studies
(Bohannon, 1988; Bohannon & Symons, 1992;
Christianson, 1989; Finkenauer et al., 1998;
Pillemer, 1984; Rubin & Kozin, 1984).
Rehearsal is another critical predictor of
memory for the reception context (Bohannon
& Symons, 1992; Christianson, 1989;
Finkenauer et al., 1998; McCloskey, Wible, &
Cohen, 1988; Neisser, 1982; Wright, 1993).
Rehearsal includes ruminations, an urge to
communicate with other people about the
emotional circumstances and the experienced
feelings and reactions, and the following of the
media (TV, radio, newspapers, internet).
The rememberer's prior knowledge
related to the news is also of central
importance for the memory for the reception
context (Conway et al., 1994; Finkenauer et
al., 1998). For Conway et al. (1994), flashbulb
memories do not only represent specific
features of the reception context, but also
conceptual and abstract knowledge related to
the original event. Hence, they proposed that
the recipient's prior knowledge of issues
related to the original event is crucial for
forming memories of the reception context.
People’s attitudes also affect the way
theyapproach and react to situations. Prior
knowledge and attitudes are predicted to
facilitate the organization and assimilationof
the incoming information into existing
211
O. Luminet, A. Curci, E. J. Marsh, I.Wessel, T. Constantin, F. Gencoz, and M. Yogo
semantic structures in memory, thereby
leading to more detailed and consistent
memories for the reception context (Conway et
al., 1994; Finkenauer et al., 1998).
Finally, memory for event-related facts
seems to impact directly on memory for the
reception context (Finkenauer et al., 1998).
These authors suggested that when learning
about the original event, all currently activated
information--including the reception context,
sensory information, and the original event--is
encoded in memory (Tulving & Kroll, 1995).
Thus, both the original event and the reception
context would immediately be encoded.
Subsequently, during rehearsal of the original
event, the reactivation of this information in
memory would spread to any associated
information, and thus to flashbulb memories.
GROUP DIFFERENCES IN MEMORY
FOR THE RECEPTION CONTEXT
One impressive finding in the literature is
how frequently people report vivid memories
of the reception context shortly after
unexpected events. For example, Wright
(1993) reported a 100% rate of memories for
the reception context for the Hillsborough
disaster one month after the event, or
Schmolck et al. (2000) reported a 98.4% rate
of memories for the reception context for the
OJ Simpson verdict 3 days after it was
announced. It is not clear, however, that those
rates would have been as high with different
subject populations. Accordingly, there are
studies showing more memories for the
reception context in one group of participants
than another (e.g., Brown & Kulik, 1977;
Conway et al., 1994; Curci et al., 2001,
Neisser et al., 1996). These comparison studies
suggest that the salience of a major news event
and its personal importance may vary for
different cultural or national groups resulting
in differences in memories for the reception
context. In the next section, we will turn to the
improvements in the current study that allow
for a better understanding of group differences
in the predictors of memory for the reception
context.
212
IMPROVEMENTS OF THE PRESENT
STUDY
There are two major differences
between the current study and previously
published studies on memory for the reception
context: the nature of the target event, and the
nature and number of the comparison groups.
We will discuss each of these differences in
turn.
One important limitation of previous
studies is that they did not use events
hypothesized to yield high scores on all the
predictor variables (e.g., Christianson &
Engelberg, 1999; Conway et al., 1994; Curci et
al., 2001). The events of 9/11 are tragically
unique in this regard, and as such present an
important opportunity to better understand
memory for reception context.
The participants in the current study were
not only Americans, but also citizens of eight
other countries. This is in sharp contrast to
previous studies, which had only a few
comparison groups. In addition, the
comparison groups in the current study are less
similar to one another than is typical of such
studies. For example, in the study on
Thatcher’s resignation (Conway et al., 1994),
non-UK comparison countries were the US
and Denmark. In the present study, comparison
groups included not only Western European
countries, but also Romania, Turkey, and
Japan. Of interest was the effect of the
countries’ differences in cultural and economic
backgrounds on the predictors of memory for
the reception context.
OVERVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
On September 11, 2001, more than
three thousand people died in the worst
terrorist attacks ever-committed on American
soil. In co-ordination, four commercial
airliners were hijacked and turned into missiles
aimed at buildings that symbolized American
prosperity. Two planes hit the north and south
towers of the World Trade Center (WTC),
leading to the eventual collapse of both
buildings. One plane hit the Pentagon, and the
 Hearing the News of the 9/11 Attacks
fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania.
These attacks were allegedly planned and
executed by members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist
group based in Afghanistan.
The aim of the present study is to
examine memory for hearing the news of the
9/11 attacks (memory for reception context)
and its predictors. Predictor variables are 1)
novelty, 2) surprise, 3) personal
consequentiality and importance, 4) valenced
emotional feeling states, 5) rehearsal, 6)
background knowledge, 7) attitudes towards
the target country and 8) memory for event-
related facts. For Americans, the 9/11 attacks
were assumed to yield high ratings on all these
predictors (except for attitudes, which were not
relevant for the US group). It was not assumed,
however, that those rates would be as high in
other countries. The simultaneous testing of
large groups of both US and non-US
respondents allowed examination of possible
group differences in the predictor variables.
Due to the large sample sizes, differences were
likely to be observed for the vast majority of
variables. Thus, we use three levels of effect
sizes to categorize the differences. Small
differences were related to predicted effect
sizes below .05, moderate ones were above .05
but below .10 and large ones were above .10 .
First, we predicted only a small differ-
ence between US and non-US groups for
memory for the reception context. In addition,
we expected a ceiling level across countries for
the appraisal of novelty. Novelty has been
shown to directly influence the emotional state
of surprise, which in turn directly strengthens
memory for the reception context (Finkenauer
et al., 1998). For the other variables, however,
we predicted larger differences between US
and non-US respondents. Most importantly,
we predicted large group differences for the
ratings of importance. Americans were more
likely to have known someone killed in the
attacks, or to know people who were otherwise
directly involved. Also, the 9/11 attacks di-
rectly impacted American daily lives (e.g.,
security at public events and airports). Fol-
lowing the emotional-integrative model
(Finkenauer et al., 1998), differences in impor-
tance/consequentiality should be reflected in
variables that are supposed to be direct out-
comes. Thus, we predicted moderate to large
group differences for valenced emotional feel-
ing states, rehearsal and memory for event-
related facts. As Americans were likely more
knowledgeable about the WTC and the Penta-
gon before the attacks, moderate differences
were also predicted for background knowl-
edge. Moderate differences were also pre-
dicted for prior knowledge of terrorist groups,
as Americans were more motivated to have
sought out information related to attack perpe-
trators.
The large number of comparison groups
allowed us to make a 2nd set of predictions,
involving differences among the non-US coun-
tries. The eight comparison countries can be
divided into four groups. Citizens of Western
European countries (French-speaking countries
- Belgium, France, Switzerland 1 - The Nether-
lands and Italy) were expected to react simi-
larly to the Americans. These European na-
tions are socio-economically and culturally
similar to the US. These countries have previ-
ously experienced terrorist attacks, but were
not as directly involved in the 9/11 events, as
were Americans.
Romania was considered as similar to the
other European countries except for its level of
economic development, which might affect
access to the media. Less access to the media
might have resulted in lower background
1
Due to low response frequencies, respondents
from Switzerland and France were aggregated with
respondents from Belgium. This resulted in a new
category for the variable citizenship, corresponding
to respondents from French-speaking countries.
These three countries did not seem to differ
significantly on the variables considered, except for
the prior knowledge about the event. Swiss
respondents had a better background knowledge
about the event than did Belgians and the French (F
(2,660) = 7.26, p = .001). Respondents from these
three countries are thus considered together in the
paper and are refered as “French-speaking
countries”.
213
O. Luminet, A. Curci, E. J. Marsh, I.Wessel, T. Constantin, F. Gencoz, and M. Yogo
knowledge and in poorer memory for attack
details.
Due to its similarities on socio-economic
factors, Japanese respondents were predicted
to react similarly to Western Europeans on
variables like rehearsal through the media,
attitudes towards the US, and background
knowledge. Some differences were predicted,
however, in the intensity of emotional feeling
states, and the frequency of social sharing of
emotion and rumination. Cross-cultural studies
show that in individualistic countries such as
the US or Western Europe, the public reporting
of one’s emotional state is socially desirable,
while it is not in collectivistic countries such as
Turkey or Japan (e.g., Fernandez et al., 2000).
Also, people’s focus of attention is more self-
centered in individualistic countries, which
may result in more rumination and social shar-
ing (e.g., Basabe et al., 2000, 2002).
Finally, Turkey was considered as the
country most likely to show differences from
both the US and other non-US countries.
Turkey has been the site of numerous terrorist
attacks, and the habituation of Turkish citizens
to terrorism should led to lower ratings of nov-
elty, surprise, importance and emotional feel-
ing states. The Turkish people also have a dif-
ferent cultural and religious background,
which is partly reflected in a lower level of
individualism (see above). This should also
result in lower emotional feeling states and
additionally in less frequent social sharing and
rumination. Moreover, Turkish people were
economically affected by US-dictated prohibi-
tions on trade with countries accused of help-
ing terrorist groups. Less positive attitudes
towards the US are thus expected. Finally, less
access to mass media due to Turkey’s lower
socio-economic status could contribute to
lower levels of rehearsal through the media, to
lower background knowledge and to poorer
memory for the attacks.
214
METHOD
Participants
A total of 3665 participants from nine
different countries participated in the study.
Participants resided in Belgium (n = 546),
France (n = 62), Italy (n = 296), Japan (n =
683), Romania (n = 716), Switzerland (n = 55),
The Netherlands (n = 348), Turkey (n = 191),
and the USA (n =768).
Measures
The measures used for the present study
were very close to the ones used by Finkenauer
et al. (1998) and by Curci et al. (2001). Only
substantial differences with the previous
version are reported here. See Finkenauer et al.
(1998) and Curci et al. (2001) for more details.
Memory for the reception context. Eight
items assessed recall of the circumstances in
which participants first learned about the
terrorist attacks. Questions were for instance
about the date (day, month, year), the day of
the week, (or the informant (TV, radio,
newspaper, another person). These questions
are similar to the ones used by previous
research (Bohannon, 1988; Brown & Kulik,
1977; Conway et al., 1994; Finkenauer et al.,
1998).
Novelty. Participants rated how (a)
common, (b) unusual, (c) special, (d) strange,
and (e) ordinary the event was for them.
Surprise. Participants rated to what extent
(a) they felt surprised, (b) the news was
expected and (c) unbelievable.
Importance/consequentiality. Participants
rated the extent to which the event was
important (a) for themselves, (b) for their
family and friends, (c) for their country, and
(d) the importance of the event at the
international level. Additionally, they rated to
extent to which the original event had
consequences for them.
Emotional feeling state. Participants rated
the extent to which they were upset by the
news. Additionally, they rated the impact of
 Hearing the News of the 9/11 Attacks
the news by assessing how much they felt (a)
shaken, (b) affected, and (c) indifferent.
Social sharing. Respondents described
(a) how many times they had discussed the
events, (b) how long after hearing the news
they first spoke about it, (c) with how many
people they had discussed the news.
Following the mass media. Participants
rated how often in the past three days they had
followed the news via (a) TV, (b) radio, (c)
newspapers, and (d) internet.
Rumination. Participants rated the
frequency over the last three days of thoughts,
memories or images related to the event.
Background knowledge. Participants
were assessed on 11 questions. Questions were
for instance about (a) the number of floors in
the Twin Towers or (b) the name of the
administrations located at the Pentagon.
Attitudes. Non-US respondents rated to
what extent they liked (a) the United States as
a country, and (b) United States citizens.
Memory for event-related facts. Memory
for the event was assessed by nine questions
concerning for instance (a) the number of
planes hijacked or (b) the time at which the
Pentagon was hit.
Procedure
Questionnaires were distributed among
university students, university faculty and
staff, and experimenters’ acquaintances one to
six weeks after the attacks
RESULTS
Measurement Issues and Structural Analyses
In order to aggregate each set of
indicators (memory for the reception context,
novelty, surprise, importance, emotional
feeling states, rehearsal, background
knowledge, attitudes, memory for event-
related facts) in single composite scores, the
SPSS CatPCA (Categorical Principal
Component Analysis) procedure was used.
CatPCA is an exploratory analysis aimed at
identifying the latent dimensions underlying a
set of categorical variables. Separate analyses
were run on each set of indicators, and, for
each set, the one-dimensionalsolution
wasconsidered.
In CatPCA, a respondent’s score on a
given indicator variable is weighted with re-
spect to the distribution of frequencies for that
indicator variable (Greenacre, 1993). Optimal
scores are computed. Optimal scores are stan-
dardized coefficients, and, comparable to ordi-
nary correlation coefficients, they may be posi-
tive or negative in conformity with the direc-
tion of the correlation of the corresponding
observed scores with the dimensional solution.
Optimal scores indicate the position of respon-
dents along a continuum represented by the
latent construct. A positive score indicates that
that respondent scored above the mean for the
whole sample on a given construct, a negative
score indicates that the respondent scores be-
low the mean. For example, a positive optimal
score on memory for event-related facts means
that this country had a better memory for the
event than a country who had a negative score.
Given the high number of statistical tests,
for both main effects and planned contrasts,
and in order to reduce the possibility of type I
errors, comparisons significant at p > .005
level were not considered.
Structural Analyses by Citizenship
First, the sample of US respondents was
split into three groups (West coast, Central
regions, East coast), to test whether location
within the US affected the results. One-way
ANOVAs were run on the CatPCA Optimal
Scores for US respondents, with location
(West coast vs. Central regions vs. East coast)
as the between subjects factor. Results showed
that the US sample was very homogeneous for
the vast majority of the variables investigated
and was considered as a whole .
Then, in order to compare responses from
US and non-US participants, a one-way
ANOVA was also run on the CatPCA optimal
scores for each set of indicators, with
citizenship (US vs. non-US respondents) as the
between-subjects factor, and elapsed time
between 9/11/01 and questionnaire completion
as a covariate (see table 1). All comparisons
215
O. Luminet, A. Curci, E. J. Marsh, I.Wessel, T. Constantin, F. Gencoz, and M. Yogo

Citizenship Raw scores

Composite variables F Effect M(US) M (non-US) M (SD)
(df) size (ES) (SD) (SD) (range)
Memory for the 12.72* .004 .080 -.017 10.46 (1.03)
reception context (1) (1, 3268) (1.120) (.988) (0-11)
Novelty 36.17* .010 .191 -.054 5.91 (1.03)
(1, 3432) (.922) (1.014) (1-7)
Surprise 47.16* .013 .219 -.060 5.98 (1.06)
(1, 3541) (.973) (.999) (1-7)
Importance 527.42* .128 .688 -.185 5.48 (1.03)
(1, 3605) (.812) (.965) (1-7)
Emotional feeling state 134.88* .043 .375 -.143 5.37 (1.29)
(1) (1, 3027) (.982) (.968) (1-7)
Social sharing (1) 110.63* .037 .114 -.047 3.48 (.68)
(1, 3203) (.999) (.994) (1-6)
Following the mass 47.87* .015 .115 -.038 2.10 (.73)
media (1) (1, 3182) (1.116) (.962) (1-5)
Background 199.29* .057 .323 -.087 4.62 (3.68)
knowledge about WTC (1, 3268) (.924) (1.012) (0-19)
and Pentagon (1)
Background 239.35* .068 .444 -.119 .60 (.84)
knowledge about (1, 3268) (1.070) (.943) (0-3)
terrorist acts (1)
Rumination (1) (2) 61.54* .019 2.98 2.90 2.93 (1.19)
(1, 3221) (1.23) (1.17) (1-5)
Memory for event- 517.01* .137 .498 -.165 11.73 (4.02)
related facts (1) (1, 3268) (.601) (1.056) (10-30)
* p < .001
(1) Results were controlled for delay from the event, significant at p < .001.
(2) Raw scores, with range 1-7.

Table 1. ANOVAs by citizenship (US vs. non-US) on the CatPCA Optimal Scores

were significant at .001 alpha level. Thus, US
respondents scored higher than non-US
respondents on all considered variables. The
largest effect sizes (> .10) were found for the
ratings of importance and memory for event-
related facts. Moderate effect sizes (< .10 but
above > .05) were found for the comparisons
on background knowledge about the WTC and
Pentagon and terrorist acts. Finally, low effect
sizes (< .05) were observed for all the other
variables (memory for the reception context,
novelty, surprise, emotional feeling state,
social sharing, following the mass media, and
rumination). The effect of the covariate
(elapsed time) was significant for all variables
except for novelty, surprise, and importance.
This means that the ratings of novelty,
surprise, and importance were not affected by
when the questionnaire was completed.
The next step in the analysis was to
consider differences among the non-US
respondents. One-way ANOVAs were run on
the CatPCA optimal scores, with citizenship
(French-speaking countries, Italy, Japan,
Romania, The Netherlands, Turkey) as the
between-subjects factor, and covaring the time
elapsed between 9/11/01 and the completion of
the questionnaire. Table 2 displays the results

216
 Hearing the News of the 9/11 Attacks

Citizenship
Composite F Effect M (French- M M M M (The Ne M
variables (df) size speaking (Italy) (Japan) (Romania) dherlands) (Turkey)
ES countries)(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
Memory for the 3.394* .006 .006 .002 -.041 -.119a .108 a .090
Reception Context (5, 2891) (.980) (1.262) (.944) (.924) (.987) (.512)
Novelty 19.86** .036 -.089a .044b .127a,c .002d -.212c,e -.644a,b,c,d,e
(5, 2663) (.960) (.843) (1.102) (.856) (1.159) (1.008)
Surprise (1) 16.69** .039 .076a .014b -.170a,c .150c,d -.216a,b,d -.516a,b,c,d
(5, 2437) (1.056) (1.003) (.944) (.986) (.959) (.758)
Importance (2) 10.36** .020 -.293a .141a,b -.138a,b -.148b -.309b -.232b
(5, 2484) (.906) (.890) (.973) (1.075) (.822) (.920)
Emotional feeling 114.70** .180 .128a .506a,b -.694a,b,c .172b,c,d -.110b,c,d,e -.653a,b,d,e
state (5, 2611) (.956) (.875) (.677) (1.024) (.897) (.693)
Social sharing (2) 23.40** .047 .230a .488a,b -.254a,b,c -.367a,b,d .371c,d,e -.560a,b,c,e
(5, 2473) (.828) (.880) (.957) (1.085) (.799) (.890)
Following the mass 11.89** .024 -.128a .225a,b .066a,c -.285b,c,d .276a,c,d,e -.250b,c,e
media (2) (5, 2450) (.915) (1.045) (.997) (.870) (1.056) (.645)
Rumination (2) (3) 24.56** .046 2.930a 3.402a,b 2.766b,c 2.606a,b,d 3.587a,c,d,e 2.410a,b,c,e
(5, 2520) (1.192) (1.040) (1.081) (1.133) (1.195) (.935)
Background
knowledge about 111.15** .161 .530a -.410a,b -.286a,c -.475a,c,d .293a,b,c,d,e -.210a,e
WTC and Pentagon (5, 2891) (.884) (.808) (1.092) (.842) (.870) (.917)
Background
knowledge on 50.85** .091 .264a -.471a,b -.335a,c -.351a,d .115b,c,d .427a,b,c,d
terrorist acts (2) (5, 2535) (1.088) (.792) (.831) (.823) (1.020) (.503)
Attitude 43.86** .072 -.175a .104a,b .132a,c .310a,c -.492a,b,c -.326b,c
(5, 2841) (.793) (1.006) (.954) (1.212) (.686) (.824)
Memory for event- 24.84** .047 .384a -.088a,b -.385a,b,c -.630a,b,c,d .365b,c,d,e -.075a,c,d,e
related facts (2) (5, 2535) (.720) (.980) (1. 230) (1.024) (.693) (.688)

* p < .005; ** p < .001. (1) Results were controlled for delay from the event, significant at p < .005, (2)
Results were controlled for delay from the event, significant at p < .001, (3) Raw scores, with range 1-7
Note: Means in a row sharing subscripts are significantly different at least at .005 alpha level. For each
composite variable, higher positive means indicate higher scores on that variable.

Table 2. ANOVAs by citizenship (non-US countries) on the CatPCA Optimal Scores

of these comparisons. All comparisons were
significant at .001 alpha level, except that
memory for the reception context was
significant at .005 alpha level. Overall, the
effect sizes for the comparisons were not high,
except for the ANOVAs on emotional feeling
states (.108), and background knowledge about
WTC and Pentagon (.161), thus indicating that
the differences among countries were strong
only for those variables. The effect of the
covariate (elapsed time) was found to be
significant for all variables except for memory
for the reception context, novelty, emotional
feeling states, background knowledge about
WTC and Pentagon, and attitudes. This means
that the ratings corresponding to these
constructs did not seem to depend on when the
questionnaire was completed.
A ceiling effect was expected for
memory for the reception context, novelty, and
surprise. On memory for the reception context,
the only difference was that Romanians scored
significantly lower than Dutch respondents,
but the effect size was extremely low (.006).
Large differences were only observed, as
expected, for Turkish people, who had the
lowest coefficients for novelty and surprise.
Italians rated the event as significantly more

217
O. Luminet, A. Curci, E. J. Marsh, I.Wessel, T. Constantin, F. Gencoz, and M. Yogo
important than participants from the other
countries. The lowest ratings of importance
were found for Dutch, French-speaking, and
Turkish respondents. As predicted, participants
from individualistic countries (French-
speaking countries, Italy, and The
Netherlands) scored higher than participants
from collectivistic countries (Japan and
Turkey) on emotional feeling states, social
sharing, and rumination – planned
comparisons were significant at .001 alpha
level. As for rehearsal through the mass media,
planned contrasts were consistent with the
expectation that Romanian and Turkish
respondents would have had the lowest access
to the media. As a consequence, Romanian and
Turkish respondents were also expected to
exhibit very low levels of background
knowledge about the WTC and Pentagon. This
prediction was confirmed through a planned
contrast, significant at .001 alpha level.
However, Italians also scored significantly low
on this variable. On the other hand, Turkish
participants showed the highest background
knowledge about terrorist acts compared to
participants from the other involved countries.
As expected, Turkish respondents exhibited
very low scores on attitudes towards the US.
However, the lowest scores were found for
Dutch respondents.
Finally, the planned contrasts confirmed
the prediction of low memory for event-related
facts for respondents from Turkey and
Romania. However, Japanese people also
showed significantly lower memory for event-
related facts compared to respondents from the
other involved countries.
DISCUSSION
Comparison between US and non-US
Countries
Confirming our predictions, only very
small differences emerged for the memory for
the reception context (the effect size was
below 1%). There was a ceiling effect across
the two samples, with response rate above 95%
in the US group and above 90% in the non-US
one. Both groups reported remembering most
218
of the details of how they heard the news. This
ceiling effect is similar to other studies
assessing immediate memory for the reception
context (e.g., Christianson & Engelberg, 1999;
Conway et al., 1994; Curci et al., 2001;
Pezdek, 2003; Schmolk et al., 2000; Wright,
1993).
We will now turn to the major aim of the
present study, i.e., examining group
differences in predictors of flashbulb
memories. Moderate and large differences will
be examined first, followed by small ones.
Three findings fall into the category of
moderate to large differences. First,
Americans rated the events as much more
important to them. More specifically,
Americans rated the events as having greater
national and personal importance than did non-
US respondents. US respondents were more
likely to have known someone killed or
injured, and the attacks involved more changes
in daily activities in the US than in any other
country. Finally, financial and political
consequences of the events were more
prevalent in the US (e.g., bankruptcies of
airline companies, the new priorities of the US
government towards military exercises and
expenses).
US respondents showed greater
background knowledge, on both relevant
composite scores. These differences can be
explained by different factors. Even prior to
the attacks, US respondents likely knew more
basic facts about the WTC and the Pentagon.
Such facts were also salient in media coverage,
as they were crucial for understanding event
implications (e.g., information about the
number of floors in the WTC was key to
understanding missing peoples’ fates). Item
effects support the hypothesis that people
learned some of these facts as events unfolded.
For example, people were much better at
listing the number of floors in the WTC (59%
correct) than its height (30-32%). These two
facts refer to the same thing: the size of the
building. However, media coverage framed
the planes’ points of impact in terms of floors,
not feet or meters. Interestingly, US vs. non-
US differences were larger for number of
 Hearing the News of the 9/11 Attacks
floors (72 vs. 55.5%) than for height of the
towers (33 vs. 23.7%). Again, Americans
were more likely to know people who worked
in the buildings (and knew their location in
terms of floors) and thus needed to rapidly
assess where these people were located in
relation to the critical floors. Finally, some
knowledge was likely learned after the events.
In particular, knowledge about terrorist acts
likely increased after the attacks. US citizens
were probably more motivated than non-US
ones to learn about such issues in the
aftermath of their national tragedy.
The largest difference between US and
non-US respondents was in memory for event-
related facts. US respondents found the events
more important, and had more background
knowledge - , two variables that the literature
suggests are antecedents of memory for event-
related facts (e.g., Finkenauer et al., 1998).
Higher event-memory could thus be the result
of a cumulative advantage of US respondents
for these antecedents.
Both groups assessed the events as very
novel and surprising. These results are
consistent with media labels of the 9/11 attacks
as distinctive and unpredictable. The
terrorists sent no explicit warnings, and no
events in particular suggested such an attack
was in the works. US and non-US groups also
rehearsed the event to a similar extent, again
pointing to the unique nature of the events.
Both groups also had similar emotional
reactions to the attacks. Although raw scores
for emotional feeling states were high, they did
not reach a ceiling level, as novelty and
surprise did. This can be explained by
variations within the items assessing the
emotional feeling states. While overall means
were slightly higher for US than for non- US
citizens, it is interesting to note that large
variations were observed across countries on
specific items.
Comparison between non-US Countries
Major differences were observed
across non-US countries for three variables
that have a direct or an indirect effect on the
formation of flashbulb memories: emotional
feeling states, attitudes and background
knowledge. Only very small differences were
observed, however, for memory for the
reception context, novelty, surprise, and
importance. For each of these variables, ceiling
levels were observed -- indicating that the 9/11
attacks had a major international impact that
was unaffected by economic and cultural
differences. For each country or group of
countries, we will now examine the relation of
the results to predictions.
As predicted, the group of Western
European countries (French-speaking
countries, Italy and The Netherlands) had high
scores on almost all the variables investigated.
For each of these groups, only one or two
predictions out of 12 were not confirmed (i.e.,
French-speaking respondents rated importance
as low, Italians showed low levels of
background knowledge and citizens of The
Netherlands found the events less important
than other Western Europeans and also had
less positive attitudes towards US). Thus, we
can conclude that, as expected, Western
European citizens were similar to Americans
in their reactions, although the intensity of
their reactions was sometimes lower.
Due to their lack of experience with
terrorism, and their cultural similarity,
Romanians was expected to react like Western
Europeans in their ratings of novelty, surprise
and emotional feeling states. These results
were confirmed. However, Romanians were
expected to differ from Western Europeans on
variables more directly related to their
economic status, such as following the media,
background knowledge and for the two types
of memories (event-related facts and reception
context). Again, these predictions were fully
supported. The only unexpected finding was
related to low levels of social sharing and
rumination. This finding may be due to the
delayed data collection in Romania ;
Romanians responded on average 30 days after
the attacks whereas Western Europeans
responded after 15 days. As these questions
specifically required assessment of behavior in
the past three days , it is not surprising that
reports were lower among Romanians.
219
O. Luminet, A. Curci, E. J. Marsh, I.Wessel, T. Constantin, F. Gencoz, and M. Yogo
Most predictions were confirmed for the
Japanese group. They responded similarly to
Western Europeans on variables related to
economic development (following the media
and attitudes). In contrast, Japanese
respondents reported lower levels of emotional
feeling states, social sharing, and rumination.
These results are consistent with findings
showing that collectivistic countries report less
intense immediate and long-term emotional
reactions (e.g., Basabe et al., 2000, 2002;
Fernandez et al., 2000). Unexpectedly,
however, Japanese respondents reported less
background knowledge and memory for event-
related facts. One explanation is that the
Japanese may have been less interested in the
9/11 events than citizens of other countries.
This hypothesis is supported by differences in
the mean level of “interest” in the news, which
respondents rated on a 7-point scale (from 1,
“not at all”, to 7, “very much”). The mean
level for Japanese respondents was only 4.77,
while all other respondents scored close to or
above 6.
Finally, as expected, Turkish respondents
displayed the most differences from the other
respondents Turkish respondents had
particularly low scores on novelty, surprise,
emotional feeling states, social sharing,
rumination, following the media, attitudes, and
background knowledge about the WTC and the
Pentagon. Smaller differences were observed
for memory for the reception context and
event-related facts. Overall, the pattern of
results can be explained by considering the
Turkish experience. That is, Turkey had a
number of terrorist attacks in the last few
years, and also a serious earthquake. In both
cases, many thousands were killed, likely
habituating Turkish citizens to such
catastrophes (and thus reducing their responses
to the 9/11 attacks). Turkey’s history of
terrorist attacks (and its geographical
proximity to many terrorist bases) likely
played a role in their high level of knowledge
about terrorist groups (M = 83.8% correct, as
compared to a sample mean of 31.6%).
Turkish respondents’ knowledge about
terrorism may have help them to encode and
220
assimilate the news about the attacks (see
Conway et al., 1994; Finkenauer et al., 1998),
leading to average levels observed for memory
for the reception-context and for memory for
event-related facts. Cultural and economic
differences help us to understand the other
differences. For example, the collectivistic
nature of the country might explain low scores
on emotional feeling states, social sharing and
rumination (e.g., Basabe et al., 2000, 2002;
Fernandez et al., 2000). Additionally, this
country shares a different religion and different
values as compared to Western countries,
which might have exacerbated differences.
Turkey is also less economically developed,
likely reducing media coverage of the events.
Turkey has also suffered economically from
US imposed prohibitions on trade with
countries accused of helping terrorist acts
immediately after the 9/11 attacks ; this likely
plays into the less positive attitudes held by the
Turkish respondents.
Limitations and Strengths of the Study
Studies of natural events are difficult to
do; the data must be collected soon after the
surprising event and thus there is little time to
plan what data are of interest and how they
should be obtained. Methodologically, the
biggest weakness in the current study was the
occurrence of a lag between when the event
occurred and when the data were collected,
and that this lag varied across countries.
However, by introducing elapsed time between
9/11/01 and questionnaire as a covariate, we
controlled for this difference in the analyses.
Methodologically, the strength of the study
was its use of a questionnaire validated by its
use in previous studies (Curci et al., 2001;
Finkenauer et al., 1998). One advantage of
this questionnaire is that it assesses each
predictor with multiple items. It thus allows for
computing composite scores, which are more
reliable than single items. In addition, in
comparison to previous studies investigating
memory for the reception context, the present
one has the advantage of assessing a larger set
of predictors. To our knowledge, no previous
study investigated 12 predictors
 Hearing the News of the 9/11 Attacks
simultaneously as we did in the present study.
Even fewer studies have examined group
differences on the different predictor variables.
For example, only few have examined group
differences in memory for event-related facts
(see Curci et al., 2001 for an exception). Such
differences can be critical as memory for
event-related facts is a direct predictor for
flashbulb memories (e.g., Finkenauer et al.,
1998).
The other major methodological strength
is of course the number and nature of the
comparison groups. While previous studies
usually involved only one or two comparison
groups (Brown & Kulik, 1977; Conway et al.,
1994; Curci et al., 2001), eight non-US
national groups were involved in the present
study. Also previous comparison studies
involved other national groups that were close
economically and culturally (e.g., UK vs. US
and Denmark for Conway et al., 1994; France
and Belgium for Curci et al., 2001). In the
present study, we had a first group of countries
economically and culturally close to the US
(French-speaking countries, Italy and The
Netherlands), one country culturally close but
economically different (Romania), one country
economically close but culturally different
(Japan), and one country with both large
cultural and economic differences (Turkey).
Another major improvement relates to the
nature of the event investigated. Previous
studies did not use events with high scores on
all the major predictors of the formation of
flashbulb memories. In contrast, our data
confirm that all predictors were high for
Americans remembering 9/11 . Almost all
American respondents had a vivid memory for
the circumstances in which they learned about
the news . Similarly, they were at ceiling level
in ratings of novelty and surprise, which is in
sharp contrast with previous studies
investigating the formation of flashbulb
memories (e.g., Christianson & Engleberg,
1999; Conway et al., 1994; Curci et al., 2001;
Pillemer, 1984). Third, many studies that have
examined the formation of flashbulb memories
were criticized for their lack of personal
relevance, with only national or international
importance reaching high levels (e.g., Conway,
1995), while personal importance has been
defined as the key feature (Brown and Kulik,
1977). In contrast to many other studies in
which personal importance was either low
(e.g., Schmolk et al., 2000; Wright, 1993) or
not assessed (e.g., Bohannon, 1988;
Christianson, 1989; McCloskey et al., 1988;
Neisser & Harsch, 1992; Neisser et al., 1996),
our subjects clearly rated the events of 9/11 as
personally important (Ms above 5 on scales
ranging from 1 to 7). Fourth, mean levels for
emotional reactions and rehearsal were
remarkably high, while some previous studies
failed to find high levels on these variables
(e.g., Conway et al., 1994; Pillemer, 1984).
Fifth, memory for event-related facts reached
high levels in the US sample. Out of 10
variables investigated, four had a correct
answer rate above 90% and seven were above
70%. In the US sample, background
knowledge was the only predictor for which
some ratings were low-- but the overall mean
level was still in the middle range. The present
event is thus unique as it is characterized by
high ratings on all the required characteristics
for the formation and maintenance of flashbulb
memories.
Finally, we wish to note an empirical
strength of the current study. A statistical
procedure called CatPCA was employed that
allowed a scoring system analogous to the
standard WAS procedure used by Neisser &
Harsch (1992) and Conway and his colleagues
(1994; 1995). This procedure assigns different
weights to the different attributes of the
reception context and, in general, to all
indicator variables in the questionnaire. The
procedure is aimed at creating composite
scores corresponding to the considered
theoretical constructs. Unlike the WAS
procedure, the weights assigned to the
indicator variables by CatPCA were not
decided a priori by the researcher, but came
from the empirical distributions of the
response categories for each indicator variable.
221
O. Luminet, A. Curci, E. J. Marsh, I.Wessel, T. Constantin, F. Gencoz, and M. Yogo
REFERENCES
Basabe, N., Paez, D., Valencia, J., Rimé, B.,
Pennebaker, J.W., Diener, E., &
Gonzalez, J. L. (2000). Sociocultural
factors predicting subjective experience
of emotion: A collective level analysis.
Psicothema, 12, 55-69.
Basabe, N., Paez, D., Valencia, J., Gonzalez, J.
L., Rimé, B., & Diener, E. (2002).
Cultural dimensions, socioeconomic
development, climate, and emotional
hedonic level. Cognition and Emotion,
16, 103-125.
Bohannon, J. N., III (1988). Flashbulb
memories for the space shuttle disaster: A
tale of two theories. Cognition, 29, 179-
196.
Bohannon, J. N. & Symons, V. L. (1992).
Flashbulb memories: Confidence,
consistency, and quality. In E. Winograd
& U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and Accuracy
in Recall. Studies of “flashbulb
memories” (pp. 65-91). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb
memories. Cognition, 5, 73-99.
Christianson, S-Å. (1989). Flashbulb
memories: Special, but not so special.
Memory and Cognition, 17, 435-443.
Christianson, S- Å, & Engelberg, E. (1999).
Memory and emotional consistency: The
MS Estonia ferry disaster. Memory, 7,
471-482.
Conway, M. A. (1995). Flashbulb memories.
Hove: Erlbaum.
Conway, M. A. (2002). Testing the flashbulb
memory hypothesis. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Bristol, UK.
Conway, M. A., Anderson, S. J., Larsen, S. F.,
Donnelly, C. M., McDaniel, M. A.,
McClelland, A. G. R., Rawles, R. E., &
Logie, R. H. (1994). The formation of
flashbulb memories. Memory and
Cognition, 22, 326-343.
Curci, A., Luminet, O., Finkenauer, C., &
Gisle, L. (2001). Flashbulb memories in
social groups: A comparative test-retest
study of the memory of French President
222
Mitterand’s death in a French and a
Belgian group. Memory, 9, 81-101.
Fernandez, I., Carrera, P., Sanchez, F., Paez,
D., & Candia, L. (2000). Differences
between cultures in emotional verbal and
non-verbal reactions. Psicothema, 12, 83-
92.
Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Gisle, L., El-
Ahmadi, A., Van Der Linden, M., &
Philippot, P. (1998). Flashbulb memories
and the underlying mechanisms of their
formation: Toward an emotional-
integrative model. Memory and
Cognition, 26, 516-531.
Greenacre, M. J. (1993). Correspondence
analysis in practice. London: Academic
Press.
McCloskey, M., Wible, C. G. & Cohen, N. J.
(1988). Is the a special flashbulb-memory
mechanism? Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 117, 171-181.
Neisser, U. (1982). Snapshots or benchmaks?
In U. Neisser (Ed.), Memory observed
(pp. 43-48). San Francisco: Freeman.
Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom
flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing
the news about Challenger. In E.
Winograd & U. Neisser (Eds.) Affect and
accuracy in recall: Studies of ‘flashbulb’
memories (pp. 9-31). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Neisser, U., Winograd, E., Bergman, E. T.,
Schreiber, C. A., Palmer, S. E., &
Weldon, M. S. (1996). Remembering the
earthquake: Direct experience vs. hearing
the news. Memory, 4, 337-357.
Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1987).
Towards a cognitive theory of emotion.
Cognition and Emotion, 1, 29-50.
Pezdek, K. (2003). Memory for the events of
September 11, 2001. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Flashbulb memories of
the assassination attempt on President
Reagan. Cognition, 16, 63-80.
Rubin, D. C. & Kozin, M. (1984). Vivid
memories. Cognition, 16, 81-95.
Schmolck, H., Buffalo, E. A., & Squire, L. R.
(2000). Memory distortions develop over
 Hearing the News of the 9/11 Attacks

time: Recollections of the O. J. Simpson

trial verdict after 15 and 32 months.
Psychological Science, 11, 39-45.
Tulving, E., & Kroll, N. (1995). Novelty
assessment in the brain and long-term
memory encoding. Psychonomic Bulletin
and Review, 2, 387-390.
Wright, D. B. (1993). Recall of the
Hillsborough disaster over time:
Systematic biases of ‘flashbulb’
memories. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 7, 129-138.

223