I feel like I've read other studies that confirm this. After disasters, it's OK not to talk about it. In fact, often it's better not to talk about it. The idea that keeping something "bottled up inside" is always bad is just stupid. However, our therapeutic culture has decided that talking about things -- anything -- is always better than not talking about it. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I think it makes sense that not reliving a bad experience can be healthy.

I had a loss that spiraled into a mild depression because I kept going over and over it in my mind. My family got tired of hearing about it so it was just me and the loss, which in retrospect was pretty trivial.

So I can believe that not letting yourself get into the rut of re-living something unpleasant is healthy. There would be less need to "move beyond" if you do it right off.

That's not to say that for some people re-counting a traumatic experience might not help them. You have to wonder if professionals, who make a living listening to traumatic experiences might not think that recounting them is normal -- when in actuality the bulk of folks, who they never encounter, do just as well to move on immediately.

This is so true. My daughter was 8 on 9/11. Her school insisted that the kids needed grief counseling and forced them to have what was essentially group therapy sessions. It was terrible for her and several others in the class. On the 11th of every month for the rest of the school year, they would have a memorial service and another group session. I finally put my foot down and said that they either excuse her from it or she would be absent on those days.

Now, at 15, when she needs to deal with something traumatic (the loss of a close friend at 12), I give her time and let her know that I am there if she needs me. She is an amazingly healthy child for it.

My son is just the opposite. He needs to talk about things. That's ok too!

RoseG and Maryland, I think you've both hit the nail on the head. Repeatedly talking about it, raising the issue, especially with children, can in fact cause the psychological trauma to be worse than it actually is. I mean, let's face it: There's no reason for children to be continually reliving 9/11. It does them no good.

In fact, the very basis for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the repeated thinking and traumatization of what has happened. Distance between you and the even is often the most important thing you need before you can talk about it.

Did the people who did not respond to the survey share their feelings in another manner? Perhaps with a friend or family member?

It's not clear from the post whether they did not share their feelings about 9/11 at all, or only that they opted not to share their feelings with the researchers. Without knowing that piece of information, it's hard to say whether they did not want to share, or only that they did not want to share in that manner. If it's the latter, than noting that the people who did not respond ended up healthier might not be related to the fact that did NOT share, but could instead be related to the fact that they had better support systems in place to share with (friends or family) in a more personal manner that helped them deal with the trauma.

Any more insight?

That sounds like a pretty biased/poor study design with people self selecting into treatment and control groups. I have a hard time putting much faith in the findings of this study as it is described.

To anyone who looks for real answers - not simple-minded, media-generated, hyped-up means of addressing a situation, the results of this study are not surprising.

People who want actual answers -- not a bunch of media hype are better off turning to actual scientific studies.

Since the late 1990's, scientific research has shown that the best way to address issues related to trauma and post traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] is cognitive therapy. The results from cognitive therapy are relatively quick, yet they are the most long-lasting and satisfying for the client.

Just because a study gets media attention does not mean that it says something new; also, it is important for each individual to work with a competent therapist to fully understand their specific trauma issues.

Agree with poster above. This study should not even be reported. The design is too severely flawed. The only truly reliable model in this situation would be a double blinded one in which the participants for the treatment arm were selected randomly. By allowing those who received intervention to self select, the researchers may well have chosen those people who had paid the closest attention/had loved ones in New York/already suffered from mental illness/were vulnerable for other reasons. In this case, the finding would be spurious.

Also, not everyone in the US reacted to 9/11 in the same way, as we have seen from the political comments of some groups. Was there a standardized evaluation of how great the initial impact of 9/11 was in each participant? Did the researchers allow for those who might have applauded the attacks on ideological grounds?

This article shows how important it is to consider study methodology. I am not sure what the purpose of this project was---unless an HMO was trying to justify denying therapy benefits to those who have suffered trauma, which can not be equated to seeing something traumatic in the news.

I am a therapist specializing in trauma. The truth is that trauma recovery is complicated and individual. Some people need to talk about it right away. Some cannot talk about it. Some are able to process their feelings through conversation and then move forward, for others the conversations are a trigger.

Maryland; Your daughters school was well meaning but horribly misinformed. Asking children to grieve like that may relieve some, but will keep others stuck in that moment forever.
Real trauma recovery work involves discussing how the trauma is affecting you TODAY and moving forward from there. It is not about talking about the event over and over again. And no one should EVER try to force a trauma survivor to talk about anything that they do not want to. I treat many people who never tell me the nitty gritty of their trauma. Frankly, I dont need to know. However, some must talk to feel better, and that is ok too.

This is related to other research that debunks debriefing. In some cases, debriefing is extremely helpful. It can allow a person to connect with other survivors and put their trauma into a logical context. However, it hurts many others that are not ready, or able, to discuss what happened to them. I repeat, trauma recovery is very individual.

If you are a survivor just remember that it is all in your control. If any therapist (or well meaning loved one) makes you feel pressured to talk about something that you dont want to, dont.

It's worth noting that the survey was conducted nationally with people who were already doing an internet survey series--NOT exclusively with survivors of the 9/11 tragedies themselves. So this data is useful for how people *tangential* to a traumatic experience, who observe it and are outside of it, can be helped. It tells us very little about what to do for people who have actually experienced life-threatening tragedies.