This paper reviews research findings on the effects of a variety of natural andman-made disasters on those directly and indirectly involved as well as recent studiesof the effects of 9/11 on the general public and members of organizations (Fernando,2002; Pyszcynski et al., 2003). In addition, the emergence of a small number oflongitudinal case studies of organizations directly affected by the attacks on the WorldTrade Center (WTC), offers some insights on the ingredients that helped thoseorganizations bounce back. This is timely as this manuscript was being revisedfollowing the tsunami disaster in South East Asia. disasters included a 12,000 acre forest fire (Benight, 2004), the Oklahoma City bombing(Benight et al., 2000; Pfefferbaum et al., 2000; Sprang, 1999, 2000, 2001), the accident atThree Mile Island (Collins et al., 1983), responses of Israeli children to SCUD missileattacks in the Persian Gulf War, (Weisenberg et al., 1993), response to a terroristhijacking (Kleinman, 1989), responses of children to the Northridge Californiaearthquake (Asarada et al., 1999), and responses of injured survivors of a terroristattack (Shalev, 1992).Fischer (2002), found the disaster research model of behavioral response to disasterfit events following 9/11. These include: fear (but not panic), of survivors, altruismfrom other citizens, shock and psychological dependence, live broadcast coverage bymedia, local decision making, a reduction in crime and an overestimate of damage,injury and death toll.The events of 9/11 represented one of the greatest crises in American history. Thecombined attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the crash of Flight93 had a dramatic social-psychological impact on the American people. Their sense ofcomplacency and invulnerability had been damaged.A survey of 407 psychologists reported that about half of a sample of

their clientsbrought up the terrorist attacks during the selected counseling session. More than 20percent of clients mentioned specific trauma or anxiety reactions associated with theevents of 9/11. In addition, focus groups conducted in October and November following9/11 found the attack caused fear, stress, anxiety and frustration and caused people tolook inward and re-assess their lives (Daw, 2002a, b).Peterson and Seligman (reported in Chamberlin, 2002), compared on-line e-surveyresponses to a questionnaire from individuals completing it before 9/11 and otherscompleting it between September 12 and November 30 and found significant increasesin six of 24 character strengths or virtues (love, gratitude, hope, kindness, spiritualityand teamwork). These changes reflect what is now more important suggest that otherpeople rose in importance (see Salgado, 2002, for a description of how she changed afterwitnessing the WTC attack).The American public did not respond with panic but instead with effective andadaptive action. Panic was prevented by providing timely and accurate informationand instructions so the public could make timely decisions. New heroes emerged,ordinary people, volunteers who made sacrifices for the well-being of others.Six months following 9/11, Americans seem to be getting back to "normal", the waythings were on September 10 (Silver et al., 2002). In the months following 9/11, the USAwas a wounded nation, having suffered the largest attack ever on its soil. In response,the USA developed a common project and a higher cause. But the USA continues to bea potential terrorist target. US citizens have generally rallied around President Bushand he has performed in ways that have exceeded the modest expectations manypeople had for him. Americans now have a higher opinion of how government can helpthan they had in previous decades. An

increasing number of Americans have alsoinvested in family, neighbors and community. Many Americans are now more tolerantof bad news. But these increases may only be short lived (Galea et al., 2002).Liverant et al. (2004) studied anxiety responses and reactions to 9/11 among asample of indirectly affected college students living in Boston. Anxiety was measured two and four months following 9/11 as was coping methods. About 20 percent of thefirst sample knew someone killed or injured in the 9/11 attacks:. 44 percent saw the world less safe after 9/11;. 60 percent thought another attack was likely;. 83 percent thought war was likely in the future;. 68 percent reported being severely affected by 9/11;. 67 percent felt severe anger about the attacks; and. 19 percent changed their routine or travel plans as a result of 9/11.They reported a significant decrease in anxiety over the two-month period. Those witha personal knowledge of a victim reported higher levels of anxiety. Some copingresponses (avoidance coping - denial, mental disengagement, behavioraldisengagement), were associated with higher anxiety levels.Schuster et al., (2001), collected data within five days of 9/11 and reported that90 percent of Americans indicated one or more distress symptoms to some degree and44 percent indicated one or more stress symptoms to a considerable degree. A studyconducted in the two weeks following 9/11 by Smith et al. (2001), reported that50 percent of Americans reported feeling very nervous and tense following the tragedy,46 percent reported feeling dazed and 50 percent reported having trouble sleeping.Galea et al. examined reactions to 9/11 among people in New York City directly andindirectly affected; 80 percent indicated post-traumatic stress disorder, and 10 percentdepression five to eight weeks following 9/11. Silver et al. (2002), reported that17 percent

of the US population outside NYC indicated post-traumatic stress disordersymptoms two months after 9/11, with six percent reporting these symptoms 6 monthsafter 9/11. Taken together these studies show that stress reactions to 9/11 were presentin a substantial number of people indirectly exposed to the terrorist attack.Olivas-Lujan et al. (2004), considered the impact of 9/11 on cultural values and levelsof cosmopolitanism of US university students. Data were collected before 9/11 (April11), and in December and March, April 2002. They report increases in authoritarianismand hierarchy/power distance and decreases in cosmopolitanism. In addition, studentsplaced a lower value on variety, adventure and challenge and a higher value onsecurity and stability in their ideal job following graduation.Esses et al. (2002) found that attitudes toward immigration in the USA and Canadabecame more negative following 9/11. Threats to a group are often associated within-group favoritism and out-group bashing. This produced an increasingly sharedsocial identity, higher authoritarianism and increased stereotyping of the out-groups.This was also reflected in a tightening at point of country entry, attacks onArab-Americans, Sikhs and Muslims. Stereotyping increases - all members of theoutgroups are now alike.Smith et al. (2001) report, based on a random telephone survey of 2,126 US residents,that national pride, confidence in institutions, and faith in people and human naturehad all increased - support for and confidence in both the military and governmentwas very high. These data were collected between September 13 and 27. Citizenparticipation in civic (charitable actions), increased. Positive feelings seemed to not be affected (psychological well-being), by 9/11, but New Yorkers showed more negativeemotion.In 2002, Rasinski et al. (2002), reinterviewed the initial

respondents. The secondwave data was collected three to five months following 9/11. Pride in the countrycontinued to remain high; pride by New Yorkers was lower than the national average.Confidence in insititutions dropped to levels approaching pre 9/11. Respondent angerdeclined, levels of positive emotion remained the same while levels of negative emotiondropped. Psychological well-being improved over time. Poe (2001), and Schlenger et al.(2002), also reported increases in psychosomatic symptoms (depression, anxiety),following 9/11, but over time these reactions lessened.There is evidence that individual coping efforts moderate the effects of naturaldisasters on individual well-being (Baum and Schneiderman, 1999; Freedy et al., 1992),as does social or communal support (Kaniasty and Norris, 2004; Murphy, 1987; Norrisand Kanasty, 1996).Wrzesniewski (2002), reported an increase in people changing jobs or occupationsfollowing the WTC disaster in their search for greater meaning in their work. Thedisaster became a catalyst for an examination of what their work was contributing tothe wider world.Impact on organizations and human resources managementNot surprisingly, 9/11 had significant effects on organizations, employees and theoverall economy (Alavosius et al., 2002). Aon Consulting conducts research onemployee attitudes in the USA on a regular basis (Aon Consulting, 2001). Theirsurveys have two broad objectives: examining the commitment of employees to theircurrent employer and identifying what employers are doing to heighten commitment.They undertook a planned survey in February 2001, but following the events of 9/11decided to collect new data in October 2001 (Aon Consulting, 2001). This time period(2001), also coincided with a slowing American economy. They found that employeeresponses had generally not changed significantly. Some exceptions were

observedhowever.