There seems no end to the occurrence and impact of disaster. Hurricanes Helen and Milton, which struck the U.S. in September and October 2024, were the most destructive disasters of 2024. The New Year’s earthquake in Japan claimed the lives of 213 and in the first month of 2025, ongoing wildfires in Southern California have attacked 4,753 miles, killing 11 people and impacting millions of people.
Enabled by ever-expanding technology, people across miles, cultures, religions, races, and economies witness the unfolding of unspeakable events. While disaster of this proportion calls forth a universal sense of horror and concern, it is valuable to understand differences in reactions and strategies for coping.
Why Do People Respond Differently?
While traumatologists indicate that the characteristics of an event—be it man-made or natural disaster, time-limited or prolonged, life threatening or catastrophic—mediate the impact of a traumatic event on people, they hold that the most crucial factor in determining a person’s response to a disaster is the personal meaning of the event to those suffering.
The Subjective Meaning of an Event
Trauma research suggests it is the subjective interpretation of an event that most often determines whether that event is traumatic to a person (Creamer, McFarlane & Burgess, 2005). What a person thinks about the event—including why it happened and what could have been done differently—affects the response to trauma. If people perceive an event as unavoidable, there is less anger added to anguish. If they believe a fire or earthquake is punishment from God as opposed to a devastating natural occurrence, their reaction will be quite different.
Adding to these differences, there are a number of parameters that further impact the response to disaster:
Parameters
Proximity plays a part in the meaning of the event for a person and increases the likelihood of a person’s traumatic stress response.
- Proximity can include actual geographical proximity as experienced in Florida, Japan or California. The reality is that a person may not only be facing a life-threatening situation but the physical and emotional loss of their life as it was known and lived.
- Proximity can mean emotional proximity such that although not geographically in the disaster zone, one’s child or loved one is there, has been killed there, or is missing.
- Proximity can mean media proximity such that there is a bombardment of repeated scenes and information that one is unable to moderate because the person is not in control of the information flow (elderly or children) or there is an inability to “stop viewing” driven by and escalating the sympathetic arousal associated with stress.
History
- The personal interpretation and impact of a traumatic event is also influenced by a person’s history. Viewing from miles away, there are some who will witness the horror and try to mediate their reaction with the thought that “it could never happen here.”
- There are some standing not far from them who will read about and view the same traumatic event and resonate with an emotional and physical experience of trauma because for them -“It has already happened.”
- Regardless of the nature of the trauma, Bessel Van der Kolk suggests that once we have experienced a traumatic event for which our body has had a persistent traumatic response “our body keeps score.” In the face of an unspeakable event, a very sensitive neurophysiological smoke detector goes off in our brain and sets in motion the brain and body’s reactions to stress. It may not persist, but we know that place and that feeling.
- Henry Krystal tells us that often in the face of trauma, “the distortion of memory is that if one could not stop the atrocities, rescue and comfort the victims, one is responsible for their pain.” This is often part of the pain suffered by first responders and caregivers.
- Psychologist Robert Stolorow trying to make sense of the sudden death of a young wife, suggests that we react differently after we have experienced a personally traumatic event because its shatters the absolutisms of our existence—the belief that we are safe, that life is predictable, that those we love will be there. He suggests that trauma is a catastrophic loss of innocence that permanently alters our sense of being in the world. Importantly, sometimes that loss of innocence gives us the way and words to help others.
- Déjà vu: For some, miles and years collapse as they witness an event painfully similar to a traumatic event they themselves have suffered. The catastrophe they are witnessing on the screen triggers a re-experience of their own pain as well as an opportunity for compassion and understanding.
Connection
Reduction of Isolation: In face of the unthinkable, people are left feeling isolated from self and other. Ørner and Schnyder (2003) studying early intervention after trauma across cultures, recommend that after satisfaction of primary needs of safety, shelter and nourishment—what is most important in reducing the impact of trauma is helping survivors draw upon and connect with natural networks of support.
Emotional Bonds With Children: Be they toddlers or teens, children need the close connection of family as the first-line resource for helping them to feel safe and to make sense of what is happening. Staying connected with them, inviting their help or offering them opportunities to restore a sense of family, fosters resilience and lowers panic and anxiety. Physical touch makes a difference. Whether being held as a little one or hugged as a teen, the child who feels held—feels less traumatized.
Sharing and Listening: Narrating Healing is the process of sharing. It is valuable to both the one sharing and the listener. Both play crucial roles in restoring a sense of what still exists, of feeling alive and understood. We understand that traumatic events destroy our story and impose unthinkable loss of connections. Many benefit from joining natural or planned groups to share and to be heard, to validate and bear witness. Some go only to listen. They don’t have the words for what they have seen or faced, but on hearing others, they begin to feel restored. As Cathy Caruth ( 2014) underscores—an act of listening in the aftermath of catastrophe enables an encounter with another person and a reconnection to self.
Finding a Dwelling Place: Stolorow (2015) underscores the need for connection by describing what he considers the need for a dwelling place for the trauma in the company of others with whom to find the words for the unthinkable.
Altruism
Given that helplessness, fear and a sense of isolation are inherent in the assault of trauma and disaster, the step toward helping another is a gift that keeps on giving.
In the aftermath of trauma, the impact and painful memories are often tempered and even overshadowed by the help received and the gift of passing it forward.
