The Effects of 9/11 on Fear & Prejudice in Staten Island College Students Natalie Tousson, Lindsey Engelson, Katie Lark, Danielle Palladino Professor B. Polnariev, College of Staten Island INTRODUCTION: September 11, 2001 was one date that affected a whole nation. It was the day that the World Trade Center crumbled and New York City was forever changed. Every New Yorker has a story, each one remembers the day the towers fell. They remember those they lost and know that their lives would never be the same. Some were afraid to step on an airplane, and some blamed an entire culture for the crimes of a few. Our experiment focuses on the affects of fear and prejudice on September 11, 2001 on Staten Island psychology college students in comparison to a similar study conducted in the Bronx. We present a study of the effects of September 11, 2001 on fear and prejudice among Staten Island college students in comparison to a similar study of students in a Jesuit university in the Bronx. Studies have shown an increase in insecurity and discrimination in post-9/11 New York. Our survey consists of two parts: one covering the issue of fear and insecurity post-9/11 and the other covering the prejudice formed as a result of the attacks. We find no correlation between individual experience, fear, and prejudice in Staten Island college students. In comparison to the Bronx college students, Staten Island college students show an equal or smaller amount of fear as a result of September 11, 2001 but show a greater effect in their attitudes towards Arabic speaking people. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted our experiment by presenting a survey to 90 psychology students in a Staten Island college. We did this in order to obtain similar conditions to the Sherron study, which we are comparing our experiment with. They presented their survey to 90 psychology students in a Bronx college. We incorporated questions from the Sherrod survey that referred to fear and prejudice into our own, and we also included additional questions. We added a disclaimer to our survey stating its purpose and the fact that the survey was completely anonymous and voluntary. We recorded the data received from the surveys, including demographic information. REFERENCES: (1) List September 11 Victims by State/Jurisdiction Website: (2) Sherrod, Lonnie R., Youth's Political Views and Their Experience of September 11, This article is from the Journal of Developmental Psychology, Volume 25, Issue 2, March-April 2004, Pages CONCLUSIONS: Staten Island vs.. The Bronx, A Comparative Look Staten Island suffered nearly three times as many victims as in the Bronx. Staten Island lost 77 rescue workers and 117 victims totaling 194 total casualties. The Bronx lost 11 rescue workers and 57 victims totaling 68 total casualties. Taking into account that our survey was conducted three years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001 and Lonnie R. Sherrod conducted his six weeks after the attacks, results may vary. We hypothesized that considering the substantial difference in casualties from the two boroughs, Staten Island college students would be more susceptible to prejudice and fear than college students in the Bronx. Of the students surveyed, 0% lost a loved one in the Bronx and 5.625% lost a loved one in Staten Island, totaling 16 students. This would further the beliefs of our hypothesis in that Staten Island students should display more signs of fear and/or prejudice than students in the Bronx. In order to compare the question of whether the event affected their sense of safety, we altered Sherrod’s scale of 1-9 to be equivalent to “yes” or “no” to concur with ours. We did this by assigning answers of 1- 5 to “no” and 6-9 “yes”. In Sherrod’s study we found that 90% had felt it altered their sense of safety compared to 58.88% in our study. When asked if September 11, 2001 affected their comfort with flying on airplanes, 77.8% of Bronx college students said yes in comparison to 48.88% of Staten Island college students. 54% of the students from Sherrod’s study felt that the attacks interfered with their daily lives where as only 27.77% of the students from our study felt that it interfered with their daily lives. When we asked if the attacks affected their appreciation for their loved ones, we asked this question with a rating of 1-5 (1 meaning not at all), so we will use 1 as “no” and 2-5 as “yes”. Even if their answer was a “2” or greater, their appreciation for their loved ones increased (even if it was only slightly). In Sherrod’s study, 95.5% believed that it had affected their appreciation, in contrast to ours where only 14.44% said that it had. Another question that was posed asked how concerned the students were that the attacks would lead to prejudice towards Arab-speaking people. In Sherrod’s study, “about 83%” were concerned that it could affect prejudice to Arabs. Although our experiment broke this question down onto a scale of 1-5, we can interpret 1 as being “not at all” or “no”, and 2-5 as being “yes” (even if they answered 2 they are still considered slightly concerned). We found that 87% of those surveyed in Staten Island were concerned. When asked the question of whether it had affected their own attitudes towards Arabic, the majority of Bronx college students said “no” and 65.55% of Staten Island college students said “yes”. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We would like to thank Professor Lonnie R. Sherrod and Professor B. Polnariev for his guidance. CORRELATION: In order to analyze correlations between such abstract concepts as fear, prejudice, and experience of the day it was necessary to formulate a numerical system of comparison that could be applied to each individual surveyed. We chose two survey questions for each category addressed (experience, prejudice, and fear) that we thought best analyzed the intensities of their respective component. These were then weighted and ranked to form a four-point scale that was used to measure the experience, fearfulness, and prejudice of each individual. We call these number rankings “factors”. After assigning each individual a Pf, Ef, and Ff, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient was found to determine what type of relationships there were among these three components. Pearson Correlation Coefficients: Ef: Ff = Ef: Pf = Ff: Pf = As observed in our sample group, there was no correlation between any of the components tested. We expected a greater correlation between fearfulness and prejudice than the one we observed. A larger sample population may be needed to determine whether fearfulness and prejudice go hand and hand. The experience component of our survey turned out to be slightly problematic in that the Ef for the majority of the sample group was the same value. This was because the majority of the people surveyed had the same “experience” according to the way they answered our questions. This lack of variation may, in part, account for the low Pearson coefficient for the Ef: Pf and Ef: Ff.