This article was downloaded by: [University of Oslo]On: 07 April 2015, At: 03:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gasc20

Perception of threat and safety at workamong employees in the Norwegianministries after the 2011 Oslo bombingAlexander Nissena, Morten Birkeland Nielsenbc, Øivind Solberga,Marianne Bang Hansena & Trond Heirad

a Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Pb181 Nydalen, 0409 Oslo, Norwayb Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen,Bergen, Norwayc National Institute of Occupational Health, Pb 8149 Dep, 0033Oslo, Norwayd Department of Psychiatry, University of Oslo, Oslo, NorwayAccepted author version posted online: 23 Jan 2015.Publishedonline: 27 Feb 2015.

To cite this article: Alexander Nissen, Morten Birkeland Nielsen, Øivind Solberg, Marianne BangHansen & Trond Heir (2015): Perception of threat and safety at work among employees in theNorwegian ministries after the 2011 Oslo bombing, Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: An InternationalJournal, DOI: 10.1080/10615806.2015.1009831

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2015.1009831

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

Perception of threat and safety at work among employees in theNorwegian ministries after the 2011 Oslo bombing

Alexander Nissena*, Morten Birkeland Nielsenb,c, Øivind Solberga,Marianne Bang Hansena and Trond Heira,d

aNorwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Pb 181 Nydalen, 0409 Oslo,Norway; bDepartment of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; cNationalInstitute of Occupational Health, Pb 8149 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway; dDepartment of Psychiatry,

University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

(Received 7 August 2013; accepted 23 December 2014)

Background and objectives: Terrorism can heighten fears and undermine the feelingof safety. Little is known, however, about the factors that influence threat and safetyperception after terrorism. The aim of the present study was to explore how proximityto terror and posttraumatic stress reactions are associated with perceived threat andsafety after a workplace terrorist attack. Design and methods: A cross-sectionalquestionnaire survey was administered to employees in 14 of 17 Norwegian ministries9–10 months after the 2011 bombing of the government headquarters in Oslo(n = 3520). Results: About 198 of 1881 employees completing the survey were atwork when the bomb exploded. Regression analysis showed that this high-exposedgroup had elevated perceived threat (β = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.53) and reducedperceived safety (β = −0.42; 95% CI = −0.62 to −0.23) compared to a reference groupof employees not at work. After adjusting for posttraumatic stress reactions, however,proximity to the explosion no longer mattered, whereas posttraumatic stress wasassociated with both high perceived threat (β = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.63) and lowperceived safety (β = −0.71; 95% CI, −0.80 to −0.63). Conclusion: Terror-exposedemployees feel more threatened and less safe after a workplace terrorist attack, andthis is closely linked to elevated levels of posttraumatic stress reactions.

Keywords: terror; trauma; exposure; workplace; threat and safety perception;posttraumatic stress

Introduction

Common psychological consequences of terrorism include exaggerated fears of futureterrorist acts and a decreased feeling of safety (Marshall et al., 2007). Research done inthe aftermath of the 2001 September 11 attacks in the USA has shown that a highpercentage of the population in New York as well as of the American population ingeneral were fearful of future attacks and worried about their own and their families’safety (Boscarino, Adams, Figley, Galea, & Foa, 2006; Silver, Holman, McIntosh, Poulin,& Gil-Rivas, 2002). Similar results were found in studies following the 2005 Londonbombings (Rubin et al., 2007; Rubin, Brewin, Greenberg, Simpson, & Wessely, 2005).Less is known about the perception of threat and safety at work among employees whose

*Corresponding author. Email: a.f.w.nissen@nkvts.unirand.no

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2015.1009831

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

workplace has been the direct target of a terrorist attack (North et al., 2010), and howtraumatic experiences affect these perceptions. This is despite the fact that terrorist actsoften target workplaces and work-related activities (Schouten, Callahan, & Bryant, 2004).

We have only found two studies looking at the relationship between workplace terrorexposure and safety perception, both done on Pentagon staff members after the 9/11attacks (Grieger, Fullerton, & Ursano, 2003; Grieger et al., 2004). In one of these studies,a relationship was found between exposure and subsequent perception of safety at work,with higher exposure being associated with a lower feeling of safety (Grieger et al.,2004). This association was not apparent in the other study, which may be due to thedifferent timeframes of the two studies.

We have not been able to find any study looking at perceived threat and terror exposurein connection to workplace terrorism. However, threat perception and terror exposure havebeen explored in settings where study participants were not directly targeted at theirworkplace. One study on victims of a shopping mall terrorist attack in Israel found thatexposure during the attack was linked to elevated perceived threat, but only for individualswho had developed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Kutz & Dekel, 2006).

There is limited amount of research on the role played by posttraumatic stress reactionsin terms of perceived threat and safety after terrorism, and especially after terrorism at theworkplace. Work-related PTSD has been documented in several occupational groups witha high level of trauma exposure through work, as well as among workers who have beenthe victims of occupational accidents (Skogstad et al., 2013). The above-mentioned studieson Pentagon staff members both showed an association between PTSD and safetyperception at work, with individuals with probable PTSD reporting lower perceived safety.Neither study looked at threat perception at work in relation to PTSD. However, one studyconducted on a sample of hospital workers after the Washington D.C. sniper attack showedthat acute stress disorder was associated with an elevated general threat perception(Grieger, Fullerton, Ursano, & Reeves, 2003). Another study found current PTSD topredict high fear of future terrorism two years after the 9/11 attacks among citizens wholived in New York at the time of the attacks (Boscarino et al., 2006).

Different theoretical models may be used when trying to explain the observedrelationship between posttraumatic stress reactions and the perception of threat and safety.One approach is to hypothesize that the symptoms of PTSD – and in particular thehypervigilance component of hyperarousal – result in cognitive distortions, which thencause an elevated sense of threat and a reduced sense of safety. Alternatively, someauthors have suggested that negative appraisals of a trauma and disturbances ofautobiographical memory lead to an elevated sense of serious current threat which,once activated, is accompanied by the other PTSD symptoms of re-experiencing,avoidance and hyperarousal (Ehlers & Clark, 2000).

The 2011 terrorist bombing in the government district of Oslo, targeted toward theNorwegian ministries, offers an opportunity to examine threat and safety perceptionamong employees who have experienced a terrorist attack directed at their workplace.The explosion killed eight people, wounded more than 200 others, and caused massivestructural damages to government buildings.

The present study is part of a larger research project named: “Mental health and workenvironment factors in the aftermath of the Oslo terrorist attack July 22, 2011”(see Hansen, Nissen, & Heir, 2013). In this study, we asked employees in the Norwegianministries about their physical location at the time of the attack, perceived threat and

A. Nissen et al.2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

safety at work and symptoms of posttraumatic stress 9–10 months after the bombing. Theaims of the study were to examine the relationship between proximity to the explosionand subsequent perception of threat and safety at work, and to explore how posttraumaticstress reactions were related to threat and safety perception. The demographic factors ofgender, age, education, and leadership responsibilities were included as covariates in theanalysis given their known association with reactions to traumatic experiences (Grieger,Fullerton, & Ursano, 2003; Hansen et al., 2013; Heir et al., 2011; Norris, Kaniasty,Conrad, Inman, & Murphy, 2002). The study had two main hypotheses:

(1) Employees who were closer to the epicenter of the attack would feel morethreatened and less safe at work in the aftermath of the attack compared toemployees who were further away.

(2) The hypothesized association between proximity to the explosion and theperception of threat and safety would be closely linked to posttraumatic stressreactions – i.e. there would be evidence of an indirect association betweenproximity and both threat and safety perception through posttraumatic stressreactions.

Methods

Participants

The study population comprised all individuals who were employed in 14 of the 17Norwegian ministries on the 22 of July 2011 (n = 3579). Of these 3579 employees, 59could not be reached with information about the study. Of the remaining 3520 employees,1970 (56%) completed at least parts of the questionnaire, and 1881 (53%) answered thequestions on the three main variables analyzed: localization at the time of the explosion,perceived threat and perceived safety (89 employees were excluded in the main analysisdue to missing data on key variables – i.e. listwise deletion). As can be seen in Table 1,there was a 1.6 years difference in age and a higher proportion of women in our mainsample (n = 1881) compared to the 1639 employees who were not part of the study.There was no difference in age or gender distribution between the 89 employees whowere excluded from the main analysis due to missing data and the 1881 employeesincluded in the analysis.

Table 1. Age, gender and number of ministerial employees at work during the 2011 Oslo bombingtargeted toward the Norwegian ministries, for participants and non-participants.

Subjects whoparticipated in thestudy (n = 1881)

Subjects who didnot participate in thestudy (n = 1639)

Age, years (SD) 45.4 (10.9) 43.8 (11.5)*Gender, n (%)Female 1078 (57.3) 813 (49.6)*Male 803 (42.7) 826 (50.4)*

Number of employees (%) at work in theGovernment district when the bombexploded

198 (10.5) 154 (9.4)

*p < 0.001.

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

Of the 198 employees who were at work when the terrorist bomb exploded, 66(33.3%) witnessed people dying or dead people, 129 (65.2%) witnessed seriously injuredpeople, and 51 (25.8%) were physically injured themselves.

The government occupational health services contacted all employees who were atwork at the time of the explosion both in the weeks immediately following the disasterand at a second medical follow-up months later. In addition, employees who were not atwork when the bomb exploded where advised to contact the health services if they hadsymptoms affecting daily life functioning or ability to work.

All participants were informed about the purpose and content of the study and giventhe opportunity to withdraw. The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committeein Norway.

Measures

Data were collected through a secure web-based questionnaire 9–10 months after theterrorist attack. All invited employees received a project specific identification numberbased on their social security number, and a personalized code to log on to thequestionnaire. Only one administrative person who was not a member of the researchteam had the key to match a project ID number with the corresponding social securitynumber; thus keeping the identity behind a response anonymous to the research team andthe employer.

Demographic information. We obtained data on age, gender, education, andleadership responsibilities.

Proximity to the terrorist attack. All employees were asked their whereabouts themoment the bomb exploded. They were given the following five answer choices:government district; Oslo downtown (not government district); Oslo periphery; Norway(not Oslo); Abroad.

Perception of threat and safety at work. To assess employees’ perception of threat attheir workplace, we used a modified question from Cox and Cheyne’s Safety ClimateAssessment Toolkit (Cox & Cheyne, 2000). Our modified question – “I am sure it is onlya matter of time before my workplace is subject to another terrorist attack” – was scoredon a 5-point Likert scale going from 0 disagree to 4 agree. This question was chosenbecause it showed the highest standardized loading (=0.782) for the factor “Personalappreciation of risk” through confirmatory factor analysis in Cox and Cheyne’s research.

To assess the perception of safety at work we used a question from the SafetyPerception Scale applied by Grieger et al. in their studies on Pentagon staff members(Grieger, Fullerton, & Ursano, 2003; Grieger et al., 2004) and the Beltway sniper attacks(Grieger, Fullerton, Ursano, & Reeves, 2003). The question – “I feel safe when I am atwork” – was also scored on a 5-point Likert scale going from 0 disagree to 4 agree. Thecomplete Safety Perception Scale also includes two questions on safety perception athome and in usual activities (Cronbach’s alpha overall = 0.78), however, since the currentstudy focuses on safety perception at work, we only used one question from the scale.

Posttraumatic stress reactions. To assess symptoms of posttraumatic stress, we usedthe mean item score on the PTSD Checklist (PCL). The 17-item PCL was first introducedin 1993 by Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane (1993), and is now one of themost frequently used self-reported measures on posttraumatic stress reactions. The scalehas been shown to perform well as a diagnostic instrument for detecting PTSD in the

A. Nissen et al.4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

Norwegian population in epidemiological research (Hem, Hussain, Wentzel-Larsen, &Heir, 2012).

Analysis of data

Age and gender distributions in the participating and non-participating groups werecompared using t-test and chi squared test. We used linear regression with categoricalindependent variable to test our first hypothesis that employees’ who were closer to theexplosion would feel more threatened and less safe at work. The same analysis was usedto adjust for demographics (gender, age, education and leadership responsibilities), and totest the second hypothesis of the study: that the association between proximity to theexplosion and the perception of threat and safety would be closely linked to posttraumaticstress reactions. Furthermore, to test the indirect associations between proximity and bothperceived threat and safety through posttraumatic stress reactions, we applied themediation analysis described by Hayes (2013), using a bootstrapping sample of n =5000. In this analysis, proximity to the explosion was dichotomized into ‘governmentdistrict’ versus ‘all other categories combined’. All tests were two-tailed and differenceswere considered significant if p < 0.05. The statistical analysis was performed with thesoftware package SPSS version 20.0 for Windows.

Results

Threat and safety perception and proximity to the attack

The distribution of threat and safety perception for the 1881 employees who completedthe questionnaire is summarized in Table 2. Table 3 (model 1) shows that employees whowere at work in the government district when the bomb exploded had significantly higherperceived threat and lower perceived safety compared to employees who were not atwork. This finding remained significant after adjusting for gender, age, education, andleadership responsibilities (Table 3, model 2). When adjusting for demographic factors,we found that women were less likely to feel safe at work compared to men, but tended tohave lower expectations of another terrorist attack at their workplace. Age was associatedwith threat perception – with older employees less likely to expect another attack at work.Age was not associated with safety perception. Education was associated with both threatand safety perception, with higher educated employees less likely to expect another

Table 2. Relative threat and safety perception at work among employees in the Norwegianministries (n = 1881) 9 to 10 months after the 2011 Oslo bombing.

Perceived threata n % Perceived safetyb n %

4 = agree 41 2.2 4 = agree 864 45.93 81 4.3 3 568 30.22 234 12.5 2 246 13.11 520 27.6 1 123 6.50 = disagree 1005 53.4 0 = disagree 80 4.3Total 1881 100.0 Total 1881 100.0

aAnswer to question: “I am sure it is only a matter of time before my workplace is subject to another terroristattack”.bAnswer to question: “I feel safe when I am at work”.

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

Table 3. Relative threat and safety perception at work among employees in the Norwegianministries 9 to 10 months after the 2011 Oslo bombing according to employee location at the time ofthe attack (model 1); stepwise adjustments for demographic factors (model 2), and posttraumaticstress reactions (model 3).

Perceived threat Perceived safety

BetaConfidenceinterval p-value Beta

Confidenceinterval p-value

Model 1LocationAbroad (n = 351) Ref. Ref.Norway (n = 831) −0.006 −0.128 to 0.116 0.921 0.026 −0.111 to 0.164 0.708Oslo periphery (n = 335) 0.155 0.009 to 0.301 0.038 −0.084 −0.249 to 0.082 0.321Oslo downtown (n = 166) 0.048 −0.132 to 0.228 0.604 −0.083 −0.287 to 0.120 0.423Gov’t district (n = 198) 0.355 0.185 to 0.525 0.000 −0.423 −0.615 to −0.231 0.000

Model 2: Adjusted for demographicsa

LocationAbroad (n = 351) Ref. Ref.Norway (n = 831) −0.027 −0.148 to 0.094 0.663 0.049 −0.088 to 0.186 0.481Oslo periphery (n = 335) 0.106 −0.039 to 0.252 0.152 −0.028 −0.192 to 0.137 0.741Oslo downtown (n = 166) −0.031 −0.210 to 0.148 0.735 −0.038 −0.240 to 0.165 0.717Gov’t district (n = 198) 0.318 0.149 to 0.486 0.000 −0.386 −0.576 to −0.196 0.000

GenderMen (n = 803) Ref. Ref.Women (n = 1078) −0.069 −0.158 to 0.021 0.132 −0.224 −0.325 to −0.123 0.000

AgeIncreases of 10 years −0.068 −0.110 to −0.026 0.002 −0.004 −0.052 to 0.043 0.857

Education12 years or less (n = 220) Ref. Ref.13–16 years (n = 508) −0.231 −0.386 to −0.076 0.003 0.195 0.020 to 0.371 0.029>16 years (n = 1151) −0.422 −0.567 to −0.277 0.000 0.305 0.141 to 0.469 0.000

Leadership responsibilitiesNo (n = 1546) Ref. Ref.Yes (n = 334) −0.138 −0.254 to −0.022 0.020 0.161 0.029 to 0.292 0.016

Model 3: Adjusted for demographics and posttraumatic stress reactionsb

LocationAbroad (n = 351) Ref. Ref.Norway (n = 831) −0.028 −0.144 to 0.088 0.633 0.059 −0.070 to 0.187 0.372Oslo periphery (n = 335) 0.080 −0.059 to 0.219 0.261 0.012 −0.142 to 0.167 0.875Oslo downtown (n = 166) −0.124 −0.296 to 0.048 0.156 0.088 −0.103 to 0.279 0.368Gov’t district (n = 198) −0.037 −0.205 to 0.131 0.667 0.076 −0.111 to 0.263 0.426

GenderMen (n = 803) Ref. Ref.Women (n = 1078) −0.184 −0.271 to −0.097 0.000 −0.070 −0.167 to 0.027 0.155

AgeIncreases of 10 years −0.073 −0.113 to −0.033 0.000 −0.001 −0.046 to 0.043 0.954

A. Nissen et al.6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

terrorist attack and more likely to feel safe at work. Employees with leadershipresponsibilities had lower perceived threat and higher perceived safety compared tonon-leaders.

The effect of posttraumatic stress reactions on threat and safety perception

When adjusting for posttraumatic stress reactions, the relationships between proximity tothe explosion and both threat and safety perception disappeared, whereas posttraumaticstress was highly associated with both variables (Table 3, model 3). Adjusting forposttraumatic stress reactions removed the significant association between gender andsafety perception, but made the relationship between gender and perceived threat highlysignificant, with women less likely to expect another terrorist attack. Furthermore, theassociations between leadership responsibilities and both threat and safety perceptionwere no longer significant after adjusting for posttraumatic stress, though the trend oflower perceived threat and higher perceived safety among leaders remained.

Test of indirect associations

There was a significant indirect association between proximity to the explosion and threatperception through posttraumatic stress reactions (β = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.44); as wellas between proximity to the explosion and safety perception through posttraumatic stressreactions (β = −0.47; 95% CI, −0.58 to −0.37; see Figure 1).

Table 3. (Continued )

Perceived threat Perceived safety

BetaConfidenceinterval p-value Beta

Confidenceinterval p-value

Education12 years or less (n = 220) Ref. Ref.13–16 years (n = 508) −0.182 −0.331 to −0.034 0.016 0.138 −0.027 to 0.303 0.102More than 16 years(n = 1151)

−0.329 −0.469 to −0.189 0.000 0.187 0.032 to 0.343 0.018

Leadership responsibilitiesNo (n = 1546) Ref. Ref.Yes (n = 334) −0.091 −0.202 to 0.020 0.109 0.109 −0.015 to 0.232 0.086

Posttraumatic stress reactionsPCL, mean item score 0.554 0.477 to 0.630 0.000 −0.711 −0.796 to −0.626 0.000

Linear regression with categorical independent variables; the dependent variables perceived threat (“I am sure itis only a matter of time before my workplace is subject to another terrorist attack”) and Perceived Safety (“I feelsafe when I am at work”) were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = disagree, to 4 = agree.aThe sample size for the regression analysis in Model 2 was 1878 (3 employees were deleted listwise due tomissing data).bThe sample size for the regression analysis in Model 3 was 1856 (25 employees were deleted listwise due tomissing data).

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

Discussion

Our study examined threat and safety perception at work among employees in theNorwegian ministries 9–10 months after the 2011 terrorist bombing in the governmentdistrict of Oslo. In line with our first hypothesis, the results showed a clear relationshipbetween proximity to the explosion and both threat and safety perception. Employeeswho were at work in the government district when the bomb exploded were more likelyto expect future attacks at their workplace and less likely to feel safe at work compared toemployees who were not in the government district during the attack. This relationshipwas no longer significant when controlling for posttraumatic stress reactions, which inturn was highly associated with both threat and safety perception. Employees withsymptoms of posttraumatic stress were more likely to expect another attack and lesslikely to feel safe at work. This finding supports our second hypothesis: that theassociation between proximity to the explosion and perceived threat and safety would beclosely linked to posttraumatic stress reactions. In further support of Hypothesis 2, wefound significant indirect associations between proximity to the explosion and threatperception through posttraumatic stress reactions, as well as between proximity to theexplosion and safety perception through posttraumatic stress reactions.

Figure 1. Indirect associations between proximity to the explosion and perceived threat and safety,respectively, through posttraumatic stress reactions (PROCESS computational tool, model 4,bootstrapping sample of n = 5000). X = independent variable; M = mediator variable; Y = dependentvariable. Indirect association = a × b; direct association = c. Results are reported in unstandardizedbeta coefficients (95% confidence intervals) with associated p-value for each step.

A. Nissen et al.8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

It is known that individuals in societies struck by a terrorist attack have increased fearsof further acts of terror in the aftermath of the attack (e.g. Boscarino et al., 2006; Rubinet al., 2007), and that threat perception in occupational settings is related to priorexperience with accidents (Goldberg, Dar‐El, & Rubin, 1991). Still, to our knowledge, thisis the first study that specifically examines threat perception at work for employees whoseworkplace was targeted in a terrorist attack. It appeared as if the positive relationshipbetween proximity to the explosion and threat perception in our study was explained byposttraumatic stress reactions. This is supported by a study on victims of a shopping mallterrorist attack in Israel, in which terror exposure mattered for threat perception, but onlyfor those individuals who had developed PTSD (Kutz & Dekel, 2006).

The association between proximity to the explosion and subsequent lower perceivedsafety at work is in line with a study on Pentagon staff members after the 9/11 attacks(Grieger et al., 2004). As was the case with perceived threat, it appeared as if thisassociation was explained by the higher prevalence of posttraumatic stress reactionsamong employees who were in closer proximity to the explosion, indicating theimportance of posttraumatic stress for both perceived threat and safety.

The theories of Janoff-Bulman on how a traumatic event can negatively affect the pre-existing assumptions about the world and self in trauma victims are useful when trying tounderstand the associations between trauma exposure and threat and safety perception(Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Her theories have been supported by empirical work showing thattrauma victims have a less favorable outlook on life, characterized, among other things,by a reduced belief in the benevolence of the world and in personal luck (Janoff-Bulman,1989; Solomon, Iancu, & Tyano, 1997). Later studies have found significant associationsbetween these negative changes in world assumptions and symptoms of posttraumaticstress (Dekel, Mandl, & Solomon, 2011; Elklit, Shevlin, Solomon, & Dekel, 2007).Moreover, in the new DSM-V diagnostic manual, “negative alterations in cognitions andmood” is a separate criterion for the PTSD diagnosis.

A possible interpretation of our findings may be that some components of PTSD – forinstance being constantly watchful and on-guard – could manifest themselves throughdistorted perceptions of threat and safety at work. Alternatively, one can theorize thatnegative alterations in cognition following trauma induce a sense of serious current threat,which then leads to the PTSD symptoms of re-experiencing, avoidance and hyperarousal(Ehlers & Clark, 2000). These two possibilities may occur simultaneously, interacting in amutually reinforcing manner.

In terms of gender differences, men appeared to have a higher expectancy of futureterrorist attacks and women appeared to feel less safe at work, although the latter findingdisappeared when controlling for posttraumatic stress. The higher perceived threat amongmen compared to women is contrary to earlier studies, in which the reverse pattern hasbeen found (Goodwin, Willson, & Gaines, 2005; Grieger, Fullerton, Ursano, & Reeves,2003; Norris et al., 2002). The lower perceived safety among women before controllingfor posttraumatic stress is similar to previous studies (Grieger, Fullerton, & Ursano, 2003;Grieger, Fullerton, Ursano, & Reeves, 2003). It was somewhat puzzling that womentended to feel less safe at work despite reporting lower perceived threat, and this findingcontrasts with prior research (Shigemura et al., 2008). More research is needed to clarifythe role of gender in threat and safety perception.

Similar to earlier studies, we found that age was not significantly related to theperception of safety (Grieger, Fullerton, & Ursano, 2003; Grieger, Fullerton, Ursano, &

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

Reeves, 2003). However, contrary to one of these studies, we found that age wasnegatively related to threat perception, with older employees less likely to expect anotherterrorist attack at work (Grieger, Fullerton, Ursano, & Reeves, 2003).

Education was negatively related to threat perception and positively related to safetyperception in our results. Our finding of higher perceived threat at work among lesseducated individuals is in line with a study on New York City residents conducted inconnection to the World Trade Center attacks which showed that lower educationpredicted high terrorism fear two years after the attacks (Boscarino et al., 2006). Thefinding that education was positively related to safety perception differs from a study ondisaster workers after the 9/11 attacks which found that education did not matter forsafety perception (Fullerton, Ursano, Reeves, Shigemura, & Grieger, 2006). In contrast tothat study which looked at disaster workers, our participants were the direct target of theterrorist attack. The importance of education for threat and safety perception is congruentwith the known protective effect of education on the development of post-disasterreactions in general (e.g. Breslau, Davis, Andreski, & Peterson, 1991; Heir et al., 2011)

We have previously shown that leaders were less susceptible to PTSD than non-leaders (Hansen et al., 2013). Our finding that employees with leadership responsibilitieshad lower perceived threat and higher perceived safety at work might be related toobservations that leaders in normal situations have lower levels of the stress hormonecortisol and lower reports of anxiety compared with non-leaders (Sherman et al., 2012).The experience of power might lead to an enhanced sense of personal control (Fast,Gruenfeld, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2009), a psychological factor we know plays animportant role in anxiety arousal (Bandura, 1988). This higher threshold for arousal inleaders might then affect the feeling of safety directly, or alternatively, indirectly throughposttraumatic stress reactions. The latter hypothesis is supported by the fact that thesignificant relationship between leadership responsibilities and perceived threat and safetydisappeared after controlling for symptoms of posttraumatic stress.

Methodological considerations and future work

All employees in the Norwegian ministries were asked to participate in the study,reducing sample-selection bias. A moderate response rate, however, reduces the general-izability of our findings. The participating and non-participating groups also differed interms of age and gender, though we believe these differences had negligible impact onour results. Still, we cannot rule out that a somewhat skewed gender distribution, withmore women in the participating group, may have led to an underestimation of bothperceived threat and safety. Similarly, because the participating group was slightlyskewed toward closer proximity to the terrorist explosion, the results may haveoverestimated threat perception and underestimated safety perception. We believe it isunlikely, however, that the self-selection bias has influenced the associations examinedin the study. A further limitation is that our measurement of both threat and safetyperception relied solely on one single-item question. Lastly, cross-sectional designs arenot well suited to test causal relationships; therefore, more research is needed to explorethe issue of causality.

A. Nissen et al.10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

Conclusion

The present study indicates that employees with a high degree of exposure during aworkplace terrorist attack have greater fears of future attacks and feel less safe at work inthe aftermath of the attack compared to less exposed employees. The increased sense ofthreat and reduced sense of safety in exposed individuals appear to be closely linked tothe elevated levels of posttraumatic stress reactions seen in the same individuals. Thefindings of the current study, therefore, add empirical evidence to the new and slightlyaltered understanding of PTSD as set out in DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association,2013). More specifically, the study supports the existence of the D-criterion “negativealterations in cognition and mood” in individuals with posttraumatic stress reactions,particularly symptom two – “Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs andexpectations about oneself and the world (e.g. ‘I am bad,’ ‘The world is completelydangerous’)”; and symptom four – “Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g. fear,horror, anger, guilt, or shame)” – in the criterion D symptom cluster.

The pressure to respond swiftly and assertively to a disaster such as a terrorist attackoftentimes leads authorities and decision makers to focus heavily on safety and securitymeasures. This is done both to increase actual safety and to help ease the feelings ofthreat and reduced safety that normally accompany terrorist acts. The present studyindicates that an additional approach to addressing these negative feelings may be toidentify and treat posttraumatic stress reactions. More research is needed to see if treatingposttraumatic stress reactions can affect the overall feeling of threat and safety in aworkforce after a terrorist attack.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

FundingThis work was supported by The Norwegian Directorate of Health.

ReferencesAmerican Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.

Arlington, VA: Author. doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1(2), 77–98. doi:10.

1080/10615808808248222Boscarino, J. A., Adams, R. E., Figley, C. R., Galea, S., & Foa, E. B. (2006). Fear of terrorism and

preparedness in New York City 2 years after the attacks: Implications for disaster planning andresearch. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 12, 505–513. doi:10.1097/00124784-200611000-00002

Breslau, N., Davis, G. C., Andreski, P., & Peterson, E. (1991). Traumatic events and posttraumaticstress disorder in an urban population of young adults. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 216–222. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810270028003

Cox, S., & Cheyne, A. (2000). Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Safety Science,34(1), 111–129. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00009-6

Dekel, S., Mandl, C., & Solomon, Z. (2011). Shared and unique predictors of post-traumatic growthand distress. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 241–252. doi:10.1002/jclp.20747

Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. BehaviourResearch and Therapy, 38, 319–345. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00123-0

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

Elklit, A., Shevlin, M., Solomon, Z., & Dekel, R. (2007). Factor structure and concurrent validity ofthe world assumptions scale. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 291–301. doi:10.1002/jts.20203

Fast, N. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Illusory control: Agenerative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20, 502–508.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02311.x

Fullerton, C. S., Ursano, R. J., Reeves, J., Shigemura, J., & Grieger, T. (2006). Perceived safety indisaster workers following 9/11. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(1), 61–63.doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000195307.28743.b2

Goldberg, A. I., Dar‐El, E. M., & Rubin, A. H. E. (1991). Threat perception and the readiness toparticipate in safety programs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(2), 109–122. doi:10.1002/job.4030120204

Goodwin, R., Willson, M., & Gaines, S., Jr. (2005). Terror threat perception and its consequences incontemporary Britain. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 389–406. doi:10.1348/000712605X62786

Grieger, T. A., Fullerton, C. S., & Ursano, R. J. (2003). Posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use,and perceived safety after the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. Psychiatric Services, 54, 1380–1382. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.54.10.1380

Grieger, T. A., Fullerton, C. S., & Ursano, R. J. (2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder, depression,and perceived safety 13 months after September 11. Psychiatric Services, 55, 1061–1063.doi:10.1176/appi.ps.55.9.1061

Grieger, T. A., Fullerton, C. S., Ursano, R. J., & Reeves, J. J. (2003). Acute stress disorder, alcoholuse, and perception of safety among hospital staff after the sniper attacks. Psychiatric Services,54, 1383–1387. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.54.10.1383

Hansen, M. B., Nissen, A., & Heir, T. (2013). Proximity to terror and post-traumatic stress:A follow-up survey of governmental employees after the 2011 Oslo bombing attack. BritishMedical Journal Open, 3(7), e002692. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002692

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Heir, T., Rosendal, S., Bergh-Johannesson, K., Michel, P. O., Mortensen, E. L., Weisaeth, L., …Hultman, C. M. (2011). Tsunami-affected Scandinavian tourists: Disaster exposure and post-traumaticstress symptoms. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 65(1), 9–15. doi:10.3109/08039481003786394

Hem, C., Hussain, A., Wentzel-Larsen, T., & Heir, T. (2012). The Norwegian version of the PTSDChecklist (PCL): Construct validity in a community sample of 2004 tsunami survivors. NordicJournal of Psychiatry, 66, 355–359. doi:10.3109/08039488.2012.655308

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications ofthe schema construct. Social Cognition, 7(2), 113–136. doi:10.1521/soco.1989.7.2.113

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York,NY: Free Press.

Kutz, I., & Dekel, R. (2006). Follow-up of victims of one terrorist attack in Israel: ASD, PTSD andthe perceived threat of Iraqi missile attacks. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1579–1589. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.002

Marshall, R. D., Bryant, R. A., Amsel, L., Suh, E. J., Cook, J. M., & Neria, Y. (2007). Thepsychology of ongoing threat: Relative risk appraisal, the September 11 attacks, and terrorism-related fears. American Psychologist, 62, 304–316. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.304

Norris, F. H., Friedman, M. J., Watson, P. J., Byrne, C. M., Diaz, E., & Kaniasty, K. (2002). 60,000disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981–2001.Psychiatry, 65, 207–239. doi:10.1521/psyc.65.3.207.20173

Norris, F. H., Kaniasty, K., Conrad, M. L., Inman, G. L., & Murphy, A. D. (2002). Placing agedifferences in cultural context: A comparison of the effects of age on PTSD after disasters in theUnited States, Mexico, and Poland. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 8, 153–173.doi:10.1023/A:1015940126474

North, C. S., Pfefferbaum, B., Hong, B. A., Gordon, M. R., Kim, Y. S., Lind, L., & Pollio, D. E.(2010). The business of healing: Focus group discussions of readjustment to the post-9/11 workenvironment among employees of affected agencies. Journal of Occupational and EnvironmentalMedicine, 52, 713–718. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181e48b01

Rubin, G. J., Brewin, C. R., Greenberg, N., Hughes, J. H., Simpson, J., & Wessely, S. (2007).Enduring consequences of terrorism: 7-month follow-up survey of reactions to the bombings in

A. Nissen et al.12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15

London on 7 July 2005. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 350–356. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.106.029785

Rubin, G. J., Brewin, C. R., Greenberg, N., Simpson, J., & Wessely, S. (2005). Psychological andbehavioural reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005: Cross sectional survey of arepresentative sample of Londoners. British Medical Journal, 331, 606. doi:10.1136/bmj.38583.728484.3A

Schouten, R., Callahan, M. V., & Bryant, S. (2004). Community response to disaster: The role ofthe workplace. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 12, 229–237. doi:10.1080/10673220490509624

Sherman, G. D., Lee, J. J., Cuddy, A. J., Renshon, J., Oveis, C., Gross, J. J., & Lerner, J. S. (2012).Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 109, 17903–17907. doi:10.1073/pnas.1207042109

Shigemura, J., Fullerton, C. S., Ursano, R. J., Wang, L., Querci-Daniore, R., Yoshino, A., &Nomura, S. (2008). Perception of safety among the Japanese individuals in the Washington, DCarea. World Cultural Psychiatry Research Review, 3, 180–186.

Silver, R. C., Holman, E. A., McIntosh, D. N., Poulin, M., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2002). Nationwidelongitudinal study of psychological responses to September 11. Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 288, 1235–1244. doi:10.1001/jama.288.10.1235

Skogstad, M., Skorstad, M., Lie, A., Conradi, H. S., Heir, T., & Weisaeth, L. (2013). Work-relatedpost-traumatic stress disorder. Occupational Medicine, 63, 175–182. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqt003

Solomon, Z., Iancu, I., & Tyano, S. (1997). World assumptions following disaster1. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 27, 1785–1798. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01625.x

Weathers, F., Litz, B. T., Herman, D. S., Huska, J. A., & Keane, T. M. (1993). The PTSD checklist(PCL): Reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Paper presented at the annual meeting of TheInternational Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, San Antonio, TX.

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

slo]

at 0

3:20

07

Apr

il 20

15