Abstract
Objective: No previous studies examined how survivors made meaning (i.e. interpreted the personal significance) of a disaster experience after seven years. This qualitative study follows up on a previously published analysis of 182 directly-exposed survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, assessed after six months had elapsed for bombing-related psychopathology and meaning-making processes. The current study examines how 113 survivors (62% follow-up rate) made meaning of their bombing experience after seven years. Method: Survivors answered questions about the effects of the bombing on their beliefs and perspectives. Their responses were hand recorded by interviewers and transcribed. Content was coded into themes, allowing codes of multiple themes. Excellent interrater reliability was obtained (Cohen's kappa≥.8). Results: The survivors were 50% (57/113) male, 93% (105/113) Caucasian, 34% (38/113) college educated, and 71% (80/113) married with a mean (SD) age of 42.5 (10.6) (range = 19-69) years at the time of the bombing. Eight themes emerged and indicated that survivors matured in personal goals and character, interpersonal relationships, and philosophical thought (e.g., reconsideration of human nature and religion). More than one third of the comments included negative remarks about personal harm, especially psychological effects. Conclusions: Nearly two thirds of the material was positive in tone and consistent between six months and seven years. Negative content was entirely new relative to six-month baseline interview responses, suggesting many survivors incorporate greater reflection on negative outcomes in meaning-making processes over time. After several years, clinicians could encourage survivors to integrate positive and negative consequences as meaning. Longer-term studies are needed.