Research reveals the complex impact of emotional support after collective trauma
The study published in the ‘Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma’ suggests that while emotional support is often seen as essential after crises, it can have mixed effects when groups dwell on shared trauma.
New research led by Dr Rashpal Dhensa-Kahlon, Senior Lecturer in Social and Organizational Psychology in the School of Psychological Sciences suggests that emotional support in the aftermath of collective traumatic events may not always have the positive impact we expect.
The study, ‘Is Emotional Support in the Aftermath of Collective Traumatic Events Beneficial? The Role of Collective Rumination’, examines how people process distressing events together and finds that in some cases group discussions can sometimes intensify, rather than ease, emotional strain.
Emotional support is widely seen as a crucial response to shared crises, from global pandemics to conflict and natural disasters. However, this new research highlights a more complex reality. It shows that the benefits of support depend on how individuals engage with others when discussing the event. In particular, the researchers identify the role of “collective rumination”, a process in which groups repeatedly revisit and dwell on distressing experiences. While these conversations can foster connection and shared understanding, they can also reinforce negative emotions and prolong distress.
To explore these dynamics, the researchers conducted three online studies in the immediate aftermath of major collective traumatic events: the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, the 2019 London Bridge terror attack, and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Across the studies, participants were asked about the emotional support they received, the extent to which they repeatedly discussed and reflected on the events with others, and the impact this had on their wellbeing. The findings revealed an association between emotional support, collective rumination and psychological distress.
The research also finds that people are more affected when they strongly identify with the group involved in the traumatic event. In these cases, discussions with others who share that identity can feel more intense and emotionally charged, increasing the likelihood of collective rumination and its potential downsides.
Dr Dhensa-Kahlon commented:
“We stress caution in interpreting our findings, yet the message is clear. Our findings have implications for how we understand and promote coping with collective trauma – sometimes our social networks can inadvertently undermine our best efforts at coping.
“While encouraging open conversation remains important, the researchers highlight the need for more considered approaches to support, helping individuals process experiences in ways that are constructive rather than repetitive.”
The study contributes to a growing body of research that moves beyond individual responses to trauma, focusing instead on shared, social processes. By understanding how collective dynamics shape emotional recovery, organisations, policymakers and communities can develop more effective ways to support people in times of crisis.