Children are among the most vulnerable groups affected by disasters, conflicts, and traumatic incidents, and their psychological responses often differ from those of adults. Exposure to sudden traumatic events, such as accidents, natural disasters, or violent incidents, can have a profound impact on children’s mental health and development [1]. The Pahalgam incident, a tragic event that shook communities, brought widespread attention to the psychological and social consequences experienced by children who either directly witnessed the event or were indirectly exposed to it through family, peers, school, and media [2]. In such contexts, children’s perception and awareness of the event are shaped not only by their cognitive development but also by the interpretations provided by adults and institutions around them [3]. These perceptions often determine the depth and type of psychological response, which may manifest as fear, anxiety, sadness, sleep disturbances, or behavioral changes in academic and social settings [4]. Research in child psychology emphasizes that children process trauma differently depending on their age, maturity, and prior exposure to stressful life events [5]. Students in Classes 4 to 7, generally aged between 9 and 13 years, represent a critical developmental stage where cognitive understanding of events coexists with heightened emotional sensitivity. During this age, children attempt to make sense of complex situations, and traumatic events like the Pahalgam incident may distort their sense of safety, stability, and trust [6]. Such disruptions can adversely affect mental well-being, leading to both short-term consequences such as decreased concentration and academic difficulties, and long-term risks like chronic anxiety, depressive symptoms, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [7]. The role of the environment in shaping children’s responses cannot be overlooked. Parental guidance plays a crucial role in mediating fear and providing reassurance during times of crisis. Parents’ reactions, explanations, and emotional availability often determine whether children experience resilience or distress in the aftermath of trauma [8]. Similarly, schools are not only educational spaces but also social and emotional ecosystems where children seek security and support from teachers and peers. School interventions, counseling services, and peer discussions can either alleviate anxiety or, if absent, worsen the psychological burden [9]. In addition, the role of media exposure has become increasingly significant. Modern children are highly exposed to news through television, digital platforms, and social media, where graphic content or sensationalized reporting may heighten fear and misperceptions. At the same time, responsible reporting and guided discussions can help children contextualize events in a healthier manner [10]. Understanding the perception and impact of traumatic incidents on children is crucial for planning effective psychosocial interventions. The Pahalgam incident provides an important context to examine how children conceptualize and internalize traumatic experiences, how these experiences influence their emotional and behavioral health, and how support systems can mitigate negative outcomes. Despite the widespread recognition of children’s vulnerability during crises, research specifically exploring the intersection of awareness, perception, and psychological well-being in the context of localized incidents remains limited in India. This gap highlights the importance of descriptive studies that combine quantitative measures of awareness and behavioural changes with qualitative insights into children’s emotions, fears, and coping mechanisms. The objectives of the study are to assess children’s awareness and understanding of the Pahalgam incident, explore their emotional and psychological responses, identify any behavioral or academic changes that followed, and evaluate the influence of parental guidance, school environment, and media exposure in shaping their perceptions.

Study Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study Sample Population: School children from Class 4 to 7 Sample Size: 164 school children Data Collection Tools: structured questionnaires and brief interviews Data Analysis: Quantitative analysis using statistical software and qualitative thematic analysis for open-ended responses Ethical Considerations: • Parental consent and child assent will be obtained. • Anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained. Expected Outcomes: • Insight into the psychological processing of public traumatic events by children • Identification of coping mechanisms and stress indicators • Recommendations for teachers and parents on communication and emotional support. Statistical Analysis:- For statistical analysis, data were initially entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and then analyzed using SPSS (version 27.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and GraphPad Prism (version 5). Numerical variables were summarized using means and standard deviations, while Data were entered into Excel and analyzed using SPSS and GraphPad Prism. Numerical variables were summarized using means and standard deviations, while categorical variables were described with counts and percentages. Two-sample t-tests were used to compare independent groups, while paired t-tests accounted for correlations in paired data. Chi-square tests (including Fisher’s exact test for small sample sizes) were used for categorical data comparisons. P-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Table: 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population Demographic Parameter Frequency Percent Age in group 09-10 65 39.6 11-12 80 48.8 13-14 19 11.6 Total 164 100 Gender Female 80 48.8 Male 84 51.2 Total 164 100 Mean Age 10.94±1237 Mean Class 5.55±1.136 A total of 164 participants were included in the study. The age distribution showed that 65 children (39.6%) were aged 9–10 years, 80 children (48.8%) were 11–12 years, and 19 children (11.6%) were 13–14 years. The mean age of the participants was 10.94 ± 1.237 years. Regarding gender, 84 participants (51.2%) were male and 80 participants (48.8%) were female. The mean class of the study population was 5.55 ± 1.136. Out of 164 participants, the majority (152; 92.7%) reported having heard about the incident that occurred in Pahalgam, while 12 (7.3%) had not. Participants first learned about the incident from television (54; 32.9%), parents (46; 28%), social media (25; 15.2%), friends (24; 14.6%), and the internet (3; 1.8%), with 12 (7.3%) reporting no source. Regarding the timing of awareness, 73 (44.5%) heard about it a few days later, 36 (22%) on the same day, 19 (11.6%) a week or more later, 14 (8.5%) could not remember, and 22 (13.4%) reported no response. When asked about their knowledge of the incident, 50 (30.5%) stated they knew “a lot,” 61 (37.2%) “some,” 32 (19.5%) “a little,” 9 (5.5%) “not much,” and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. A majority (89; 54.3%) had tried to find out more information, while 63 (38.4%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Regarding sources used to know about news or events, participants cited television (59; 36%), YouTube (54; 32.9%), social media (20; 12.2%), parents (13; 7.9%), friends (12; 7.3%), and WhatsApp (6; 3.7%). About the mock drill, 81 (49.4%) had heard about it, 71 (43.3%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. When asked about sirens during or after the incident, 52 (31.7%) reported hearing them, 100 (61%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Finally, 104 (63.4%) had heard people talking about a warlike situation or danger in their area, 48 (29.3%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Among the 164 participants, the majority (152; 92.7%) had heard about the incident in Pahalgam, while 12 (7.3%) had not. The first source of information was television for 54 participants (32.9%), parents for 46 (28%), social media for 25 (15.2%), friends for 24 (14.6%), and the internet for 3 (1.8%), with 12 (7.3%) reporting no source. Regarding the timing of awareness, 73 (44.5%) learned about it a few days later, 36 (22%) on the same day, 19 (11.6%) a week or more later, 14 (8.5%) could not remember, and 22 (13.4%) did not respond. In terms of perceived knowledge, 50 participants (30.5%) reported knowing “a lot,” 61 (37.2%) “some,” 32 (19.5%) “a little,” 9 (5.5%) “not much,” and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Over half (89; 54.3%) tried to find out more about the incident, while 63 (38.4%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. For general news sources, participants cited television (59; 36%), YouTube (54; 32.9%), social media (20; 12.2%), parents (13; 7.9%), friends (12; 7.3%), and WhatsApp (6; 3.7%). About the mock drill, 81 (49.4%) had heard about it, 71 (43.3%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Regarding sirens during or after the incident, 52 (31.7%) reported hearing them, 100 (61%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Finally, 104 participants (63.4%) had heard people talking about a warlike situation or danger in their area, 48 (29.3%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Table: 2. Awareness and Information Sources Regarding the Pahalgam Incident Awareness & Information Source Frequency Percent Have you heard about the incident that happened in Pahalgam? No 12 7.3 Yes 152 92.7 Total 164 100 Where did you hear about the incident first? Friends 24 14.6 Internet 3 1.8 Nil 12 7.3 Parents 46 28 Social media 25 15.2 Television 54 32.9 Total 164 100 When did you hear about it? A few days later 73 44.5 A week after or more 19 11.6 Don't remember 14 8.5 Nil 22 13.4 On the same day 36 22 Total 164 100 How much do you think you know about the incident? A little 32 19.5 A lot 50 30.5 Nil 12 7.3 Not much 9 5.5 Some 61 37.2 Total 164 100 Did you try to find out more about it? Nil 12 7.3 No 63 38.4 Yes 89 54.3 Total 164 100 Which of these do you used to know about news or events? Friends 12 7.3 Parents 13 7.9 Social media 20 12.2 TV 59 36 WhatsApp 6 3.7 YouTube 54 32.9 Total 164 100 Did you hear about the mock drill that took place? Nil 12 7.3 No 71 43.3 Yes 81 49.4 Total 164 100 Did you hear any sirens during or after the incident? (In real life/TV) Nil 12 7.3 No 100 61 Yes 52 31.7 Total 164 100 Did you hear people talking about a warlike situation or danger in your area? Nil 12 7.3 No 48 29.3 Yes 104 63.4 Total 164 100 Table: 3. Awareness and Information Sources Regarding the Pahalgam Incident Awareness & Information Source Frequency Percent Have you heard about the incident that happened in Pahalgam? No 12 7.3 Yes 152 92.7 Total 164 100 Where did you hear about the incident first? Friends 24 14.6 Internet 3 1.8 Nil 12 7.3 Parents 46 28 Social media 25 15.2 Television 54 32.9 Total 164 100 When did you hear about it? A few days later 73 44.5 A week after or more 19 11.6 Don't remember 14 8.5 Nil 22 13.4 On the same day 36 22 Total 164 100 How much do you think you know about the incident? A little 32 19.5 A lot 50 30.5 Nil 12 7.3 Not much 9 5.5 Some 61 37.2 Total 164 100 Did you try to find out more about it? Nil 12 7.3 No 63 38.4 Yes 89 54.3 Total 164 100 Which of these do you used to know about news or events? Friends 12 7.3 Parents 13 7.9 Social media 20 12.2 TV 59 36 WhatsApp 6 3.7 YouTube 54 32.9 Total 164 100 Did you hear about the mock drill that took place? Nil 12 7.3 No 71 43.3 Yes 81 49.4 Total 164 100 Did you hear any sirens during or after the incident? (In real life/TV) Nil 12 7.3 No 100 61 Yes 52 31.7 Total 164 100 Did you hear people talking about a warlike situation or danger in your area? Nil 12 7.3 No 48 29.3 Yes 104 63.4 Total 164 100 Regarding the emotional response to the incident in Pahalgam, 68 participants (41.5%) reported feeling angry, 63 (38.4%) felt sad, 11 (6.7%) felt scared, 10 (6.1%) remained neutral, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. The incident affected mood or sleep for 75 participants (45.7%), while 77 (47%) reported no effect and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Concerning perceived safety, 71 participants (43.3%) felt safe where they live, 33 (20.1%) did not feel safe, 30 (18.3%) sometimes felt unsafe, 18 (11%) did not think about it, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Regarding the mock drill or sirens, 37 participants (22.6%) reported being scared, 25 (15.2%) were a little scared, 90 (54.9%) were not scared, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Table: 4. Emotional and Psychological Impact of the Pahalgam Incident Emotional & Psychological Impact Frequency Percent How did you feel when you first heard about the incident in Pahalgam? Angry 68 41.5 Neutral 10 6.1 Nil 12 7.3 Sad 63 38.4 Scared 11 6.7 Total 164 100 Did the incident affect your mood or sleep? Nil 12 7.3 No 77 47 Yes 75 45.7 Total 164 100 After hearing the incident, did you feel safe where you live? Did not think about it 18 11 Nil 12 7.3 No 33 20.1 Sometimes 30 18.3 Yes 71 43.3 Total 164 100 Did the sirens or the drill scare you? A little 25 15.2 Nil 12 7.3 No 90 54.9 Yes 37 22.6 Total 164 100 Table: 5. Parental, School, Media Role and Coping Strategies Regarding the Pahalgam Incident Parental/School/Media Role & Coping Strategies Frequency Percent Did you talk to your parents about the incident? Nil 12 7.3 No 39 23.8 Yes 113 68.9 Total 164 100 Who started the conversation? I did 71 43.3 My parents did 45 27.4 Nil 36 22 No one 12 7.3 Total 164 100 What did your parents say about it? Change the topic 21 12.8 Explain calmly 44 26.8 Got emotional 20 12.2 Nil 36 22 Nothing 12 7.3 Said not to worry 31 18.9 Total 164 100 Did talking to your parents make you feel better? Nil 36 22 No 26 15.9 No response 12 7.3 Not sure 31 18.9 Yes 59 36 Total 164 100 Do you think it is important for children to know about such events? No 53 32.3 Not sure 17 10.4 Yes 94 57.3 Total 164 100 Did you talk to your friends about this incident? Nil 12 7.3 No 64 39 Yes 88 53.7 Total 164 100 Did your teachers talk about this incident in school? Nil 12 7.3 No 140 85.4 Yes 12 7.3 Total 164 100 What do you do when something on the news makes you feel scared or confused? Cry 15 9.1 Ignore it 20 12.2 Nil 12 7.3 Pray 12 7.3 Talk to friends 28 17.1 Talk to parents 45 27.4 Watch something fun 32 19.5 Total 164 100 Do you think children should be protected from such news? It's okay to know 93 56.7 Nil 12 7.3 Not sure 24 14.6 Should be protected 35 21.3 Total 164 100 If something like this happens again, who would you like to talk to about it? Counsellor 3 1.8 Friends 52 31.7 Nil 12 7.3 No one 9 5.5 Parents 60 36.6 Teachers 28 17.1 Total 164 100 Did anyone explain to you what the mock drill or sirens were for? Nil 12 7.3 No 108 65.9 Yes 44 26.8 Total 164 100 Regarding the emotional response to the incident in Pahalgam, 68 participants (41.5%) reported feeling angry, 63 (38.4%) felt sad, 11 (6.7%) felt scared, 10 (6.1%) remained neutral, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. The incident affected mood or sleep for 75 participants (45.7%), while 77 (47%) reported no effect and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Concerning perceived safety, 71 participants (43.3%) felt safe where they live, 33 (20.1%) did not feel safe, 30 (18.3%) sometimes felt unsafe, 18 (11%) did not think about it, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Regarding the mock drill or sirens, 37 participants (22.6%) reported being scared, 25 (15.2%) were a little scared, 90 (54.9%) were not scared, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Regarding discussions with parents about the incident, 113 participants (68.9%) reported talking to their parents, 39 (23.8%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Of those who talked, 71 (43.3%) initiated the conversation themselves, 45 (27.4%) were approached by their parents, 12 (7.3%) reported no one, and 36 (22%) did not respond. When asked about parental responses, 44 (26.8%) said their parents explained calmly, 31 (18.9%) were told not to worry, 21 (12.8%) experienced a change of topic, 20 (12.2%) observed their parents getting emotional, 12 (7.3%) reported nothing, and 36 (22%) did not respond. Talking to parents made 59 participants (36%) feel better, while 26 (15.9%) did not feel better, 31 (18.9%) were not sure, 12 (7.3%) gave no response, and 36 (22%) did not respond. Most participants (94; 57.3%) felt it is important for children to know about such events, 53 (32.3%) thought otherwise, and 17 (10.4%) were not sure. When discussing the incident with friends, 88 (53.7%) had done so, 64 (39%) had not, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Only 12 participants (7.3%) reported that teachers discussed the incident in school, while 140 (85.4%) said no, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. In response to scary or confusing news, participants reported talking to parents (45; 27.4%), watching something fun (32; 19.5%), talking to friends (28; 17.1%), ignoring it (20; 12.2%), crying (15; 9.1%), praying (12; 7.3%), and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Regarding children’s exposure to such news, 93 (56.7%) felt it is okay for children to know, 35 (21.3%) thought children should be protected, 24 (14.6%) were not sure, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. If a similar incident occurs in the future, participants preferred to talk to parents (60; 36.6%), friends (52; 31.7%), teachers (28; 17.1%), no one (9; 5.5%), counsellors (3; 1.8%), and 12 (7.3%) did not respond. Finally, regarding the mock drill or sirens, 44 participants (26.8%) reported being explained about it, 108 (65.9%) said no one explained, and 12 (7.3%) did not respond.

The findings of this study provide important insights into children's awareness, emotional responses, and coping mechanisms in the aftermath of a distressing local incident. A majority of participants (92.7%) were aware of the Pahalgam incident, with television (32.9%) and parents (28%) being the most commonly cited initial sources of information. These results are consistent with previous research indicating that traditional media and parental communication remain dominant sources of news among children aged 9–14 years [11, 12]. Notably, emotional responses in this cohort were marked by high levels of anger (41.5%) and sadness (38.4%), while fewer participants reported fear (6.7%). These findings contrast with studies from Western contexts, where fear and anxiety have typically been more prominent emotional outcomes following media exposure to traumatic events [13, 14]. For instance, Kleemans et al. [13] found that exposure to negative news among Dutch preadolescents elicited significant fear and sadness, although peer discussions appeared to have a moderating effect on these emotions. In our study, interpersonal discussions—particularly with parents (68.9%) and friends (53.7%)—were also common, though not universally effective in mitigating distress, as only 36% of those who spoke to parents reported feeling better. Additionally, a significant portion of participants (45.7%) experienced disruptions in mood or sleep, highlighting the psychological impact of indirect exposure to traumatic events. These findings align with evidence that children’s emotional well-being can be adversely affected by news media, even when the events occur at a distance [15]. However, the prominence of anger in our study may reflect contextual or cultural factors, possibly linked to perceptions of injustice or helplessness, which have been identified as salient emotional responses in conflict-affected regions [16]. Regarding the dissemination of information, television remains a primary source (36%), but digital platforms such as YouTube (32.9%) and social media (12.2%) are increasingly significant, corroborating findings from recent studies on media consumption trends among children [17,18]. Nevertheless, only 7.3% of participants reported that teachers discussed the incident in school, underscoring a missed opportunity for structured emotional processing and critical engagement with information. This gap is noteworthy, considering prior research indicating that guided discussions within educational settings can foster resilience and reduce confusion or distress following exposure to traumatic news [19]. Furthermore, the responses to mock drills and sirens—where 37.8% of participants reported feeling scared to some extent—highlight the importance of contextually sensitive implementation of safety protocols. Only 26.8% reported receiving an explanation about the drills, suggesting a lack of communication that may exacerbate fear rather than promote preparedness. Similar observations have been made in studies examining children's responses to emergency simulations, where fear is reduced when children understand the purpose and procedures involved [20]. Overall, these findings underscore the need for multi-level interventions involving parents, educators, and media providers to ensure that children are not only informed but also emotionally supported during and after distressing events. They also point to the necessity of incorporating child-friendly communication strategies and trauma-informed approaches when conducting public drills or disseminating crisis-related information.

The study reveals that a large majority of children (92.7%) were aware of the Pahalgam incident, with television and parents being the primary sources of information. Although most children had some level of knowledge, only about one-third (30.5%) felt they knew “a lot,” and slightly over half (54.3%) made efforts to learn more. Emotional responses to the event were significant—anger (41.5%) and sadness (38.4%) were most common, with nearly half (45.7%) reporting disturbances in mood or sleep. Despite this emotional impact, a substantial number of children (43.3%) still reported feeling safe. Communication played a vital role in processing the event. Most children discussed it with their parents (68.9%), yet only a portion (36%) felt better after these conversations. School engagement was notably low, with only 7.3% reporting that teachers addressed the incident, highlighting a critical gap in institutional support. Reactions to safety drills were mixed, with many reporting fear or confusion, and 65.9% stating they were not given explanations about mock drills or sirens. Overall, the findings underscore the need for proactive, age-appropriate communication strategies by parents, teachers, and institutions during and after crisis events. Empowering children with clear information, emotional support, and safe spaces for discussion is essential to mitigating psychological distress and fostering resilience in the aftermath of traumatic experiences.

1. Masten AS, Narayan AJ. Child development in the context of disaster, war, and terrorism: Pathways of risk and resilience. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:227–57. 2. Pfefferbaum B, North CS. Children and families in the context of disasters: Implications for preparedness and response. Fam Community Health. 2008;31(3):240–53. 3. Piaget J. The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books; 1969. 4. Green BL, Korol M, Grace MC, Vary MG, Leonard AC, Gleser GC, et al. Children and disaster: Age, gender, and parental effects on PTSD symptoms. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1991;30(6):945–51. 5. Terr LC. Childhood traumas: An outline and overview. Am J Psychiatry. 1991;148(1):10–20. 6. Pynoos RS, Steinberg AM, Piacentini JC. A developmental psychopathology model of childhood traumatic stress and intersection with anxiety disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 1999;46(11):1542–54. 7. La Greca AM, Silverman WK, Vernberg EM, Prinstein MJ. Symptoms of posttraumatic stress in children after Hurricane Andrew: A prospective study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64(4):712–23. 8. Cobham VE, McDermott B, Haslam D, Sanders MR. The role of parents, parenting and the family environment in children's post-disaster mental health. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016;18(6):53. 9. Schonfeld DJ, Demaria T. Providing psychosocial support to children and families in the aftermath of disasters and crises. Pediatrics. 2015;136(4):e1120–30. 10. Valkenburg PM, Piotrowski JT. Plugged In: How Media Attract and Affect Youth. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2017. 11. Arendt F. News exposure and emotional responses among children: A study on the role of news media during crises. J Child Media. 2019;13(3):295–310. 12. Valkenburg PM, Piotrowski JT, Hermanns J, de Leeuw R. Developing a scale to assess children's media literacy. Learn Media Technol. 2015;40(2):176–93. 13. Kleemans M, Schlindwein LF, Dohmen R, et al. Preadolescents' Emotional and Prosocial Responses to Negative TV News: The Role of Constructive Reporting and Peer Discussion. J Youth Adolesc. 2017;46(9):2060–72. 14. Buijzen M, van Reijmersdal EA, Owen LH. Children’s Emotional Responses to Disasters: Exploring Media Exposure and Coping Strategies. Media Psychol. 2016;19(4):543–69. 15. Holman EA, Garfin DR, Silver RC. Media’s role in broadcasting acute stress following the Boston Marathon bombings. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(1):93–98. 16. Thabet AM, Tawahina AA, El Sarraj E, Vostanis P. Exposure to war trauma and PTSD among children in Gaza. Child Abuse Negl. 2008;32(7):707–13. 17. Rideout V. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens. Common Sense Media; 2019. 18. Ofcom. Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report. London: Ofcom; 2020. 19. Schonfeld DJ, Demaria T. Providing psychosocial support to children and families in the aftermath of disasters and crises. Pediatrics. 2015;136(4):e1120–30. 20. Pfefferbaum B, North CS. Children and disasters: Understanding impact and implementing interventions. JAMA. 2020;324(12):1227–28.