james n. meindl university of memphis penn state … evoked...mass shootings 1 every 12.5 days...
TRANSCRIPT
James N. Meindl
University of Memphis
Jonathan W. Ivy
Penn State – Harrisburg
BAAMS, 2019
Statistics on mass killings Frequency, lethality, changes overtime
Understanding and analyzing mass killer behavior Unhelpful explanations in circulation
Strategies to reduce mass killings Generalized imitation and media prompted mass killings Reactive strategies Proactive strategies
Future research areas for behavior analysts
No broadly accepted definition
Congress defines mass killing as Three or more dead (excluding offender) Single incident
Some researchers/databases include Only events with four or more dead Criminal activity (e.g., bad drug deal) Acts of terrorism Familial
In general
Austin bomber – not a mass killing Perhaps a spree killing
Las Vegas shooter – mass killing
Mass shootings 1 every 12.5 days (Towers et al.,
2015)
Based on FBI data
School shootings 1 every 31.6 days (Brady
Campaign Data)
US holds 5% of world’s population but 31% of global mass shooters
Considering all mass killing types (random, familial, gang, or criminal) No really; the numbers generally hold steady or are decreasing
Considering mass killings in public places (excluding familial, gang, or criminal) Yes; they have increased three-fold since 2000
In same time overall violent crime has been decreasing.
The number of shootings appears to be increasing.
The number of deaths appears to be increasing.
The number of victims appears to be increasing.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
ber
of F
atal
ities
Fatalities per Year
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
ber
of S
hoot
ing
s
Mass Shootings per Year
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0
50
100
150
200
250
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
ber
of V
ictim
s
Victims per Year800
704
The five deadliest were quite recent
2017 – Las Vegas; 58 dead 2016 – Pulse; 49 dead 2007 – Virginia Tech; 32 dead 2012 – Sandy Hook Elementary; 27 dead 2017 – Sutherland Springs; 25 dead
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
ber
of F
atal
ities
Fatalities per Year
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
ber
of S
hoot
ing
s
Mass Shootings per Year
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0
50
100
150
200
250
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
ber
of V
ictim
s
Victims per Year800
704
Awash in nonbehavioral explanations
Profile White; 20-50 yrs old; heterosexual; interested in guns (Blair, Nichols, Burns,
& Curnutt, 2013)
Often there is no clear demonstration of past criminal behavior (Fox & Delateur, 2014)
Risk Factors Precipitating acute or chronic adverse events (Fox & Delateur, 2014)
E.g., rejection, being fired, loss of money
Mental illness – not often formally diagnosed (Fox & Fridel, 2016; Fox & Levin, 2015)
Some depression/anxiety but rarely severe illness such as psychosis. However, MH levels haven’t changed much while mass shootings
have tripled recently
Access to firearms
48% take their own lives or suicide-by-cop (Lankford, 2015)
Makes this very difficult to analyze after the fact
Theories in the field Cumulative strain theory (Levin & Madfis, 2009)
MK is an extreme dysfunctional response to a stressor
Developmental theory (Harwood, 2011; Rice & Hoffman, 2015; Thompson & Kyle, 2005)
Progressive developmental challenges over a life (e.g., peer rejection; family breakdown)
“Failed masculinity” theory (Kalish & Kimmel, 2010; Madfis, 2014)
Can’t meet societies expectation for masculinity (e.g., employment or relationship)
Family annihilator Often abused as children, controlling of family, increases with economic
downturn, often ends in suicide
Workplace avenger Middle-aged, job/financial security in jeopardy, blames others for
failures
Pseudocommando Plans well in advance, public daytime killing, brings arsenal, no escape
plan (Knoll, 2010; Levin and Madfis, 2009; Madfis and Levin, 2013)
Importantly, these are largely topographical descriptions These categories may be helpful in predicting behavior, but do not tell
us how to influence behavior
Strategies and tactics
STRATEGY 1: Gun control legislation Has been effective in other countries (e.g., Australia) Extremely difficult to accomplish in the United States Legislation typically pertains to background checks which wouldn’t prevent most mass shootings
STRATEGY 2: Improved mental health services Never a bad idea but unlikely to affect mass killings No clear link between mass killers and mental health diagnosis Unclear whether a mass killer would be identified before the event
STRATEGY 3: Minimize generalized imitation evoked by media reporting
STRATEGY 1: Gun control legislation
STRATEGY 2: Improved mental health services Never a bad idea but unlikely to affect mass killings No clear link between mass killers and mental health diagnosis Unclear whether a mass killer would be identified before the event
STRATEGY 3: Minimize generalized imitation evoked by media reporting
STRATEGY 1: Gun control legislation
STRATEGY 2: Improved mental health services
STRATEGY 3: Minimize generalized imitation evoked by media reporting
Recent evidence of contagion effect When one occurs another is likely within the next 13-14 days. Essentially one induces another
How does this spread? Contagion is simply a metaphor Mechanism is Generalized Imitation
A person engages in a novel behavior as a result of observing or being provided a description of similar behavior
A learned behavioral skill
Begins with simple imitation – you imitate what’s been reinforced
Gradually becomes generalized and can occur at a later date
Factors affecting the probability of imitation
Similarity between model and imitator
Model is of an elevated status
Model is seen being rewarded
Model is seen as competent
Generalized imitation has been seen across
Airplane hijackings
Smoking
Jaywalking
Binge eating
Rudeness in the workplace
Aggression in children
Generalized imitation is necessary but not sufficient . . .
Rule-governance – behavior controlled by a verbal statement of a contingency
Joint control – behavior controlled by an event and preserved by rehearsal of a verbal statement
Derived relational responding – acting in a specific way based on how one event relates to another
Everyone at work is
incompetent
Everyone at work is incompetent.
Incompetent people should be taught a lesson.
I need to teach everyone at work
a lesson
* Repeating to self *
Incompetent people should be taught a
lesson
Earliest example – Sorrow of Young Werther by Goethe (18th
century)
More recently Casualty - 1990s Tv show Simulated drug overdose led to increase in overdose using same drug
13 Reasons Why – Netflix series Lead teen shown completing suicide led to increased internet searches
related to suicide
Overall, when mass media highly publicize suicide there is often an increase in suicides or suicide related behavior
Refrain from sensational language or normalizing suicide
Avoid unnecessary repetition of story
Use neutral rather than emotionally charged photos
Refrain from detailing the method of death
Take care with celebrity suicide
There is evidence that when these rules are followed there is a decrease in imitative suicide
Overall, length of coverage is increasing ~ 2 weeks Initial focus on the shooter first week and impact second week
• Life story presented• Pundits suggest motives or diagnose
Demonstrating similarity
• Interview victims, bystanders, close associates• Exhaustive detail about killer and event• Repeatedly display killer’s image and name
Elevating status
• Repeat body count• Emphasize killer avoided consequences through suicide
Demonstrating competence
• Extensive coverage• Repeat killer’s name• Publish manifestos/videos
Rewarding
Alter reporting tactics Some suggestions by No Notoriety and Don’t Name Them campaigns
TO AVOID BECAUSE . . .Language that sensationalizes Rewards killer and event
Describing methods Establishes competence and promotes imitation
Repetition or prominent placement Rewards killer
Video footage or photographs of event Rewards killer and creates a powerful model
Simplistic explanations (e.g., he was angry) Promotes similarity with people in similar situations
Elevating killer (e.g., thug, lone wolf) Can be perceived as reward for some
Suggesting killing was a means to an end Suggests reward for similar behavior
Describing as an increasing trend Normalizes the behavior
Publishing anything left by killer Rewards killer by spreading message
Interviewing police, witnesses, or victims Sensationalizes the story and provides limited information
Media outlets might not voluntarily alter reporting practices
Compel adoption through public pressure
Rank and publish media outlets Who is a responsible reporter?
Media outlets could use same ranking to self-evaluate
Social media could voluntarily implement uploading policy and use similar scoring
Campaign to reduce mass killing Have effectively been used to reduce other behaviors influence by generalized imitation E.g., Suicide, tobacco/alcohol use, littering
Major goals:
1. Direction on how to respond if you are concerned about another person
2. Actively change the image of a mass killer
Not aggressive, dangerous, or menacing - instead, weak, cowardly, ineffectual E.g., didn’t avoid punishment by suicide-by-cop. Lost control of the situation and gave up.
Associate with other undesirable qualities .e.g., 1/5 public mass killings are precipitated by a domestic dispute Killer lacked sufficient control over own behavior – immature and juvenile in their actions
Campaign to reduce mass killing
The goal Rather than depict the killer as a vicious loner who
took the lives of many people while devastating a community and avoiding justice through suicide . . .
. . . the killer was an impulsive nobody who lacked the strength to handle his own problems and engaged in a violent tantrum.
Campaign to reduce mass killing
The goal Rather than depict the killer as a vicious loner who
took the lives of many people while devastating a community and avoiding justice through suicide . . .
. . . the killer was an impulsive nobody who lacked the strength to handle his own problems and engaged in a violent tantrum.
Significant care would need to be taken to ensure it didn’t have unintended effects
Changing public perception that someone “snapped”
Change researcher perception that source of control is internal It was a build up from trauma that led to an explosion
Change our methods of analysis
Mass killings are the culmination of a sequence of behavior. There is a learning history and immediate events that evoke the actual behavior What is this interplay?
Mass killings likely involve a variety of sources of control such as derived relational responding How does this form? What are the contingencies? How does verbal behavior/language play a role?
Is a functional analysis of sorts possible? Perhaps on precursor behaviors such as stockpiling weapons. Conditional probability analysis?
Mass killings are chaotic, complex, traumatic events . . . but they are still behavior
They should be analyzed and understood as such What at the antecedents and consequences?
What is the learning history?
A more behavioral approach is needed and necessary.