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.