Research Note

Introduction to the Inaugural Issue of the Journal of Mass Violence Research: A Note from the Editors

by

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Introduction to the Inaugural Issue of the Journal of Mass Violence Research: A Note from the Editors

Jaclyn Schildkraut Email the Corresponding Author1 and Sarah E. Daly2

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE (PDF)  Download a PDF Copy of This Article

1Department of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Oswego
2Department of Criminology, Law, & Society, Saint Vincent College

https://doi.org/10.53076/JMVR75527  |  Full Citation
Volume: 1, Issue: 1, Page(s): 1-3

Various forms of mass violence plague the United States and countries around the world, and all require critical scholarship aimed at understanding their root causes and prevalence. Moreover, this type of research requires an understanding of the specific nuances of these issues to better inform policy and work towards prevention efforts. As researchers in this area, we, like others, have experienced challenges in getting our research published. Even more, while there are many researchers and practitioners working in this space, our efforts may lack cohesion due to the absence of a dedicated resource through which to publish our work. These obstacles highlighted the importance and demand for an outlet that can speak to and enhance the research and the conversation about mass violence in all forms.

Recognizing this need, the idea of the Journal of Mass Violence Research (JMVR) was born in October 2020 and the journal was officially launched the following month. From the earliest days, we envisioned JMVR as an outlet to showcase scholarship on these contemporary issues to not only address the need for such a journal but also to present our findings in a way that is more accessible to policymakers, the media, and the public alike. As we share on our website, the purpose of the journal is:

[T]o share rigorous, multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed studies related to different facets of mass violence in the U.S. and beyond. With a focus on public research and accessibility, the Journal of Mass Violence Research seeks to promote high-quality scholarship and authors, disseminate findings via articles, videos, and infographics, and generate academic and public interest in this important research area.

Informed by this goal, we set out to create a journal that showcases this research while adhering to best practices regarding violence research, encouraging authors to refrain from naming the perpetrators, and recognizing (and respecting) the trauma of such violence of victims and survivors of mass violence.

We also wanted to address the shortcomings and stressors of publishing and academia more broadly. As such, we created guiding principles for editors and the editorial board, authors, reviewers, and the journal to make the review and publication process a more positive experience. Since its inception, we have had the pleasure of working with enthusiastic scholars who share in our vision for the journal and recognize the need for such research and the myriad of considerations that it demands. The editorial board and other external reviewers have been dedicated to the promotion, support, and growth of the journal, and their thoughtful contributions along with thorough and prompt reviews of articles ultimately have enhanced the articles that we have published, ensuring that we remain committed to publishing high-quality multidisciplinary studies. We are grateful to those who have made the journal possible, and we look forward to the ways that we can enhance the reach and the impact of JMVR.

The creation, promotion, and publication of the journal is the culmination of hard work, commitment, and dedication, and these efforts make the inaugural issue even more exciting. We hope that readers will find articles of both interest and value. Addressing issues of serial murder, familicide, and nuanced aspects of mass homicide and shootings, the research notes and articles present unique and useful insights about these topics.

In the article “A Rose by Any Other Name: Problems in Defining and Conceptualising Serial Murder with a New Proposed Definition,” authors Wayne Petherick, Shuktika Bose, Amber McKinley, and Candice Skrapec describe definitional challenges that have long plagued the research on serial murder, including outlining the history of the term. The authors contend that the way in which definitions are crafted can have a considerable impact both for individuals who are investigating and research this form of mass violence, and that variability in required victim count is one of the most significant issues. Other elements that must be considered when defining serial murder include case linkage, cooling-off periods, motive, and propensity. After carefully laying out the respective challenges for each of these individual elements, the authors then propose a revised definition designed to overcome such limitations and help move the body of research on serial murder forward.

The second article of the issue, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind: An Analysis of Family Mass Murder Offenders in the US, 2006-2017” by authors Madelyn Diaz, Kayla Toohy, Ketty Fernandez, Lin Huff-Corzine, and Amy Reckdenwald seeks to expand our understanding of family mass murderers beyond the more sensationalized forms of mass violence. With specific focus paid to offender, victim, and incident characteristics, the authors shed important light on the context of family mass murder events in the U.S. The authors highlight how these incidents vary based on the differences in offenders’ relationships with their victims, which can be further impacted by disparities in their motivations. The findings of this study lead the authors to call for more robust research and policy examinations dedicated to better understanding the relationship between domestic violence and mass violence.

The issue’s third article, “Changing Media Framings of School Shootings: A Case Study of the Parkland School Shooting” by Jennifer LaRose, Jose Torres, and Michael Barton, explores the media coverage of the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and how it differed between local and national outlets. Grounded in the Social Coping model, this analysis of front-page news stories in three Florida-based and three national newspapers finds that the shooting was covered more at the local level, which mirrors coverage patterns related to previous school-based mass shootings like Virginia Tech. At the same time, the authors highlight the important ways in which the coverage of the Parkland shooting departed from the media attention dedicated to earlier shootings. Given that most individuals will not be directly impacted by mass shootings like Parkland and that the media then serve as their primary source of information about these events, understanding the impact of framing is all the more critical to contextualizing the public reactions that follow in the wake of these tragedies.

Our first research note, “An Exploration of Female Mass Shooters” by Jason Silva and Margaret Schmuhl, explores a critically overlooked subset of mass shooters – female perpetrators. Although a small segment of such perpetrators, it is critical to understand the characteristics of these individuals and their corresponding events, including motivating factors, to better understand how to inform not only response strategies to mass shootings, but how they may need to be tailored based on who is carrying out the act. In this note, the authors highlight how mass shootings perpetrated by females are most likely to occur at their workplace, are more likely to be motivated by problems in the workplace rather than relationship issues, and how female offenders are more likely to work in dyads than mass shooters more broadly (more commonly perpetrated by males).

Finally, we conclude the issue with a research note from Miranda Sanchez and Christopher Ferguson entitled “Exposure to Bullying, Childhood Trauma, and Violence in Video Games Among Perpetrators of Mass Homicides: A Brief Report,” which compares these different childhood experiences among firearm mass homicide offenders against matched samples. Contrary to the common discourse that often follows such events, the authors find that mass homicide perpetrators did not experience more bullying nor play more video games than members of the general public, though they did find a higher prevalence of reported child abuse among the mass homicide perpetrators. The authors further consider how this more nuanced understanding of the etiological factors of firearm-related mass homicides can be used to inform prevention efforts.

As the creators and editors, we are excited to present the inaugural issue of the Journal of Mass Violence Research. At the same time, we are continuing to accept article submissions while also creating additional opportunities to continue and expand on this work. Beyond this first issue, we remain committed to our original goal of become a leading research and platform to promote quality scholarship on mass violence research. By publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed articles and research notes that are open-access and linguistically and intellectually accessible, we hope that these publications reach a broader audience and can, therefore, shape the way that people consider and address issues of mass violence. We look forward to the chance to collaborate and engage with scholars, practitioners, and the public, and we are excited about the future of the Journal of Mass Violence Research.

About the Authors

Jaclyn Schildkraut is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Oswego and is the co-founder and co-editor of the Journal of Mass Violence Research. Her research interests include mass/school shootings, homicide trends, mediatization effects, moral panics, and crime theories.  She is the co-author of Mass Shootings: Media, Myths, and Realities and Columbine, 20 Years Later and Beyond: Lessons from Tragedy, and has published in journals such as Journal of School Violence, Homicide Studies, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology, Crime, Law and Social Change, and Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.

Sarah E. Daly is an assistant professor and director of the graduate program for the Criminology, Law, and Society department at Saint Vincent College. She teaches courses on mass violence, race and gender, research methods, and policy analysis. Her primary area of research is gender-based violence, particularly related to issues related to involuntary celibates. She has a book manuscript in progress on incels as well as recent publications in the Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology and Sex Roles. She is also co-founder and an editor of the Journal of Mass Violence Research.

CITATION (APA 7th Edition)
Schildkraut, J., & Daly, S. E. (2022). Introduction to the inaugural issue of the Journal of Mass Violence Research: A note from the editors. Journal of Mass Violence Research, 1(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.53076/JMVR75527

Exposure to Bullying, Childhood Trauma, and Violence in Video Games Among Perpetrators of Mass Homicides: A Brief Report

by

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Exposure to Bullying, Childhood Trauma, and Violence in Video Games Among Perpetrators of Mass Homicides: A Brief Report

Miranda Sanchez Email the Corresponding Author1 and Christopher J. Ferguson1

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE (PDF)  Download a PDF Copy of This Article

1Department of Psychology, Stetson University

https://doi.org/10.53076/JMVR91931  |  Full Citation
Volume: 1, Issue: 1, Page(s): 72-80

Article History: Received June 10, 2021 | Accepted October 22, 2021 | Published Online November 28, 2021

  Watch a Video Summary About This Article

ABSTRACT

Perpetrators of mass homicides have often been believed to have experienced certain events in their childhoods that may have led to their crimes. Among the issues that were considered in this study were childhood trauma, which included abuse history, and history of childhood bullying. Another issue that was examined was whether they played violent video games as a child. Exposure to these variables were compared between a sample of 169 male firearm mass homicide perpetrators and preexisting research samples of the same age and gender who had not committed mass murders. Analyses were preregistered. Hypotheses that were tested included whether mass homicide perpetrators had experienced more childhood abuse, more childhood bullying or played more violent video games compared to matched samples. Results suggest that mass homicide perpetrators had experienced more abuse than other individuals, but not bullying. By contrast, mass homicide perpetrators had played fewer violent video games than had matched samples. These results seem to match previous data on mass homicide perpetrators.

KEYWORDS
mass homicide, violent video games, childhood trauma, abuse, bullying

The issue of mass homicides remains one of significant concern in the United States and elsewhere. Terms such as “mass homicide” and “mass shooting” may be used somewhat interchangeably in the press and, here, we adopt the definition of “mass homicide,” which is most commonly used in criminology (e.g., Fox & Levin, 2003; Holmes & Holmes, 1992). This definition specifies at least four individuals (other than the perpetrator) are killed in a single incident and excluding other categories of mass deaths such as terrorism, gang violence, or robberies. Numerous controversies remain over many issues related to mass homicides, such as whether they are increasing in number, the involvement of mental illness (Lankford & Cowan, 2020), and whether gun control might prevent them (Siegel et al., 2020). Among the issues of interest to the general public and policy makers is understanding the etiological origins of mass homicide: what developmental pathways lead someone to engage in a mass homicide.

Proposals for etiological paths for mass homicide are many and it is not our intent to exclude those beyond the scope of the current analysis. However, in the current paper, we focus on three main hypotheses related to mass homicide. Specifically, we focus on hypotheses that perpetrators of mass homicide may have been exposed to more abuse, more bullying, and more violent video games as children (e.g., see Commission on School Safety, 2018 for recent government investigation of related issues). We recognize that, of course, the phenomenon of mass homicides is complex, and that examination of any few variables necessarily simplifies any complex phenomena. Nonetheless, the examination of specific variables can help us to understand whether preconceptions of a phenomenon are accurate and whether these should be included in further theoretical models. For example, it had long been thought that, as per social cognitive theories, the mere presence of a weapon might facilitate aggression and violence though recent analyzes of the evidence base have proven this hypothesis to be controversial (Benjamin et al., 2018).

Regarding the issue of abuse, physical abuse exposure in childhood has long been associated with later commission of homicide (e.g., Lewis et al., 1985). However, this issue has been comparatively understudied for mass homicides. Some evidence has suggested that difficult life experiences are common in the histories of mass homicide perpetrators (Gill et al., 2016). However, more research would certainly be welcome.

As to the issue of bullying, the general public has long suspected a link between bullying exposure and mass homicides, particularly as relates to school shootings. However, current evidence to support this hypothesis has typically relied on fairly small samples (e.g., Raitanen et al., 2019). At present, the overall evidence for this hypothesis remains unclear (Stallings & Hall, 2019) and more data would be welcome.

Lastly, the issue of violence in video games has long been controversial. Some scholars have historically suggested links between violent games and mass homicides (see Markey, Males, et al., 2015 for full detailing). Other scholars, however, have contested this (Fox & DeLateur, 2014), referring to it as a myth. The issue of violent video game impact on aggression has been controversial. Some scholars have suggested that such games are linked to aggression in meta-analyses (e.g., Anderson et al., 2010), although reanalysis of this work suggested that experimental results were largely due to publication bias (Hilgard et al., 2017). Several studies in this realm have also experienced retractions. Preregistered studies, which reduce researcher expectancy effects by having researchers publish their hypotheses and data analysis plan in advance of data collection, have largely failed to find links between violent games and aggression (e.g., Hilgard et al., 2019; McCarthy et al., 2016; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2019). Longitudinal studies, likewise, have failed to provide evidence for long-term effects, with better quality studies less likely to find evidence for harm than poorer quality studies (Drummond et al., 2020). Thus, increasingly, the weight of evidence has not suggested that violent video games are meaningfully linked to serious aggression or violent crime, though samples of college students or youth in the general populace cannot be generalized to mass homicides. This relates to larger debates about whether, for instance, professional guilds such as the American Psychological Association have misled the public about links between violence in video games and aggression (see Ferguson et al., 2020 for a recent analysis of APA policy statements). Data on mass homicide perpetrators, however, remains limited.

Perhaps one of the most famous studies of mass homicide perpetrators for these issues was the 2002 Secret Service report on school shooters (United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education, 2002). This investigation included details of 37 school mass homicides, including 41 perpetrators, occurring between 1974 to 2000. Findings from this study were fairly nuanced. For instance, perpetrators came from a variety of family backgrounds, some more chaotic than others, although abuse wasn’t as clearly specified as might be desired. Many perpetrators reported feeling bullied, although whether this was an accurate perception or not wasn’t clear. Perpetrators generally had a lower-than-expected interest in violent video games or other media, although absent a control group, these figures are hard to interpret. A more recent report (United States Secret Service, 2021) examined 67 averted mass homicides targeting schools occurring between 2006 and 2018. The report concluded that issues of family violence and bullying were common for this population. Interest in violent themes, including past school shootings was common as well, although the report made only vague references to media violence with few details. 

The Current Study

The current study sought to examine the experiencing of childhood abuse, bullying, and exposure to violence in video games in a large sample of mass homicide perpetrators. In each case, the sample of mass homicide perpetrators will be compared to a control sample of similarly aged and gendered (i.e., male) individuals. Therefore, the hypotheses that were tested included:

H1: Mass homicide perpetrators have experienced more childhood trauma (or abuse) compared to individuals from the general populace.

H2: Mass homicide perpetrators have experienced more childhood bullying compared to individuals from the general populace.

H3: Mass homicide perpetrators have experienced played more violent video games compared to from the general populace. 

Methods1

Perpetrators

The treatment population of cases of perpetrators in this study were collected from a database of mass homicide perpetrators cultivated by the Violence Project (Peterson & Densley, 2020). This database was derived from publicly available criminological data funded by the National Institute of Justice and specifically includes mass homicide perpetrators who killed four or more victims using firearms. Cases were sourced from existing mass homicide databases, as well as news reports, and this approach has been found to be valid in sourcing mass homicides, particularly given their widespread news coverage (Huff-Corzine & Corzine, 2020; Peterson et al., 2021). Crimes were committed from the years 1966 through 2020. For the video game analysis, perpetrators from the years 1992 through 2020 were included, encompassing years from which exposure to violence in video games was possible. The number of perpetrators that were analyzed from the mass homicide database was 173. Most perpetrators were male (4 were female). Females, however, were excluded from the analyzed sample to retain consistency with the male control samples, resulting in a final sample of 169. Ethnically, they were mixed with 90 (52%) White, 36 (20.8%) Black, 14 (8.1%) Latino, 11 (6.4%) Asian, with the remainder Native American, Middle Eastern, Other, or unreported. Ethnicity was unreported for 10 (5.9%) of perpetrators. Mean age was 34.08 (SD = 12.14). Mean number of victims killed were 7.21 (SD = 6.72).

Table 1
Sample Descriptives

Descriptives Mass Homicide
(Present Study)		 González et al.
(2015)		 Wong & Schonlau
(2013)		 Olson et al.
(2007)
Age (Mean)
34
27.5 (approx.)
24 (approx.)
12.9
Ethnicity
52% White
73% White
52% White
70% White
21% Black
11% Black
26% Black
24% Black
8% Latino
N/A
21% Latino
3% Latino
6% Asian
15% Asian
N/A
3% Asian

Control Samples

Control samples were collected from studies of abuse, bullying, and video game violence exposure prevalence with male samples (acknowledging that there were a small number of females in the mass homicide database, they were eliminated from further analysis to avoid confounding). The control study related to childhood abuse exposure was González and colleagues (2015). This study focused on 2,928 men in the general public to determine if there were indirect or direct pathways to violence and health issues in adulthood related to childhood maltreatment. The sample consisted of men aged 21 to 34, 73.8% of whom were White, 11.1% of whom were Black and 15.2% of whom were Asian/South Asian. In this sample, 6% reported experience childhood physical abuse. For bullying, a sample by Wong and Schonlau (2013) was used. This study used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, a database that began in 1996 employing youth aged 12 to 16, putting respondents in their mid-20s. Surveys for this study were taken 10 years later in the 7th wave in 2007. This sample examined the life outcomes of just under 9,000 individuals. Bullying data was available for 4,510 males. For this sample, childhood bullying prevalence among males was 22%. Lastly, regarding violent video game exposure, we used a sample provided by Olson and colleagues (2007). Data were gathered from 1,254 participants in the form of a self-reported survey. This study focused on the play patterns of boys and girls to determine a correlation between gender and playing violent video games (Olson et al., 2007). The average age of participants was 12.9 and 90% were White. This sample was younger than the others, though this seemed appropriate for assessing adolescent violent game use, and samples of prevalence among adult males are rare. Among the boys, prevalence of violent video game exposure (defined as having played an M-rated for “mature” game) was 67.9%. Descriptives of all samples are included as Table 1.

Procedures

The statistical analyses that were used to examine our hypotheses were three one sample t-tests, which allowed the mass homicide database with proportions of individuals experiencing the three predictor variables in the three control studies. For the mass homicide perpetrator database, each participant was coded as either having experienced or not having experienced each of the three predictor variables (1 or 0). This allowed comparison with a criterion value based on the proportion of individuals experiencing the predictor variable in the three control samples (e.g., .06 for physical abuse, .22 for bullying and .679 for violent game exposure).

Results

The first hypothesis was that mass homicide perpetrators have experienced more childhood trauma (or abuse) compared to individuals from the general populace. This hypothesis was analyzed by using a one sample t-test comparing the mass homicide perpetrators against the analyzed proportions of childhood trauma (or abuse) in the control sample. For this, the childhood trauma variable was used, and perpetrators were coded as having experienced abuse if abuse was reported by any family member. First, it is worth noting that data were available for only 64 of the perpetrators. Among them, experiencing of abuse was consistent (92.2% had experienced reported abuse). After examining the descriptive statistics, a one sample t-test was used to the hypothesis related to abuse: t(63) = 25.491, p < . 001. The effect size was Cohen’s d = 3.19. The results suggest that abuse was more likely to be reported for mass homicide perpetrators as compared to self-reported data from individuals in the general populace. This outcome supports this hypothesis. One possibility is that the missing data may cause an overrepresentation of abuse history among perpetrators. This was reexamined by making the assumption that every missing value was non-abuse. Rerunning the t-test still finds the association to be significant t(172) = 7.774, p < .001. Thus, even if every missing data point indicated an absence of abusiveness, our hypothesis would still be supported. Given that the data related to abuse was discrete, there was little clear basis from which to use imputation methods to address missing data.

The second hypothesis was that mass homicide perpetrators have experienced more childhood bullying compared to individuals from the general populace. This hypothesis was analyzed using a one sample t-test comparing the mass homicide perpetrators against the prevalence of childhood bullying in the control sample. First, the proportion of mass homicide perpetrators with data on bullying (n = 155) had a 19.4% prevalence rate for bullying. A one sample t-test can be used to compare the mass homicide perpetrators to the control sample: t(154) = -.831, p = .407. As such our hypothesis in this area was rejected. Our data suggest that reports of bullying experienced by mass homicide perpetrators does not differ from self-reported bullying by men in the general populace.

The third hypothesis was that mass homicide perpetrators have experienced playing more violent video games compared to individuals from the general populace. Cases of perpetrators who committed their crimes before a time likely to have the opportunity to play highly violent games (1992) were eliminated from analysis. This was because extreme violence in games was generally less common before this time, with a rise of fighting and shooter games beginning in roughly 1992. Specifically, the databased coded whether the perpetrators were reported either to have played violent video games or definitively had not played violent video games. However, in some cases, perpetrators were known to have played video games, but the content of the games was unknown. Individuals in this last category were excluded from analysis as violent game exposure could not be confirmed. This left 111 perpetrators, among whom 21.6% were reported to have played violent video games. A one sample t-test was then used: t(114) = -11.790, p  < .001. The effect size was Cohen’s d = -1.15. The results found that mass homicide perpetrators experienced playing fewer violent video games rather compared to individuals from the general populace. This result was opposite of the hypothesis.

Discussion

The issue of the etiological origins of mass homicides remains under considerable debate. We sought, by examining a preexisting database of mass homicide perpetrators, to examine this issue related to experiences with childhood abuse, bullying, and exposure to violent video games. Our results were mixed for evidence to support common beliefs linking these predictors to mass homicides.

The first hypothesis focused on whether experiencing of childhood abuse would be predictive of mass homicide perpetration. Our analysis supported a hypothesized correlation. The results clearly found that the mass homicide perpetrators as children had experienced trauma (or abuse) in higher proportions than a control sample of males. This finding is correlational, of course, but does suggest some degree of familial transmission of violence across generations, which may relate to mass homicide. By any metric of interpreting effect size (e.g., Cohen, 1992), this effect size is quite large indeed, frankly, quite unusually so for social science research. This is reflective of the near ubiquity of reported abuse among the sample of mass homicide perpetrators, whereas abuse is much less common in the general population. As such, this appears to be a particularly strong predictor variable.

The second hypothesis focused on whether experiencing childhood bullying would relate to mass homicide perpetration. However, we found no significant difference in proportion of mass homicide perpetrators who experienced bullying compared to a control sample of males. It may be that childhood bullying possibly had less of an impact on future violence than society has come to believe. It is possible that childhood bullying may play more of a role in youthful shooters, and the United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education (2002) analysis suggested that youthful perpetrators commonly perceived being bullied. It is also possible that these perpetrators may be more sensitive to bullying or interpret ambiguous slights as bullying. More data on this is clearly needed.

The third hypothesis focused on whether mass homicide perpetrators had experienced more exposure to violent video games than a control sample of males. In fact, our analysis suggested the opposite: that mass homicide perpetrators experienced fewer violent video games than control males. The effect size was moderate in size, not nearly as large as that for abuse, though still non-trivial. This appears to be consistent with data from the United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education (2002) report. The theory for why this hypothesis wasn’t supported was because violent video games do not influence a child/adult’s mind into becoming a violent or aggressive person. Increasingly, evidence suggests that violent games have little impact even on minor aggression. As such, links between games and mass homicides are largely mythical (Fox & DeLateur, 2014). As to why an inverse relationship may, in fact, exist, we don’t conclude violent games necessarily prevent mass homicides. There are several possible explanations. One possibility is that, indeed, violent games reduce stress or provide a release for youth in crisis. Another is simply that violent game playing is normative among young males, as evidence by the high proportion in the Olson et al. (2007) study. Thus, any deviation from normative behavior, however circumstantial, may be something of a warning sign. In this sense, if playing violent video games is “normal” for youth (Olson, 2010), then not engaging in the behavior might be more common among struggling individuals than engaging in the behavior is, even if the behavior may cross moral lines among older adults. As another interesting example, though historically adults have worried about teens having sex, more recently, some scholars have argued that teens delaying sex is a worrying sign of delayed adulthood due to technology use and other factors (South & Lei, 2021).

Broader Implications

For decades, policy makers and scholars have wondered over the potential causes of mass homicides and how they might be prevented. Any complex behavior such as mass homicide undoubtedly has multiple causal factors. Our current study is correlational; however, correlation is a necessary precursor for causality and, as such, can point policy makers toward phenomenon what may help us to understand what elements may or may not help us to prevent future mass homicides.

With this in mind, policies that target reducing violence in the home may be particularly fruitful. Naturally, most people who experience violence in the home don’t go on to become mass homicide perpetrators, nor even other violent criminals. However, family violence is one risk factor for violent crime in general and, as we see in the current study, mass homicide specifically. Trying to predict whom, based on their family history, would continue on to become a mass homicide perpetrator is unlikely to be fruitful, yet prevention and intervention strategies that target family violence broadly may help to reduce all forms of violent crime, including mass homicide.

By contrast, and somewhat a surprise to us, anti-bullying programs may be less helpful in this realm. The experience of bullying is fairly widespread, though it has been decreasing in recent years (Finkelhor, 2020). Thus, it’s predictive value may be limited. It may be more the case that mass homicide perpetrators are injustice collectors viewing themselves as victims of societal ill-treatment more than, in reality, experiencing it to any degree different from the average youth or adult. It is possible that, once again, prevention programs broadly applied may, nonetheless, be helpful, although we observe that historically the success of such programs has been modest (Ferguson et al., 2007).

What we can most definitively say is that pursuing policies to reduce exposure to violent video games, particularly as they conflict with the First Amendment in the US, or free speech values elsewhere, are unlikely to be of much help. Our data were correlational, so we don’t necessarily endorse the idea that violent games are cathartic in reducing the incidence of mass violence among those who play them although, broadly speaking, the release of highly popular violent games is generally associated with concomitant reductions in societal violence (Beerthuizen et al., 2017; Cunningham et al., 2016; Markey, Markey & French, 2015). Societal attention to the issue of video games is most likely to act as a distractor and, as such, pull the attention of policy makers and the public away from intervention and prevention efforts that actually may help.

Limitations

As with any study, ours has limitations. First, our data comprises the use of several secondary datasets. Although this approach can be useful, such datasets inevitably involved different methods and approaches in assessing their constructs. This can inevitably cause issues related to data management that can influence the reliability and validity of comparisons made across datasets. Each dataset also carries individual strengths and limitations, such as the use of self-report in the control samples as opposed to the use of archival psychological autopsy type data for the mass homicide database. Second, it is possible that definitions of terms may differ from the database of mass homicide perpetrators to the control samples, causing some unreliability in comparisons. Third, our study considered only a limited number of predictors. Naturally, other issues may also play an important role in the etiology of mass homicide. By contrast, our analyses benefit from being preregistered, reducing the potential for false positive results due to researcher expectancy effects. Case controlled examinations, such as this one, have their limitations and it might be possible for some to overestimate the relationship between child abuse and mass homicide (and, again, we caution that most individuals exposed to child abuse do not go on to commit serious crimes), but this approach can be an excellent complement to studies of the general populace among whom mass homicides are exceedingly rare.

Conclusions

The frequency of mass homicides appears unlikely to abate in the near future. Much of the discussion around such acts focuses on policy issues such as those related to gun control and mental health. We believe these are worthwhile. A fuller understanding of etiological factors involved in the developmental pathway toward mass homicide can also be worthwhile. Studies that are preregistered and use a standardized approach can be particularly valuable. We hope that our own analysis provides one small step in better understanding which variables do and do not correlate with mass homicide perpetration.

NOTES

  1. A preregistration of this study is available at: https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=d8sk9b.


DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 151-173. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0018251

Beerthuizen, M. G. C. J., Weijters, G., & van der Laan, A. M. (2017). The release of Grand Theft Aauto V and registered juvenile crime in the Netherlands. European Journal of Criminology, 14(6), 751-765. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370817717070

Benjamin, A. J., Jr., Kepes, S., & Bushman, B. J. (2018). Effects of weapons on aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, hostile appraisals, and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the weapons effect literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(4), 347-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317725419

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Commission on School Safety. (2018). Final Report of the Federal Commission on School Safety. US Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/documents/school-safety/school-safety-report.pdf

Cunningham, S., Engelstätter, B., & Ward, M. R. (2016). Violent video games and violent crime. Southern Economic Journal, 82(4), 1247-1265. https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12139

Drummond, A., Sauer, J. D., & Ferguson, C. J. (2020). Do longitudinal studies support long-term relationships between aggressive game play and youth aggressive behavior? A meta-analytic examination. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200373

Ferguson, C. J., Copenhaver, A., & Markey, P. (2020). Reexamining the findings of the American Psychological Association’s 2015 Task Force on Violent Media: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1423-1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927666

Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Kilburn, J. C., Jr., & Sanchez, P. (2007). The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32(4), 401-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016807311712

Finkelhor, D. (2020). Trends in adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in the United States. Child Abuse & Neglect, 108, 104641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104641

Fox, J. A., & DeLateur, M. J. (2014). Mass shootings in America: Moving beyond Newtown. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913510297

Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (2003). Mass murder: An analysis of extreme violence. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5(1), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021051002020

Gill, P., Silver, J., Horgan, J., & Corner, E. (2016). Shooting alone: The pre-attack experiences and behaviors of U.S. solo mass murderers. Journal of Forensic Science, 62, 710-714. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13330

González, R. A., Kallis, C., Ullrich, S., Barnicot, K., Keers, R., & Coid, J. W. (2016). Childhood maltreatment and violence: Mediation through psychiatric morbidity. Child Abuse & Neglect, 52, 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.01.002

Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., & Rouder, J. N. (2017). Overstated evidence for short-term effects of violent games on affect and behavior: A reanalysis of Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 143(7), 757-774.https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000074

Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., Rouder, J. N., Segert, I. L., & Bartholow, B. D. (2019). Null effects of game violence, game difficulty, and 2D:4D digit ratio on aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 30(4), 606-616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619829688

Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (1992). Understanding mass murder: A starting point. Federal Probation, 56(1), 53-61. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/understanding-mass-murder-starting-point

Huff-Corzine, L., & Corzine, J. (2020). The devil’s in the details: Measuring mass violence. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12482

Lankford, A., & Cowan, R. G. (2020). Has the role of mental health problems in mass shootings been significantly underestimated? Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 7(3-4), 135-156. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000151

Lewis, D. O., Moy, E., Jackson, L. D., Aaronson, R., Restifo, N., Serra, S., & Simos, A. (1985). Biopsychosocial characteristics of children who later murder: A prospective study. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 142(10), 1161-1167. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.142.10.1161

Markey, P. M., Males, M. A., French, J. E., & Markey, C. N. (2015). Lessons from Markey et al (2015) and Bushman et al (2015): Sensationalism and integrity in media research. Human Communication Research, 41(2), 184-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12057

Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., & French, J. E. (2015). Violent video games and real-world violence: Rhetoric versus data. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(4), 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000030

McCarthy, R. J., Coley, S. L., Wagner, M. F., Zengel, B., & Basham, A. (2016). Does playing video games with violent content temporarily increase aggressive inclinations? A pre-registered experimental study. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.009

Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of normal development. Review Of General Psychology, 14(2), 180-187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018984

Olson, C. K., Kutner, L. A., Warner, D. E., Almerigi, J. B., Baer, L., Nicholi, A. M., II, & Beresin, E. V. (2007). Factors correlated with violent video game use by adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(1), 77-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.01.001

Peterson, J. & Densley, J. (2020). The Violence Project database of mass shootings in the United States, 1966-2020. https://www.theviolenceproject.org

Peterson, J. K., Densley, J. A., Knapp, K., Higgins, S., & Jensen, A. (2021). Psychosis and mass shootings: A systematic examination using publicly available data. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000314

Przybylski, A., & Weinstein, N. (2019). Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents’ aggressive behaviour: Evidence from a registered report. Royal Society for Open Science, 6(2), 171474. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171474

Raitanen, J., Sandberg, S., & Oksanen, A. (2019). The bullying-school shooting nexus: Bridging master narratives of mass violence with personal narratives of social exclusion. Deviant Behavior, 40(1), 96-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1411044

Siegel, M., Goder-Reiser, M., Duwe, G., Rocque, M., Fox, J. A., & Fridel, E. E. (2020). The relation between state gun laws and the incidence and severity of mass public shootings in the United States, 1976-2018. Law and Human Behavior, 44(5), 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000378.supp

South, S. J., & Lei, L. (2021). Why are fewer young adults having casual sex? Socius. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121996854

Stallings, R., & Hall, J. C. (2019). Averted targeted school killings from 1900-2016. Criminal Justice Studies, 32(3), 222-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2019.1618296

United States Secret Service. (2021). Averting targeted school violence: A U.S. Secret Service analysis of plots against schools. https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-03/USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021.03.pdf

United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf

Wong, J. S., & Schonlau, M. (2013). Does bully victimization predict future delinquency?: A propensity score matching approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(11), 1184-1208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813503443

About the Authors

Miranda Sanchez is a recent graduate of Stetson University.  This project is the result of her senior thesis.

Christopher J. Ferguson is a professor of psychology at Stetson University.  He has studied issues related to video games, mass homicides and other acts of violence for two decades.

CITATION (APA 7th Edition)
Sanchez, M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2021). Exposure to bullying, childhood trauma, and violence in video games among perpetrators of mass homicides: A brief report. Journal of Mass Violence Research, 1(1), 72-80. https://doi.org/10.53076/JMVR91931

An Exploration of Female Mass Shooters

by

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

An Exploration of Female Mass Shooters

Jason R. Silva Email the Corresponding Author1 and Margaret A. Schmuhl2

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE (PDF)  Download a PDF Copy of This Article

1Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, William Patterson University
2Department of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Oswego

https://doi.org/10.53076/JMVR95588  |  Full Citation
Volume: 1, Issue: 1, Page(s): 62-71

Article History: Received June 22, 2021 | Accepted September 17, 2021 | Published Online October 4, 2021

  Download an Infographic About This Article

ABSTRACT

This research note provides an exploratory examination of female mass shooters in the United States between 1979 and 2019. Specifically, this work provides descriptive statistics of perpetrator, motivation, and incident characteristics. Findings indicate female mass shooters more closely align with male mass shooters than general female homicide and mass murder offenders. The most valuable findings indicate female mass shooters are not motivated by relationship disputes, they often target the workplace, and they are more likely to work in dyads, especially when engaging in ideologically motivated attacks. A discussion of findings provides insight for mass shooting and gender scholars, as well as practitioners seeking to understand female involvement in mass shootings.

KEYWORDS
mass shootings, female homicide, gun violence

Mass shootings are an overwhelmingly male phenomenon (Peterson & Densley, 2019; Silva et al., 2021). In general, males account for the vast majority of homicide offenders and mass murderers (Fridel & Fox, 2019). Scholars attribute this to an evolutionary drive that pushes males to be more aggressive than females (Stone, 2015). Mass shooting studies often attribute these hypermasculine acts of violence to some form of male aggrieved entitlement or crisis of masculinity (Kalish & Kimmel, 2010; Kellner, 2008; Silva et al., 2021). In fact, Silva and colleagues (2021) find male mass shooters are often motivated by grievances with women. These gender-based mass shootings involve specific grievances with a woman connected to the shooter and/or general grievances with women or feminist ideology.

When women kill, during either single homicides or mass murders, the attacks often involve relationship disputes and/or familicides (Duwe, 2005; Fridel & Fox, 2019). In other words, it is rare for women to engage in gun violence targeting random individuals in a public setting. As a result, few studies focus on female mass shooters. However, these types of attacks do still happen, and recent high-profile incidents including the 2018 YouTube Headquarters shooting in California, the 2018 Rite Aid shooting in Maryland, and the 2019 JC Kosher Supermarket shooting in New Jersey, have increased public awareness and scholarly interest in female mass shooters (see for example: Jacobson, 2018; Park & Howard, 2019). As such, just as women have exhibited distinct trends and patterns in homicide offending (Fridel & Fox, 2019), it is important for research to also distinguish and understand female mass shooters.

This research note provides a preliminary and exploratory examination of female mass shooters in the United States between 1979 and 2019. Specifically, we provide descriptive statistics of the perpetrator, motivation, and incident characteristics. A discussion of findings highlight the common characteristics of female mass shooters and compares them with current knowledge of female homicide offenders and male mass shooters.

Literature Review

Given the rarity of female mass shooters, current research often involves case studies of a single female perpetrator (Fast, 2013; Katsavdakis et al., 2011; Sternadori, 2012). These case studies find shooting motivations include severe mental illness, shame, and a deteriorating life course (Fast, 2013; Katsavdakis et al., 2011). They also find female shooters intentionally plan and prepare for their attack and methodically attempt to kill as many individuals as possible before taking their own life (Katsavdakis et al., 2011). Despite these advancements in female mass shooter scholarship, individual case studies are unable to determine: (1) commonalities of female mass shooters, and/or (2) potential differences between male and female offenders. In terms of the latter, Lankford suggests, “We can’t really answer that question of differences between male and female offenders because we… don’t have enough female offenders for a statistically significant sample” (Adam Lankford in Park & Howard, 2019, para. 14). Nonetheless, there is a growing body of mass shooting research that can provide a framework for understanding the phenomenon at-large.  

For instance, current mass shooting research finds perpetrators tend to be in their mid-30s, single/divorced, and often have a confirmed/suggested mental illness (Capellan & Gomez, 2018; Peterson & Densley, 2019). Perpetrators often have victim-specific motivations, followed by autogenic and ideologically based motivations (Capellan & Gomez, 2018;Osborne & Capellan, 2017). Typically, perpetrators carry out attacks in locations with personal or professional ties, and over half of incidents had a precipitating crisis event (Capellan & Gomez, 2018; Peterson & Densley, 2019). Attacks often conclude with the perpetrators arrest and suicide, and they are less commonly killed (Capellan & Gomez, 2018; Peterson & Densley, 2019). Taken together, these studies highlight the common characteristics that are worth considering in an examination of female mass shooters.

Methodology

In line with the commonly accepted definitions used in previous research (Peterson & Densley 2019; Schildkraut, 2018), we define a mass shooting as a gun violence incident, carried out by one or two perpetrators, in one or more public or populated locations, within a 24-hour period. Perpetrators must choose at least some of their victims at random or for their symbolic value (Newman et al., 2004; Schildkraut, 2018). We do not include felony-related (i.e., profit-driven criminal activity and gang violence) or familicide shootings (Krouse & Richardson, 2015; Peterson & Densley, 2019; Schildkraut, 2018). As is common in previous research (Capellan & Gomez, 2018; Schildkraut, 2018; Silva & Capellan, 2019), we include any shooters that attempted to incur four or more fatalities during the attack. This expansion of the victim-count criterion is done for two reasons. First, the four-death count criterion ignores random and systematic factors such as firearm malfunction and EMT responses (Capellan & Gomez, 2018). Second, this definition enables a larger population of female perpetrators, while still providing a targeted assessment of a specific gun-violence phenomenon.1

For data collection, we used open-source materials to identify all female mass shooters in the U.S. between 1979 and 2019.2 We primarily identified incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, 2020) and New York Police Department (O’Neill et al., 2016) active shooter datasets. The collective FBI and NYPD reports included 18 female shooters. Additionally, two other perpetrators not captured in the FBI/NYPD datasets were identified: one in Stone (2015) and one in Schildkraut (2018).3 We then created comprehensive case files of open-source data for each incident by searching keywords in four search engines: Dogpile, Google, Nexis-Uni, and Newspapers. In the end, we identified 20 female mass shooters (see Table 1), and the case files were used to code the perpetrator, motivation, and incident variables. The operationalization of these variables is largely self-explanatory. For those requiring further detail, we provide descriptions of the variables in the results.

                         (Click table to enlarge)

Analysis

This exploratory study provides previously unknown insight on female mass shooters. We follow previous rampage school shooting (Larkin, 2009; Madfis & Cohen, 2018) and mass shooting (Langman, 2020; Lankford & Silva, 2021) studies using a small sample / population of perpetrators to examine this rare form of violence. We provide descriptive statistics of the perpetrator, motivation, and incident variables that have been identified as important in larger examinations of the mass shooting phenomenon. We then compare these findings with previous knowledge of female homicide offenders and male mass shooters.

Results

As shown in Table 2, only one perpetrator was under 18-years-old (5%), and only one perpetrator was over 45-years-old (5%). Nearly half the perpetrators were 36-45 (45%), followed by 18-25 (25%) and 26-35 (20%). At the time of the shooting, most perpetrators were single or divorced (60%). With one exception, the rest of the perpetrators were in relationships and marriages that did not involve any issues attributing to the shooting. Three of the perpetrators (two married, one relationship) carried out attacks with their partner. Five of the women had children (25%), although three of them were no longer in a relationship with the father. Only one perpetrator stated a partner physically abused her in their lifetime (5%). Alternatively, three perpetrators stated they were sexually abused at some point in their lives (15%). Four perpetrators had a criminal history (20%), all of which involved either violence and/or threats of violence. Finally, the majority of perpetrators had a confirmed or suggested mental illness (65%), with the primary diagnosis being paranoid schizophrenia.

                         (Click table to enlarge)

We considered the three mutually exclusive general attack motivations operationalized by Osborne and Capellan (2017), as well as more specific non-mutually exclusive motivations highlighted in previous research (Lankford, 2013; Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019b). In terms of the three general attack motivations, most perpetrators had autogenic motivations (50%); meaning they did not target any specific individuals, and their motivations were self-generated and attributed to their internal/psychological issues (Mullen, 2004). This aligns with the high rate of identified mental illness. Only three attacks (15%) were ideologically motivated (i.e., terrorism-related), and these extremist views were evenly distributed between the three major terrorism categories including: one jihadist-inspired attack, one far-right attack, and one far-left attack. The rest of the shooters had victim-specific motivations (35%); meaning they began by targeting individual(s) they knew, but eventually targeted other victims indiscriminately. When considering other, more specific motivations, the most common was problems at work (40%), including being suspended, fired, or otherwise disciplined. Four of the perpetrators were seeking to garner infamy and personal celebrity from the attack (20%). Only two incidents were rooted in family problems (10%) resulting in a family member being targeted. The Turner Monumental AME Church shooter targeted and killed her mother, and the Cedarville Rancheria Shooter targeted and killed her brother, niece, and nephew. Additionally, the Penn State University shooter was the only one motivated by a relationship problem. However, she did not target her significant other, and she instead targeted random individuals after their recent break-up. 

Most attacks were not impulsive and involved a low to high level of planning (80%). Perpetrators with a high level of planning researched their target location, brought additional firearms / ammunition / other weapons, and/or had an array of protective / tactical gear (Osborne & Capellan, 2017). Of those with high levels of planning were the three incidents involving dyads (i.e., two perpetrators). These three dyad attacks also involved the three ideologically driven perpetrators. In line with the most common motivation, the primary attack location was the workplace (55%). The second most common location was schools (25%). However, a breakdown of the school attacks finds a diversion from popular conceptualizations of school shootings. Two attacks occurred in grade schools and three occurred in colleges. Four attacks (two elementary schools and two colleges) involved perpetrators who were not students and did not attack the school because of any school-related issues. The schools were just random locations to carry out their primarily autogenic and/or mental illness related motivations. The other college shooting (University of Alabama Huntsville) involved a Professor who did not receive tenure (i.e., workplace violence). One attack occurred in a religious institution (Turner Monumental AME Church), but the shooters motivation was not related to the shooting location. Four attacks occurred in open-space locations (i.e., shopping centers and restaurants) with which the perpetrator did not have any professional relationship. Finally, the most common conclusions to an attack involved the perpetrator being arrested (45%) and committing suicide (45%). Six of the nine perpetrators who committed suicide did so before the police even arrived. The least common conclusion was the perpetrator being killed (10%).

Discussion

As very few studies examine female mass shooters, this exploratory research fills an important gap in the literature. In general, this study identified a small population of female mass shooters (N = 20) over a 41-year time period. In other words, this work supports previous research finding female mass shooters are especially rare compared to male mass shooting and female homicide offenders (Fridel & Fox, 2019; Peterson & Densley, 2019). Nonetheless, through descriptive statistics, we offer a clearer picture of the women who carry out mass shootings, their motivations, and the circumstances of these events. Schildkraut suggests, “there are a lot more similarities than differences,” between male and female mass shooters (Jaclyn Schildkraut in Jacobson, 2018, para. 9). This research supports Schildkraut, for instance, finding female shooters are like their male counterparts in their age (i.e., average of 33 years old), mental health (i.e., commonly suggested/confirmed), level of planning (i.e., at least some), and attack conclusion (i.e., arrest and suicide > killed). Findings indicate male and female mass shooters are more closely aligned than female mass shooters and general female homicide offenders. For instance, like male mass shooters, female mass shooters are more likely to be single or divorced, and less likely to have a criminal history, constituting a departure from scholarly findings on female homicide offenders (Jurik & Winn, 1990; Pizarro et al., 2010). In general, three findings standout as providing the most interesting, previously unidentified, and valuable contributions to female mass shooting scholarship.

First, a relationship issue only motivated one shooter, and she did not target the male partner contributing to this grievance. This finding is distinct from general female homicide and mass murder offenders, who are often motivated by relationship disputes (Duwe, 2005; Fridel & Fox, 2019). Relatedly, only one female mass shooter indicated past domestic violence victimization, while research on female homicide offenders finds women often kill their intimate partners with whom they have had a history of domestic violence victimization (Jurik & Winn, 1990). This relationship dispute finding is also distinct from male mass shooters, with research finding one-third of male mass shooters are motivated by either a recent breakup/fight with their partner (i.e., a relationship-based precipitating crisis event), or problems with women at-large (i.e., the incel movement, lack of skills with women, virginity, etc.) (Silva et al., 2021; see also Farr, 2019; Osborne & Capellan, 2017). Similarly, while this research does not include familicides (i.e., a common motivation for female mass murder), it is still important to note these public female mass shooters never targeted their own children. Only two shooters involved family: one targeted their mother and the other targeted their brother, niece, and nephew.

Second, attacks predominately occurred within the workplace, and these attacks were often motivated by workplace problems. This presents a divergence from general female homicide and mass murder targets, and more closely aligns with male mass shooters. While the workplace is one of the most common locations for general mass shootings, more than half of female mass shooters targeted the workplace, surpassing previous findings indicating the workplace is the target in 28-36 percent of general mass shootings (Peterson & Densley, 2019; Silva & Capellan, 2019). Fridel (2021) suggests workplace attacks are often revenge-seeking and based on loose personal relationships. Indeed, our findings support this as workplace attacks often included retaliatory motivations connected to work-related issues. Some research suggests that women, more than men, have greater escalatory tendencies towards other women in the workplace (Winstok, 2006). However, this does not seem to be the case for female mass shooters, as there were more male victim fatalities and injuries than women (see Table 1). Future research should continue to explore the victim-offender relationships in female perpetrated workplace shootings, as well as across female perpetrated mass shootings in general.

Finally, this study finds a higher rate of female mass shooters (15%) work in dyads than general mass shooters (less than 1%) (Peterson & Densley, 2019). Interestingly, all these incidents involved a female working alongside a male counterpart. This aligns with general research finding females are substantially less driven to carry out mass shooting attacks, and these findings suggest that when they do, in some cases, this may be due to male coercion. This finding is particularly relevant to ideologically motivated mass shootings. This work finds all three ideologically motivated female mass shooting attacks involved male co-conspirators, who they were also in a relationship with at the time of the attack. Given ideologically motivated attacks often involve higher levels of planning (Capellan et al., 2019), it is not surprising that ideologically motivated female mass shooters have co-conspirators. Indeed, research suggests ideologically motivated male offenders are more likely to have co-conspirators than any other type of mass shooter motivation (Capellan et al., 2019). Yet, despite this similarity, there is a difference in the proportion of ideologically motivated dyads between men and women. When considering prior research on male mass shooters, approximately 8 percent of ideologically motivated shooters have multiple offenders (Capellan et al., 2019). This study, in contrast, indicates that multiple offenders carried out 100 percent of ideologically motivated attacks. This diverges from general terrorism research, which suggests husbands/boyfriends are rarely the driving force behind radicalized women (Scott, 2016). As such, research should examine the gendered nature of such ideological shootings to understand gendered pathways to ideologically motivated attacks and the dyad relationship.

Limitations

This is one of the first examinations of female mass shooters and there are limitations that should be considered in future research. First, this research only examines mass shooting incidents perpetrated by females in the United States; thus, neglecting this phenomenon as it may exist in other counties. Second, the reliance on open-source data may omit incidents of female perpetrated mass shootings, thereby undercounting the number of incidents that have occurred (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019a). Third, this study included three dyads comprising of female mass shooters alongside male counterparts. Because of their cross-gender nature, it is difficult to parse out a motivation that is specific to the female partner. As such, research should consider exploring dyad relationships further, perhaps through case studies like those done on lone female perpetrators (Fast, 2013; Katsavdakis et al., 2011). Finally, this study is descriptive in nature and does not provide any inferential analysis related to female mass shooters. As an exploratory study, the use of descriptive statistics is appropriate; however, should future research consider hypothesis testing, appropriate comparative and/or inferential statistical methods should follow.

Implications

Despite relatively fewer cases of female perpetrators of homicide, scholars risk losing knowledge about female offenders when they are not uniquely considered (Fox & Fridel, 2019). This research finds female mass shooters in America tend to diverge from other female homicide offenders, particularly when considering relationship dispute motivations and workplace target selection. This is particularly important to consider for those providing guidance on preparedness and de-escalation of workplace conflicts. Women may not comprise a large proportion of mass shooters, but they are overrepresented in workplace mass shooting incidents. Indeed, more research is needed to assess these incidents, particularly the victim-offender relationship in such conflicts and the role gender might play in motivating these incidents.

Relationship grievances were not motivating factors for female mass shooters. Those scholars and practitioners wishing to understand gender and violence may consider this unique departure from female homicide offenders and male mass shooters in their future endeavors, such as theory development. These mass shootings do not stem from intimate partner violence as is often the case for female homicide offenders. Moreover, mass shootings perpetrated by females may not be a reaction to a perceived loss of femininity, as scholars find is the case for many male perpetrated shootings motivated by relationship grievances and their perceived loss of masculinity. Further theoretical development is needed to offer insight on female mass shooting motivations.

Finally, female mass shooters, though displaying many similarities with prior research on male mass shooters, are more likely to have co-conspirators, especially when ideologically motivated. Future research should continue to investigate these patterns and determine what makes female mass shooters unique. As research continues to examine female perpetrated mass violence, evidence-based policies and practices for prevention and response to these incidents should continue to develop. As suggested by this exploratory research, scholars and practitioners have much to gain from examining female mass shooters.

NOTES

  1. This definition somewhat aligns with the FBI and NYPD definitions of active shootings. There is debate over when to refer to an incident as a “mass” or “active” shooting (Freilich et al., 2020; Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019a). To create a unifying terminology, this study follows Freilich et al.’s (2020) suggestion that all incidents fitting this definition be referred to as a mass shooting.
  2. This study actually examines attacks in the aftermath of the 1966 Texas Sniper shooting – the “first” mass shooting in modern conceptualizations of the phenomenon (Peterson & Densley, 2019; Schildkraut, 2018). However, the data sources did not identify any female mass shooters between 1966 and 1978.
  3. The data collection process included a review of over 50 open-source collections of mass shootings (see Capellan & Gomez, 2018 for a comprehensive list of other sources reviewed). However, all the shooters were captured by those sources noted.


DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

 

REFERENCES

Capellan, J. A., & Gomez, S. P. (2018). Change and stability in offender, behaviors, and incident-level characteristics of mass public shootings in the United States, 1984–2015. Journal of Investigative Psychology of Offender Profiles, 15(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1491

Capellan, J. A., Johnson, J., Porter, J. R., & Martin, C. (2019). Disaggregating mass public shootings: a comparative analysis of disgruntled employee, school, ideologically motivated, and rampage shooters. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64(3), 814-823. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13985 

Duwe, G. (2005). A circle of distortion: The social construction of mass murder in the United States. Western Criminology Review, 6(1), 59-78. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.486.4632&rep=rep1&type=pdf 

Farr, K. (2019). Trouble with the other: The role of romantic rejection in rampage school shootings by adolescent males. Violence and Gender, 6(3), 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2018.0046 

Fast, J. (2013). Unforgiven and alone: Brenda Spencer and secret shame. In N. Bockler, W. Heitmeyer, P. Sitzer, & T. Seeger (Eds), School Shootings: International Research, Case Studies, and Concepts for Prevention (pp. 245–264). Springer.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2020). Active shooter incidents 20-year review, 2000-2019. US Department of Justice. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-20-year-review-2000-2019-060121.pdf/view

Freilich, J. D., Chermak, S. M., & Klein, B. R. (2020). Investigating the applicability of situational crime prevention to the public mass violence context. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12480 

Fridel, E. E. (2021). A multivariate comparison of family, felony, and public mass murders in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3-4), 1092-1118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517739286 

Fridel, E. E., & Fox, J. A. (2019). Gender differences in patterns and trends in US homicide, 1976–2017. Violence and Gender, 6(1), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2019.0005 

Jacobson, R. (2018, May 19). What female mass shooters reveal about male ones. Daily Beast. www.thedailybeast.com/what-female-mass-shooters-reveal-about-male-ones  

Jurik, N. C., & Winn, R. (1990). Gender and homicide: A comparison of men and women who kill. Violence and Victims, 5(4), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.5.4.227 

Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. (2010). Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings. Health Sociology Review, 19(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.2010.19.4.451 

Katsavdakis, K. A., Meloy, J. R., & White, S. G. (2011). A female mass murder. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56(3), 813-818. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01692.x 

Kellner, D. (2008). Guys and guns amok: Domestic terrorism and school shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre. Routledge.

Krouse, W. J., & Richardson, D. J. (2015). Mass murder with firearms: Incidents and victims, 1999–2013. Congressional Research Service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44126.pdf

Langman, P. (2020). Desperate identities: A bio‐psycho‐social analysis of perpetrators of mass violence. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12468 

Lankford, A. (2013). A comparative analysis of suicide terrorists and rampage, workplace, and school shooters in the United States from 1990 to 2010. Homicide Studies, 17(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767912462033 

Lankford, A., & Silva, J. R. (2021). The timing of opportunities to prevent mass shootings: A study of mental health contacts, work and school problems, and firearms acquisition. International Review of Psychiatry, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2021.1932440 

Larkin, R. W. (2009). The Columbine legacy: Rampage shootings as political acts. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1309-1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332548 

Madfis, E., & Cohen, J. W. (2018). Female involvement in school rampage plots. Violence and Gender, 5(2), 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0027 

Mullen, P. E. (2004). The autogenic (self‐generated) massacre. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(3), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.564 

Newman, K. S., Fox, C., Roth, W., Mehta, J., & Harding, D. (2005). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. Basic Books.

O’Neill, J. P., Miller, J. J., & Waters, J. R. (2016). Active shooter: Recommendations and analysis for risk mitigation. New York City Police Department. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/counterterrorism/active-shooter-analysis2016.pdf

Osborne, J. R., & Capellan, J. A. (2017). Examining active shooter events through the rational choice perspective and crime script analysis. Security Journal, 30(3), 880-902. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2015.12 

Park, M., & Howard, J. (2019, May 8). Why female shooters are rare. CNN. www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/health/female-shooters-rare/index.html  

Peterson, J. K., & Densley, J. A. (2019). The Violence Project database of mass shootings in the United States, 1966–2019. The Violence Project. https://www.theviolenceproject.org/

Pizarro, J. M., DeJong, C., & McGarrell, E. F. (2010). An examination of the covariates of female homicide victimization and offending. Feminist Criminology, 5(1), 51-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085109354044 

Schildkraut, J. (2018). Mass shootings in America: Understanding the debates, causes, and responses. ABC-CLIO.

Scott, T. (2016). Female terrorists: A dangerous blind spot for the United States Government. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender, and Class, 16(2), 287-308. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi 

Silva, J. R., & Capellan, J. A. (2019). A comparative analysis of media coverage of mass public shootings: Examining rampage, disgruntled employee, school, & lone-wolf terrorist shootings in the United States. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(9), 1312-1341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418786556 

Silva, J. R., Capellan, J. A., Schmuhl, M. A., & Mills, C. E. (2021). Gender-based mass shootings: An examination of attacks motivated by grievances against women. Violence Against Women, 27(12-13), 2163-2186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220981154 

Silva, J. R., & Greene-Colozzi, E. A. (2019a). Deconstructing an epidemic: Determining the frequency of mass gun violence. In S. Daly (Ed.), Assessing and Averting the Prevalence of Mass Violence (pp. 39-67). IGI Global.

Silva, J. R., & Greene-Colozzi, E. A. (2019b). Fame-seeking mass shooters in America: Severity, characteristics, and media coverage. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48(5), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.07.005 

Sternadori, M. (2014). The witch and the warrior: Archetypal and framing analyses of the news coverage of two mass shootings. Feminist Media Studies, 14(2), 301-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2012.739571 

Stone, M. H. (2015). Mass murder, mental illness, and men. Violence and Gender, 2(1), 51-86. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2015.0006 

Winstok, Z. (2006). Gender differences in the intention to react to aggressive action at home and in the workplace. Aggressive Behavior, 32(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20143 

About the Authors

Jason R. Silva is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at William Paterson University. His research examines mass shootings, terrorism, and mass media. Silva’s recent publications have appeared in Aggression and Violent Behavior, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Justice Quarterly, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, and Victims & Offenders. 

Margaret A. Schmuhl is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at The State University of New York at Oswego. Her research focuses on critical explanations of violence against women and punishment. 

CITATION (APA 7th Edition)
Silva, J. R., & Schmuhl, M. A. (2021). An exploration of female mass shooters. Journal of Mass Violence Research, 1(1), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.53076/JMVR95588

Download an infographic summarizing the main takeaways of this article.
Available Formats: PDF  |  PNG