Towards Discovery of Environmental, Societal, and Individual Conditions Ripe for Emergence of USMV

Project Description

A minute fraction of society, consisting of a wide range of demographic characteristics, is driven to the point of conflict with society extreme enough to choose to perpetrate United States-based Mass Violence (USMV)[1]. The demographics of known past or potential attackers are not consistent enough to develop a working profile. With demographics and profiles non-specific and unreliable, resolution remains primarily reactionary rather than preventive. The most prevalent of the known traits is social isolation, yet a majority of young adults and teens report experiencing some form of loneliness or social isolation.[2] If the majority of individuals who report experiencing social isolation do not end up committing acts of USMV, then more needs to be uncovered about the role that social isolation plays in the emergence of USMV.

This study is a first phase toward development of a serious game[3] for the intent of eliciting new raw data as to the societal and structural factors that contribute to those experiencing social isolation to move in the direction of USMV. The goal is to engage subject area experts in scenario development and strategy to identify possible social, environmental, and individualistic factors that could lead to social isolation extreme enough to lead to acts of mass violence—that lead to volatile social isolation. In order to narrow down the potential factors, we need a baseline that subject matter experts (SMEs) believe to be primary factors or contributors. To gather SME feedback, the process of war-gaming[4] will be employed to place SMEs in potential scenarios to elicit feedback on variables, potential outcomes, expected mindsets, and similar in-action factors to be considered. This feedback, elicited through initial surveys, in-game discussions, role-play decisions, and post-game debriefing, will be used to compile an initial set of scenario and game-play options to be included in the initial serious game for simulated role-playing field research.

Background

Studies of mass violence at educational campuses have been increasing over the past few decades as cases continue to increase in frequency as well as death and injury rates. After numerous studies, databases, and analyses, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has determined “There is no one demographic profile of an active shooter.” (Addressing the Problem of the Active Shooter, n.d.) While much has been learned from these studies—‘close-to-boom’[5] pre-attack warning signs; active-shooter safety measures for students and staff; potential intervention methods for identified attackers—much is still left unknown for what conditions lead to the occurrence of these cases, why they continue to increase, and how to reduce their frequency amid unreliable profiles and demographics.

Even though there isn’t a reliable demographic profile, there are psychological and sociological traits significantly common across past attackers. These traits, however, are not causal in and of themselves, and are also not easily identifiable in a crowd of subjects, which means reliance on these traits can result in unacceptable levels of false positives and false negatives. FBI reports acknowledge that a “thorough threat assessment typically necessitates a holistic review of an individual of concern, including historical, clinical, and contextual factors” (Addressing the Problem of the Active Shooter, n.d.), and current intervention methods still rely on identification of a potential attacker prior to any actionable plan of prevention being feasible.

Research must then move away from the premise of a profile and rethink the bigger picture to ask what else needs to be considered. If social isolation is both a prominent yet unreliable indicator, what is and isn’t known about the role of social isolation in the development of individual conflict with society? Numerous studies, especially recent ones examining the role of COVID in social connectedness, have focused on increasing rates (before and during COVID) of reported social isolation and/or loneliness, especially among teens and young adults. (Achterbergh et al., 2020; Bellotti et al., 2021; Chu et al., 2020; Çiftçi et al., n.d.; Dean et al., 2021; Emerson et al., 2021; Giacco et al., 2022; Jacobs & Teicher, 1967; Le et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2019; Luchetti et al., 2020; McNamara et al., 2021; Negi et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2020; Rehman et al., 2021; Shilhav, 1984; Tso & Park, 2020; Vanja et al., 2022; White et al., 2020; Whitehouse et al., 2009; Zagic et al., 2022; Zavaleta et al., 2017) However, what has contributed to this isolation is largely speculative and survey-focused. Theories on the non-social nature of social media dominate these studies. There are two key problems with this focus. First, cases of USMV have been significantly increasing each decade since 1903. (Rosso) This is not to say that mass media and technology don’t currently play a role in USMV, but cases of socially isolated individuals committing acts of USMV have been regularly and rapidly increasing decades before the presence of social media and technology. Second, the effects of social and mass media are seen across the majority of teens and young adults, yet a significant majority of teens and young adults do not take part in USMV. So social media is not a prevalent causal factor, even though it may in the past four decades have been a contributing factor.

Existing literature is inconsistent on whether to use the term loneliness or the term social isolation. Definitions and measurements are also inconsistent, with some sources citing loneliness as a subjective perception and social isolation as a measurable rate of in-person contact, while other reports make no distinction between the terms or only recognize one. When a distinction is made, loneliness would be an emotional state reported by a research subject, and social isolation could be measured in hours of face-to-face contact with peers and social or familial groups. (Isolation’s Silent Role in the Teen Mental Health Crisis | Psychology Today, n.d.) However, loneliness as a perceived state does not account for some measurable conditions that could contribute to social isolation such as teasing, bullying, alternative cognition, and interpersonal difficulties (e.g., social awkwardness). In-person contact time (social non-isolation) could be reported, yet still be a factor in perceived loneliness due to the nature of the contact. Someone being bullied may have significant in-person contact with their peer group, but experience negative interactions that exacerbate conditions of social isolation. Acts of bullying could be objectively measured in terms of number of instances, level of threat (physical or mental) experienced, or rate of increase (number of instances, number of individuals, etc.). This same bullying would still fall under in-person (or virtual-in-person in the case of cyber bullying) contact (social non-isolation), but could still be subjectively reported as perceived isolation, in the sense that acts of bullying aim to emotionally and socially isolate one from a dominant peer group without necessarily reducing the in-person contact. It is possible for an individual to be regularly surrounded by peers and other members of society, yet still be both subjectively and measurably socially isolated. In this study, the term social isolation receives new attention as a more complex condition that includes conditions of feeling ostracized, isolated, and disconnected from one’s peer and/or support groups through self-imposed, other-imposed, situational, and structural forces both measurable and perceived. Differences between an individual’s expectations of social interaction compared to the nature and level of actual interaction can also play a role in the assessment, degree, and nature of social isolation.

The working definition for the purposes of this study employs the term social isolation to encompass situations in which, regardless of physical engagement and proximity with one’s social/societal environment, individuals experience conditions that contribute to both subjective perceptions and objective observations of personal disconnect with the society in their environment. The hypothesis being explored is that there is no profile of conditions or characteristics, but rather a possible set of models that could detail potential “perfect storm” layers of conditions that could push an individual towards USMV. The theory behind this hypothesis is that there are three levels of engagement and meaning making involved in the development of the USMV perfect storm: structural/societal pressures and limitations; peer group pressures and triggers; and individual dispositions, interpretations, histories, and social navigation.

Research Questions

Theoretical Framing

Drawing on subjective theories, the dynamics between individuals and social structures highlights how “individuals . . . develop theories on how the world and their own activities function” (Flick, 43) in pursuit of individual goals. Their level of understanding, degree of insight, framing perspectives and histories, and cognitive and emotional capabilities affect their development of adaptive and maladaptive theories on their role and position within the world. This complex matrix of understanding and interpretation also affect how they “apply and test these theories . . . and revise them if necessary.” (Flick, 44) It could also shed light on what could drive them to determine they’ve reached an end game.

This research is also framed by structural theories, examining how characteristics of U.S. culture and society may play a role in the development of interpretations and understandings of society and an individual’s place within society. Specifically, the work of David Graeber on economic structures explores how individuals are framed and positioned within society according to their financial capabilities and potential. (Graeber) Kate Manne adds an important dimension for the most notable demographic of perpetrators, the male population[6]. How do narratives of misogyny place pressures, expectations, and limitations of male understandings and self images in relation to society? There are two other areas needing additional literature review. First is the impact of technological advances and the technology industry practices on the perceived level of individual agency among users, which could connect to an increasing gap between science and technology fields and the everyday user. Second is the role of communication, information control, and misinformation, which in contemporary times has close ties to technology.

Focusing Questions

The following set of questions begin to help define the focus of the war-gaming. It is anticipated that this list of questions will be expanded and enhanced through discussion during the war-gaming.

• Social isolation is not an uncommon trait among teens and young adults, but is a primary and notable trait among past perpetrators of mass violence. What factors contribute to moving from common social isolation to a social isolation that contributes to one feeling in conflict with the larger society around them to the point of perceiving society as a threat (volatile social isolation)?
• How does social isolation shift from a conflict with the surrounding society to a need to inflict harm on that society (volatile social isolation)?
• What areas need to be considered? (social media, school environment, teacher-student dynamics, student-student dynamics, neighborhood pressures, family pressures, financial pressures, academic pressures, physical health, mental health)
• What are current assumptions about what contributes to mass violence, and where are the strengths and weaknesses of these assumptions?
• What causal evidence is missing from the current literature and theories?
• What do social inclusion and social isolation look like? How are they described?
• What factors appear to have no relevant effect?
• What narratives are present in writings of past perpetrators? What narrative traits might we need to keep an eye out for? What scenarios might contribute to prompting these narratives? Are these scenarios natural to the environments being explored (high schools and/or colleges)?

Some of these questions will be addressed during the war-gaming process, while others will be addressed through further literature review.

Justification within Conflict Studies

Within social research, not only conflict studies, it is common practice to focus on the majority. Whether analyzing data from surveys and quantitative data or compiling and analyzing narrative discourse and qualitative interviews, the goal is to find evidence of what is happening, where does the research lead us—what do the majority say of topic X? In cases such as USMV perpetrators, even though they are a minimal fraction of the overall U.S. population, research hones in on the representative subjects (past perpetrators) to understand who they are, what do these subjects as a group have in common, what is their profile? This is useful in developing an understanding of possible characteristics, but as we have seen in research on USMV perpetrators, the profiles are not consistent and do not provide adequate insight into how someone becomes a perpetrator of USMV or how to get ahead of individuals heading down this path. With significant comparison between perpetrators of USMV and extremism, suicide, radicalism, and terrorism, and as there are increasing incidents of ‘lone wolf’ agents, this limitation in research applies to several areas within conflict studies.

What would we learn if we focused more attention on the ways in which these isolated agents differed from the majority? Instead of isolating an identified group and studying them separately from the larger society, there could be valuable insight in broadening the scope to the surrounding society and asking questions regarding how and why the minority behaves differently from the majority. For the fraction of subjects in a survey who respond differently than the majority, what can be learned by focusing on those responses and asking why they are different?

Obviously there are some logistic hurdles involved. Research, for obvious reasons, likes to protect the identity and privacy of participants. It is an ethical move as well as one of practicality—participants are typically going to be more honest when they don’t need to worry about being identified. Even in qualitative research scenarios where in-person interviews are conducted, digging deeper into differences can escalate the risk to the participant. Additionally, responses from interviews could vary significantly from field observations of live-time actions, where an individual is responding to real threats and interactions rather than responding to hypothetical scenarios in the safety and distance of an interview room.

Ideally, research could observe individuals in real-time interaction to see how they respond to stimuli and what thoughts are being processed as they do this. Ethnographic research into what is behind the development of a perpetrator of USMV is unfathomable and unrealistic. The time and material investment in the hopes of happening across a potential case study would not be fundable or feasible. However, technological advances have provided a potential alternative. Simulated environments where participants can role-play in the relative safety of a virtual world provide an opportunity to both observe actions, reactions, and decision making in response to stimuli and scenarios, while also providing insights into thoughts and mental processing in the form of chat rooms and player narratives.

Methods and case selection

From War-Gaming to Serious Games

In order to develop a serious game that in its first iteration provides an ample and well thought out depiction of potential scenarios, environmental factors, and variables to simulate a high school or college atmosphere and its potential triggers, expert advice is needed to inform the development of the virtual world. In this first phase, a method called war-gaming will be employed to draw on the expertise of SMEs familiar with various sectors of teen and young adult male environments and mind sets.

As can be garnered from its title, war-gaming is a strategy activity designed to gain insight, experience, and education on the variables and policies of war.

“A wargame is a model, but a controlled model. The designer-developer team controls the data that will go into the game. The players control the various forces involved. The imponderable of war, the Clausewitzian friction factor, are also in there via randomized procedures which employ rolls of the dice or the drawing of event cards. This gives the chance to exploit opportunities as well as turn around potential disasters—all part of being in command, even if just of the intellectual processes.” (What Is Wargaming? – Decision Games, n.d.)

There have been more recent efforts to use the concept and structure of war-gaming to gain insight and understanding that can help prevent war and conflict.[7] SMEs from related areas—for example: policy, regional expertise, peace and conflict, military, international politics—gather in a room with a set of predetermined rules, parameters, and assigned identities to run through random and assigned scenarios. Scenarios are run and defined, and each identity group role plays by discussing their expected reactions, ramifications, responses, and potential outcomes. Ratings are provided by the players to assess whether tensions are rising or lowering. Groups then join in discussion with each other about the outcomes. Scenarios can build off each other, redirect the process, or introduce unanticipated responses. War-gaming provides a form of early peer review, cross reference, and clarifying of potential outcomes, needed observations, and scenarios of most effectiveness.

War gaming in this project aims to understand the stressors and destressors experienced by teen and young adult males that can contribute to social isolation from their peers, family, and community. Unlike the majority of conflict studies and war games that focus on understanding what happens during conflict, the purpose of war gaming here is to understand what variables may be most relevant in leading up to a conflict. The concept of conflict itself also requires clarification here. The conflict that is perceived by potential perpetrators of USMV may not be recognized or experienced by the individuals with which the potential perpetrator feels himself in conflict. What may appear to be everyday, unexceptional occurrences to his peers may seem to the potential perpetrator as escalating slights, offenses, impediments, and tensions. As such, the actions and reactions of peers, administrators, teachers, and community members may occur without any realization of their potential consequences.

Drawing on narratives of past USMV attacks, we can draw out some possible scenarios to include. One example comes from the Gang Lu shooting at the University of Iowa in November 1991. From reports of roommates, fellow students, and Lu’s own letters and writings, several contributing factors are highlighted. Some identified Lu as a loner, often getting into disputes with other students and exhibiting difficulty in dealing with conflicts or disagreements. On the other hand, a roommate had described Lu as someone who “invited friends to the apartment often . . . . He was not some typical loner” yet also “kept his personal life private.” (Kilen, n.d.) Another report describes how Lu felt guns would provide him a way to address grievances, implying he’d either had difficulty addressing problems without violence, or was unable to envision another way to address grievances. He’d been facing financial difficulties, and had recently been ‘overlooked’ for an award that he felt would have helped him financially and helped him find a job, which he’d been struggling to attain. Simultaneously, Lu was in jeopardy of his student visa expiring, requiring him to return to China. From these details we can see pressures from finances, career, academics, conflicts or disagreements with fellow students and faculty, and unknown sources of turning to weapons for addressing grievances. Several questions can be drawn from this scenario to address in a war gaming exercise:

1. What were Lu’s base characteristics that he had prior to this series of events? His education level? His personal support resources (family, friends, colleagues)? His financial capabilities? His cultural and personal expectations and pressures? External societal pressures?
2. Did something in particular change leading up to the shooting? What were those changes? Who contributed to those changes? Were these individuals involved in the shooting?
3. Did pre-existing problems escalate leading up to the shooting? How did they escalate?
4. Where were there points in the escalation when a change in circumstances could have de-escalated the emerging conflict?
   1. Were there points where individuals could have intervened?
   1. Were there points where a shift in resources (support, counseling, training, communication) could have aided de-escalation?
   1. Were there policy or procedure protocols that contributed to escalation or inhibited the possibility of intervention or de-escalation?
   1. What messaging contributed to the escalation? (social perceptions of conflict, guns/gun culture, gender expectations, academic standings . . .)

Any one of these situations alone—interpersonal conflicts, financial pressures, academic inadequacies, relocation concerns, and job insecurity—is not likely to be a sole trigger for violence on the scale of USMV. Several combined are likely to create a time of difficulty for most people, and for others could become overwhelming, possibly to the point of not being able to cope effectively. Similar scenarios play out for other case studies of USMV. Taking these similarities into account, a general profile of a potential perpetrator could be developed:

• Someone for whom interpersonal relations are difficult, demeaning, or threatening
• Someone who tends to not share many personal details or thoughts with others
• Someone for whom school and/or career pose notable difficulties
• Someone who faces difficulties in problem solving and coping skills
• Someone whose ambitions or desires are beyond their current capabilities (finances, access, career/hobby/educational skills, grades, experience, interpersonal skills, etc.)

In developing the profiles of other identities in the war game, SME feedback would be sought to help define the school administrator role, the teacher role, the local law enforcement role, and the peer role. Then the environment would be described to participants to provide them insight into the demographics of the school and neighborhood (income, industry and commerce, race, gender percentages, graduation rates, reports of bullying, number single-parent households, class sizes, community activities, etc.). This helps flesh out the type of environment in which the student profile is navigating life challenges. One or two primary goals would be provided for the student role, for example: engage in a relationship; pursue a hobby that requires expensive equipment; gain validation on a project’s results; receive a scholarship.

An initial scenario would then be provided (with roles noted with capitalization):

School is approaching spring break. The Student has been writing short stories for English class that he hopes to produce into anime and post online. The short stories contain radical political views that make the Teacher uncomfortable. The school’s Police presence has been alerted by the Administrator, who heard about the stories from the Teacher. As of this point, the Teacher has not yet provided feedback to the Student. What are possible actions and reactions from each role? Discuss with others in your role identity group, and provide the following:

• Expected reaction and action from your role identity
  • Expected reactions and actions from the other role identity groups
  • Rating from -5 > +5 as to whether each of the expected reactions would escalate (+) or de-escalate (-) conflict between the other identities and the Student

Share these with the groups when we resume group discussion. Based on reactions, actions, and ratings from other roles, return to discussion within your identity group to determine how these reactions and actions could affect your identity role and again provide the results in the bulleted list above.

At designated times during the exercise, new scenarios will be introduced to add complexity to the environment. Additionally, to allow for random events, dice rolls will determine whether new factors arise that were unanticipated, such as (but not limited to) the following:

• Student experiences bullying from x number students
• School budget cuts remove access to certain equipment
• Student discovers where the key to his dad’s gun cabinet is located
• Local police agency enacts a new neighborhood watch program in the Student’s neighborhood
• Another student steals money out of the Student’s locker/dorm room
• The Teacher faces a personal crisis at home
• The Administrator goes on leave and is either a) replaced by a temp, or b) has the role filled in by PT teacher

At the end of the run of scenarios, the groups will again resume conversation with each other to share results and discuss the following questions:

• Where were there points in the escalation when a change in circumstances could have de-escalated the emerging conflict?
• Were there points where individuals could have intervened?
• Were there points where a shift in resources (support, counseling, training, communication) could have aided de-escalation?
• Were there policy or procedure protocols that contributed to escalation or inhibited the possibility of intervention or de-escalation?
• What messaging contributed to the escalation? (social perceptions of conflict, guns/gun culture, gender expectations, academic standings . . .)

Multiple scenarios will be discussed to draw out various possible angles to explore as to what combinations of actions, reactions, and interpretations could contribute to interpersonal conflict escalating to the point of volatile social isolation, again with social isolation defined as a state in which regardless of physical engagement and proximity with one’s social/societal environment, individuals experience conditions that contribute to both subjective perceptions and objective observations of personal disconnect with the society in their environment. Inversely, this exercise is also expected to provide insight into what conditions, actions, and reactions could de-escalate interpersonal conflict.

This will be an iterative process both within the initial exercise and in future reflections on the exercise and additional insights gained along the way in current and future phases of the overall research. The current phase is part of the development process for an initial pilot of using war gaming and serious games as research tools for new, raw data to help fill in knowledge gaps currently facing research into how to stem the occurrence of USMV.

Translating this process to a research model, war-gaming provides a platform for bringing area experts related to USMV—such as economic/financial systems, misogyny, bullying, insecurity (cohort, peers, family, social standing, financial, political instability, social tensions/threats), communication (platform, being heard/not heard, misinformation), technology (increasing lack of agency), teen/young adult psychology, extremism—into conversation with each other in efforts to grasp and clarify the complexities and potential actions and responses to scenarios that may contribute to social isolation progressing to the point of volatile social isolation.

Results of the war gaming will provide insights critical to understanding the mitigating factors related to the emergence of USMV. Such insights will later inform the design and development of a serious game that can employ these scenarios, profiles, and ratings in role playing within the simulated environment. Players of the game will then experience much more real-to-life results and input, which improves the chances of valuable data from the game playing.

War-Gaming Environment and Conditions

The area of research for this project is focusing on high school or college level academic campuses because this is an area with ample and recent literature and research. For ease of access and in efforts to minimize costs and barriers, a local high school or the George Mason campus will be used as the model. Because the war-gaming process is designed to replicate the setting, it is not necessary to take place in the actual school, but it will be necessary to have as thorough an understanding of the environment as possible to be able to adequately represent it in the game. The activity can take place in any available and accessible conference or meeting room, including at a library, school, or hotel.

A single day of eight hours is anticipated, with the following outline of three to five scenarios played out over a simulated week:

1. [Morning] Set the scene: describe the setting, its demographics, the physical setting as well as cultural makeup
   1. Discover dynamics at play
   1. Introduce 1st scenario
   1. Play out possible actions
   1. Announce end of day 1 simulation
2. Either continue 1st scenario or introduce scenario 2
   1. Play out possible actions
   1. Announce end of day 2 simulation
3. [After mid-day break] Either continue 2nd scenario or introduce scenario 3
   1. Play out possible actions
   1. Announce end of day 3 simulation
4. Either continue 3rd scenario or introduce scenario 4
   1. Play out possible actions
   1. Announce end of day 4 simulation
5. [After afternoon break] Either introduce scenario 5 or determine end actions/results
6. Discuss results and outcomes across groups

Potential participants will be contacted and invited via email or phone outreach to SMEs both locally and nationally. Compensation preferences would be to provide lunch, drinks, and recognition in later papers and reports, if desired. There would also be an invitation to continue participation in later phases, presuming some participants may have pre-existing investment in similar research and efforts.

Data Analysis and Operational Definitions

Qualitative data gathering will consist of the following formats:

• Group discussion, explanations of moves and consequences
• Debriefing feedback (oral and written)
• Open-ended questions and moves (agency or lack of agency within simulation/scenarios)
• Ability to self-rank responses & motives, actions: further explication beyond numerical results/markings
• Ability to ad-lib
• Discussion at beginning of war game re: abstractions, formalizations, generalizations, idealizations

Quantitative data gathering will consist of the following formats:

• Numerical ranking of choices[8]
• Demographic considerations
• Scenario development (also qualitative)
• Preset options with rankings
• Generating and testing hypotheses to lead to ability to test in serious game setting

Methodological Obstacles, Challenges and Difficulties

While SMEs will provide valuable insights, they will for the most part not be representative of the demographic sought for participation in the future serious game research. As such, as initial engagement occurs with the to-be developed serious game, it is anticipated the results of the war-gaming will be amended, enhanced, and revised.

Anticipated Results

There are two primary areas of clarification desired and anticipated from the war-gaming process. First, through dialogue, role playing, and observations of reactions, it is expected the war-gaming will result in a clarified list of scenarios, potential responses, and additional inputs needed to develop an effective serious game for the purpose of gaining new raw data from teen and young adult male participants. Second, through rankings and discussion of ranking decisions, a metrics for determining whether actions in the game are escalating or deescalating conflict should begin to be developed through the war-gaming exercise.

Results of the war-gaming will be presented as detailed lists of criteria for the development of a serious game. As this phase only addresses initial SME feedback, and does not start to address the specifics of game development, there are bound to be additional criteria left unaddressed after the war-gaming process.

Bibliography

Achterbergh, L., Pitman, A., Birken, M., Pearce, E., Sno, H., & Johnson, S. (2020). The experience of loneliness among young people with depression: A qualitative meta-synthesis of the literature. BMC Psychiatry, 20(1), 415. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02818-3

Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2021. (n.d.). [File]. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf/view

Addressing the Problem of the Active Shooter. (n.d.). FBI: Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/addressing-the-problem-of-the-active-shooter.

Batty, M., & Torrens, P. M. (2001). Modelling complexity: The limits to prediction. Cybergeo : European Journal of Geography. https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.1035

Bellotti, E., Boethius, S., Åkerström, M., & Hydén, M. (2021). Ambivalent and Consistent Relationships: The Role of Personal Networks in Cases of Domestic Violence. Social Inclusion, 9(4), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i4.4545

Chu, C., Hammock, E. A. D., & Joiner, T. E. (2020). Unextracted plasma oxytocin levels decrease following in-laboratory social exclusion in young adults with a suicide attempt history. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 121, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.11.015

Çiftçi, A., Demir, A., & Bikos, L. H. (n.d.). Turkish Adolescents’ Conflict Resolution Strategies Toward Peers and Parents as a Function of Loneliness.

Dean, D. J., Tso, I. F., Giersch, A., Lee, H.-S., Baxter, T., Griffith, T., Song, L., & Park, S. (2021). Cross-cultural comparisons of psychosocial distress in the USA, South Korea, France, and Hong Kong during the initial phase of COVID-19. Psychiatry Research, 295, 113593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113593

Duncan, S. (n.d.). Stuart Duncan: How I use Minecraft to help kids with autism | TED Talk. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_duncan_how_i_use_minecraft_to_help_kids_with_autism/transcript

Emerson, E., Fortune, N., Llewellyn, G., & Stancliffe, R. (2021). Loneliness, social support, social isolation and wellbeing among working age adults with and without disability: Cross-sectional study. Disability and Health Journal, 14(1), 100965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100965

Flick, U. (2018). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 6th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Giacco, D., Kirkbride, J. B., Ermakova, A. O., Webber, M., Xanthopoulou, P., & Priebe, S. (2022). Neighbourhood characteristics and social isolation of people with psychosis: A multi-site cross-sectional study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 57(9), 1907–1915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02190-x

Graeber, D. (2014). Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Updated and Expanded. United States: Melville House.

Isolation’s Silent Role in the Teen Mental Health Crisis | Psychology Today. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/democratizing-mental-health-care/202211/isolations-silent-role-in-the-teen-mental-health-crisis

Jacobs, J., & Teicher, J. D. (1967). Broken Homes and Social Isolation in Attempted Suicides of Adolescents. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 13(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076406701300206

Kilen, M. (n.d.). Nov. 1, 1991: Memories of deadly day on University of Iowa campus haunt survivors. The Des Moines Register. Retrieved February 25, 2023, from https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/11/01/gang-lu-shooting-university-iowa-campus-iowa-city-guns-handgun-jessup-hall-van-allen-jessup-hall/1848141002/

Le, T. M., Wang, W., Zhornitsky, S., Dhingra, I., Chen, Y., Zhang, S., & Li, C.-S. R. (2021). The Neural Processes Interlinking Social Isolation, Social Support, and Problem Alcohol Use. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 24(4), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyaa086

Lee, E. E., Depp, C., Palmer, B. W., Glorioso, D., Daly, R., Liu, J., Tu, X. M., Kim, H.-C., Tarr, P., Yamada, Y., & Jeste, D. V. (2019). High prevalence and adverse health effects of loneliness in community-dwelling adults across the lifespan: Role of wisdom as a protective factor. International Psychogeriatrics, 31(10), 1447–1462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610218002120

Luchetti, M., Terracciano, A., Aschwanden, D., Lee, J. H., Stephan, Y., & Sutin, A. R. (2020). Loneliness is associated with risk of cognitive impairment in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 35(7), 794–801. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.5304

Manne, K. (2018). Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

McNamara, N., Stevenson, C., Costa, S., Bowe, M., Wakefield, J., Kellezi, B., Wilson, I., Halder, M., & Mair, E. (2021). Community identification, social support, and loneliness: The benefits of social identification for personal well‐being. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(4), 1379–1402. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12456

Monica, 1776 Main Street Santa, & California 90401-3208. (n.d.). Wargaming. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.rand.org/topics/wargaming.html

Negi, N. J., Siegel, J. L., Sharma, P. B., & Fiallos, G. (2021). “The solitude absorbs and it oppresses”: ‘Illegality’ and its implications on Latino immigrant day laborers’ social isolation, loneliness and health. Social Science & Medicine, 273, 113737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113737

Nguyen, T. T., Lee, E. E., Daly, R. E., Wu, T.-C., Tang, Y., Tu, X., Van Patten, R., Jeste, D. V., & Palmer, B. W. (2020). Predictors of Loneliness by Age Decade: Study of Psychological and Environmental Factors in 2,843 Community-Dwelling Americans Aged 20–69 Years. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 81(6). https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.20m13378

Rehman, U., Shahnawaz, M. G., Khan, N. H., Kharshiing, K. D., Khursheed, M., Gupta, K., Kashyap, D., & Uniyal, R. (2021). Depression, Anxiety and Stress Among Indians in Times of Covid-19 Lockdown. Community Mental Health Journal, 57(1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-020-00664-x

Rosso, H. (2019). Lone Wolf Riots: Social Frustration & U.S. Mass Violence. International Journal on Responsibility, 3(1). https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/ijr/vol3/iss1/4

Shilhav, Y. (1984). Spatial strategies of the “haredi” population in Jerusalem. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 18(6), 411–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(84)90050-8

Tso, I. F., & Park, S. (2020). Alarming levels of psychiatric symptoms and the role of loneliness during the COVID-19 epidemic: A case study of Hong Kong. Psychiatry Research, 293, 113423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113423

Vanja, G., Krohne, N., Meta, L., Tina, P., Vita, P., Zadravec, Š. N., & De, L. D. (2022). Emotional and Social Loneliness as Predictors of Suicidal Ideation in Different Age Groups. Community Mental Health Journal, 58(2), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-021-00823-8

What Is Wargaming? – Decision Games. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://decisiongames.com/wpsite/dg-history/what-is-wargaming/

White, A., Taylor, T., & Cooper, R. (2020). Social isolation and loneliness: A hidden killer. Trends in Urology & Men’s Health, 11(4), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tre.763

Whitehouse, A. J. O., Durkin, K., Jaquet, E., & Ziatas, K. (2009). Friendship, loneliness and depression in adolescents with Asperger’s Syndrome. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.004

Zagic, D., Wuthrich, V. M., Rapee, R. M., & Wolters, N. (2022). Interventions to improve social connections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 57(5), 885–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02191-w 

Zavaleta, D., Samuel, K., & Mills, C. T. (2017). Measures of Social Isolation. Social Indicators Research, 131(1), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1252-2

[1] Incidents in which the intended consequence was large scale (four or more) harm or destruction to human lives randomly or semi-randomly, not isolated to a single family or specific and limited personal relations, regardless of the number of actual deaths.  Violent attack perpetrated by a non-terrorist, non-gang member, non-group-organized individual or individuals (less than four) in a space occupied by multiple numbers of citizens, where there is a great risk of “bystanders” being injured, intentionally or not, as a result of the violence. An attack by individual(s) on a sector of society. Points of individual violent conflict with society. (Rosso, 2019) The FBI has in recent years amended their definition of mass violence to be more in line with this definition, recognizing the importance of separating these incidents from gang violence, turf wars, family-based (isolated) violence, and violence related to other crimes (such as robbery). (Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2021, n.d.)

[2] Percentages range from 35%-65%, depending on the definition of either loneliness or social isolation and the intent of the author(s). See the Background section for further discussion on these terms.

[3] Serious games are “games used for educational purposes in addition to providing entertainment.” (Addressing the Problem of the Active Shooter, n.d.) While serious games were initially used for the purposes of education, they show promise as research tools.

[4] “Wargames are analytic games that simulate aspects of warfare at the tactical, operational, or strategic level. They are used to examine warfighting concepts, train and educate commanders and analysts, explore scenarios, and assess how force planning and posture choices affect campaign outcomes.” (Monica & California 90401-3208, n.d.)

[5] In strategizing violent conflict scenarios, military and related entities refer to left-of-boom, right-of-boom, and boom to describe pre-conflict, post- or in-action-conflict, and initiation of conflict, respectively. Extending this terminology, close-to-boom refers to the moment after left-of-boom planning, but shortly prior to engaging in violence. (source: classified project engagement)

[6] Males account for over 90% of the perpetrators of USMV.

[7] From classified activity observation, November, 2022.

[8] On a rating scale of 1-5, rate each scenario and each variable as a ‘+’ toward escalation or ‘–‘ toward de-escalation—for example, +1 indicates expectation of small escalation, -1 indicates small expectation of de-escalation.

Adapted from presentation at the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution U.S. Presidential Election and Threats of Civil Violence Online Teach-in, Oct. 26, 2020

Tensions have been escalating among sectors of the U.S. long before the current election cycle. These tensions were a part of the impetus for the election of Trump. Some of what we’ve been hearing for the past few years are behind much of the tension – sectors of the U.S. who feel unheard, unrepresented, ignored, and forgotten.

These are some of the people who have voted for Trump, who have joined ranks with the Proud Boys, who are feeling threatened by the cultural, industrial, demographical changes around them. They also represent the largest demographic of perpetrators of U.S. mass violence: white men between the ages of 20-60.

As I’ve watched events unfold over the past year, I’ve worried about another spike in U.S. mass violence, long before COVID broke out. Once COVID disrupted our lives, it brought conditions ripe for emergence of more mass shootings or attacks.

In an article last year I wrote that in the past few years in the U.S., “subcultures face increased resurgence in conflict and confrontation; long-standing discords of racial strife and cultural clashes boil up and erupt again—it is fair to say that we are seeing increased isolation, ostracization, and frustration across the country.” ADD in political rhetoric intended to divide, plus quarantine from COVID, and the resulting economic crisis, and there’s significant escalation in two of the primary factors that contribute to the emergence of U.S. mass violence – isolation and insecurity.

I believe one of the reasons we haven’t seen much mass violence happening over the past few months is because schools have been mostly closed, people are working from home, and large gatherings have been essentially shut down. Quarantine has perhaps been beneficial beyond curbing COVID.

In a few days, we will not only have high profile public gatherings of large numbers of individuals. We will also have an election that could amplify feelings of being unheard, unrepresented, ignored, and forgotten. There will also be increased frustration. And this is happening in a year that has seen record sales of firearms in the past few months.

I don’t say all of this to try to scare you. But I think there’s a very real chance for incidents of mass violence, based on my studies of perpetrators of mass violence in the U.S.

So what do we do about this?

Honestly, with only days until the election, there may be fires already burning that we individually cannot prevent. But in this environment, when the tinder is dry, we should consider ourselves in a high fire risk environment and do what we can to not set off sparks, and not fan the fires.

Let me share some insights into what I have learned about perpetrators of mass violence. They are, for the most part, regular people.

But,

They are afraid of what the world has in store for them.

 They don’t think people understand them.

They struggle to navigate the world and society around them.

And they don’t suddenly emerge one day raging with anger and ready to kill large numbers of people.

It takes time. It builds up. The process offers opportunity for us to do what we can to de-escalate.

It also offers opportunities to fan the flames.

Our interactions with others have the power to either increase or decrease fear. To increase or decrease a sense of isolation. To increase or decrease the divide.

And while I have focused my opening on a subset of society associated with the Proud Boys and Trump supporters, the current environment is fostering isolation, frustration, and fear among many groups and individuals.

Those on the right of politics are perceiving a level of recognition they feel they haven’t had in a very long time. And they feel they are at risk of losing that recognition.

Additionally, they are increasingly experiencing rhetoric that labels them and their representative, Trump, as evil, debase, ignorant, uneducated, out of touch, and a threat to society.

I’m not here to argue for or against those labels, but to point out their inflammatory nature and the effect they can have on individuals who already feel unheard and unrecognized by the larger society. Many of these sentiments are similar to those experienced by a majority of perpetrators of mass violence, but on a much larger, much more public scale.

Public rhetoric and how it affects our daily interactions can contribute to fueling the fires.

Compassionate engagement is what I propose as a fire retardant.

When you engage with others, either in line at the polls, online in social media, in line at the grocery store, compassionate engagement involves seeing that we are all in this mess together.

• We are all scared of what is to come.
• We are all dealing with circumstances we haven’t had to navigate before – certainly not on this scale.
• We all, when it comes down to it, want a better future. And if we had more breathing room, we might find we want a lot of the same things.

And most important:

• We all are hurt when we are labeled as monsters or evil.
• We are all frustrated when someone refuses to listen to us.
• We all struggle, to some degree, to be heard.
• We all feel better when we feel we’re in this together, than when we feel we’re facing all of this all alone.

The degree to which any of us on this call can affect change through compassionate engagement depends on our reach.

For some of us, our efforts may only reach as far as our social media feeds.

• More than just stopping negative language, there’s a need to amplify unifying messages: How can we help you? How can we help each other? What concerns you?
• More than being patient with others, express empathy: I hear that you’re worried. I’m sorry this is tough for you. Do you want to talk?

For others, their media reach may be much stronger. If you have the ability to influence or direct media channels, how can the language above be part of the larger discourse?

For many, the polls and polling interactions may be the biggest concern. Here, too, bravery, empathy, and compassionate engagement are greatly needed.

• Don’t be offended or infuriated if and when people decide to monitor the voting locations. If you keep calm, there’s less chance for things to escalate.
• Remind yourself that these people are reacting out of a fear. Whether the fear is justified or not, this is where they are coming from. See them as people, not enemies or monsters.

Obviously this does not fix everything. But if we can do our part to set the model, to engage in a more compassionate manner, we may just put the damper on someone’s anger, on someone’s frustration, at least long enough to get us through this dry season.

If perpetrators of mass violence feel alone, a friendly voice might help. If they feel frustrated, having someone listen might make a difference.

What is not going to help is continuing to place blame, call names, ostracize, and hold at a distance. My step brother and I hold drastically different political and social views. But we could agree and commiserate together that this has been one hell of a year.

When it all is said and done, we have all been through a lot. Together.

Why we should be worried during, and after, the pandemic

Considering the steady rate of increase in mass violence incidents in the U.S. over the past 100 years, we should be relieved that we have only seen one mass violence incident in the past 6 months (www.salemnews.net/wire/?category=5063&ID=110651; based on my current database and findings — with focus centered almost entirely on COVID-19, reporting of incidents may have fallen off media radar). It’s the largest span between incidents since 2017. But there are signs this may be the calm before the storm.

In conflict studies, there are risk factors practitioners watch for to help predict an outbreak of mass violence — existing armed conflict or instability, human rights violations, weakness of state structures, incentives/triggers, lack of mitigating factors, capacity, and preparatory action, such as stockpiling arms and ammunition.

Generally, this is focused at nation states, in particular “weakened states” overseas, outside of the U.S. While not perfect, these factors have provided a means of predicting to a reasonable degree when incidents of mass violence may occur, providing practitioners, governments, and NGOs opportunity to take preventive action, or at least get a head start on resolution. What hasn’t been done in large degree or with any regularity is to turn this model’s eye inward, to examine potential risks in the U.S. Some practitioners in the past few years have started to recognize the trends from overseas right here in our own backyard.

Some clarifications on terminology is in order. It is true that the risk factors outlined above are focused on preventing mass violence on a much larger scale than we see in the U.S. These guidelines are focused on determining when international action is required to intervene in a nation state when it is exhibiting signs of risk of impending mass violence, on the scale of thousands of deaths due to violence. The United Nations guidelines for mass violence would not be deemed appropriate for even the Las Vegas shooting of 2017, the largest to-date mass violence incident in the U.S., outside of civil war and attacks from international parties. But that’s about politics and legality.

As a predictive model, these risk factors could be of great assistance in understanding phenomena relating to the more localized and smaller scale U.S. mass violence that I define in my research. In almost all of the cases I’ve studied, there were forms of instability (divorce, economic downturn, job loss, social incompatibilities), weaknesses of structures (judicial systems, human resources, mental health care, school discipline and structure), motives or triggers (bullying, ostracization, job loss, expulsion, prolonged arguments with neighbors or coworkers or classmates), absence of mitigating factors (loners, self-isolators, lack of social connections, lack of emotional outlets and problem solving resources or techniques), and preparatory action (stockpiling of weapons or ammo, manifestos, plans of action) leading to capacity to carry out mass violence.

As a result, I can’t help but see warning signs, apparent risk factors escalating during this time of the COVID-19 pandemic. There’s significant instability in our political, health, and economic systems, at an epic magnitude, amplified by this being an election year, with what many consider a high-stakes election. These are intertwined with weaknesses of our internal structures, in terms of ability to manage and keep pace with the current COVID-19 pandemic — preparedness, communications, interstate cooperation, state-nation cooperation, production, emergency safe guards, medical resources, to name a few. Motives run the gamut from political frustration to now-escalated pre-existing grudges and fears to distrust of media, politicians, and even fellow citizens. Triggers are on an epic scale with record job loss, economic fragility, health fears, limited resources, wide-scale deaths, and overall frustration, anxiety, and fear. What mitigating factors we’ve been able to muster (repurposing of manufacturing, innovations in production, civic action) aren’t able to keep up with the demand from motives and triggers. And the most alarming factor is the actual stockpiling of weapons across the country as fear, anxiety, and frustration give way to paranoia.

In a message shared to a community message board in a town in California, one of their neighbors wrote:

I was in a local gun store recently I was speaking with one of the employees who works at the gun store and he told me he has never seen so many guns flying off the shelves and selling so fast. He said they have been selling guns and ammunition at a large rate and every time they sell out of some guns and get some new ones in the new ones sell out immediately. This is great news for the security of our country . . . . I encourage every law-abiding citizen to go out and exercise your second amendment right and support local gun shops and protect your family at the same time . . . . I would like to give a big shout-out to all the local gun store owners . . . . It is vital we support these local businesses . . . .

Shared by a friend in the neighborhood; author’s name withheld

This is merely an anecdotal reference, but it’s supported by recent reports. According to an article from Boise State Public Radio (wamu.org/story/20/04/02/gun-sales-skyrocket-in-march-on-pandemic-fears/), “Retailers sold more than 2.5 million firearms in March, a year-over-year increase of 85%.” The FBI reported “over 1 million more background checks” were processed in March of 2020 than in the same time period a year ago. Many of these purchases were by first-time gun owners. Although CBS reports “this is one of the longest stretches in [students’] lifetimes without a school shooting,” they also report that “while school shootings are down, gun dealers around the country said they are seeing record numbers of customers” (it should also be noted that schools have been shut down since early March this year, removing capacity for a school shooting; source: www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-first-march-without-school-shooting-since-2002-united-states/).

The two key factors for potential large scale violence are in place: triggers and capacity. If this was an assessment of a fragile state nation, the red flags would be flying at high mast. So I’ve sounded the alarm. What next?

The good news is I’m not expecting this to escalate to the level of nation-state mass atrocity. This isn’t a situation where I’m anticipating political genocide or militia war to break out, for a variety of reasons. However, because this still doesn’t fall under the parameters of the United Nations framework for genocide or mass atrocity prevention (www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/about-us/Doc.3_Framework%20of%20Analysis%20for%20Atrocity%20Crimes_EN.pdf), we’re not going to be getting outside assistance to mitigate, de-escalate, or reconcile. So it falls to those within the U.S. to figure out how to keep this from escalating to a dangerous level.

When addressing conflict in nation states, there are some generally agreed on frameworks: fact finding (to clear the clutter of false information, hold those in power accountable, communicate faithfully to citizens); problem-solving workshops (at leadership and citizen levels, returning agency to citizens); peace-keeping discourse (faith-based unity and leadership, cross-party collaboration and discussion, community forums); media cooperation (stem misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric, provide useful information and guidance); economic reform (emergency assistance, conditional financial support); military and police efforts (demilitarization); human rights activism (reduce discrimination, provide security); and government reform (reduce exclusivity, increase inclusion).

We have seen attempts at some of these efforts. There’ve been some efforts toward economic assistance. There have been individual efforts toward more inclusive cooperation among state representatives. Local grassroots efforts have worked toward problem solving and citizen engagement. However, these efforts can’t keep pace with the increasing needs, and in most of these areas we still need to see action, unified action. In some cases it’s not only a matter of improving, but repairing damage already done by months of misinformation, media hype, inter- and intra-state bickering, resource competitiveness, and faith and political leadership discord. Demilitarization — the removal of the millions of weapons purchased just in the past month, on top of the millions of firearms owned prior to 2020 — is not going to be feasible under the current structure. Thus the goal needs to be de-escalation and reduction or removal of motivations and triggers.

How to do that — there isn’t a lot of precedent for how. U.S. mass violence is a localized occurrence, and the best places to start are going to be at the grassroots level, with state leaders, civic leaders, and citizens taking action to lead the way to mediation, support, and cooperation. Now is the time to think creatively and start putting support systems and action plans in place. If we are to keep those firearms sitting unused, we need to take action now to do what we can to ensure nobody has reason to use them.