Understanding Social Isolation as Risk toward Potential for Emergence of U.S. School-Based Mass Violence

Problem Statement

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’[1] 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 conditions 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.

Peace & Conflict Approach and Rationale

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 at risk of heading down this path. With notable and 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

War-Gaming for Positive Peace

The original goal of this research was 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 contributors to volatile social isolation. To gain insights into how to simulate that environment, expert advice was sought through the exercise of wargaming. The intention was to inform the development of the virtual world through the insights gathered through wargaming with subject matter experts (SMEs).

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. War games are a type of role playing discovery activity that focuses on the people making decisions, but in simulated environments designed for role play. The Military Operations Research Society (MORS) certification course on wargaming places particular emphasis on the people and decision making, explaining that the focus is on player agency, not game structure: it’s not about how missiles perform, but about how humans engage with missiles and the environment in which missiles are present. War games, essentially, are:

“People making decisions, in a synthetic environment of conflict or competition, where they see the effects of their decision on the environment and react to the changes. (Perla, new version)” (MORS)

“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.” (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.[2] 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. Narrative, storytelling, and play are integral features of war games, with the players (actors/roles) being the central drivers. Through war games, players discover and exhibit how their beliefs, interactions, observations, and reactions to events in the game inform, influence, and alter their actions and reactions.

Wargaming certification program training slide (MORS)

Initially, war gaming in this project aimed to understand the stressors and de-stressors experienced by teen and young adult males that can contribute to social isolation from their peers, family, school, 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 was to understand what variables may be most relevant prior to conflict. What may appear to be everyday, unexceptional occurrences to some 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.

Developing the Narrative

Narrative is a central feature of wargaming, and a war game depends on the presence of a strong, carefully crafted, informed, and well developed narrative. There were three primary difficulties that arose in developing a rich enough narrative at this stage. First, there are various nuances and differences across past case studies. Settling on a realistic set of variables, scenarios, environments, role definitions, and character interactions proved particularly difficult at this early stage when there is still much to be learned across the board. Second, the definitions of the roles and characters in particular still relies on further input from SMEs who participate in these roles in their daily activities. Third, unlike in combat-based wargaming, where the humans are interacting with mechanical and weaponry parameters, landscapes, and other more static tools, school mass violence is driven and constrained most by individuals, policies, sociological systems, and other relationship-based parameters and limitations. While all wargames are focused on the human aspect of beliefs, decisions, and interactions, the study of school mass violence is heavily reliant on the one area that is to be discovered through wargaming. In a cart-before-the-horse dilemma, there are going to be many small steps before the process is informed adequately to engage in a rich enough manner with the simulated environment and scenarios.

Drawing on narratives of past USMV attacks, some possible scenarios can be drawn out. 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?
   • 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 . . .)

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. There is still more research to be done outside of the role play of wargaming, and this will need to take alternative forms, such as interviews, surveys, and creative writing of character development based on survey and interview responses. The first run of wargaming brainstorming highlighted the need for more extensive research in order to properly develop the character roles. The characters in Table 1 below were provided for participants in the first run of wargaming. See Appendix 2 for descriptions of the acronyms used.

Table 1. Character Development Chart

The environment of the game play also needs attention to rich detail, in order to provide enough input for players to know how to respond. Some of what needs to be described to participants to provide them insight into the demographics of the school and neighborhood include income, industry and commerce, race, gender percentages, graduation rates, reports of bullying, number single-parent households, class sizes, community activities, among many more. This helps flesh out the type of environment in which the characters are navigating life challenges.

In addition to characters and environment, 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. Here is the scenario that was provided for the first wargaming session (with roles noted with capitalization):

Student #1 is a sophomore at Town High School in a small-town suburb of 48000 residents. The school runs a standard curriculum geared toward test results and college admissions rankings, mostly driven by budgeting requirements and benchmarks. The town is mixed politically, with about 50% conservative, 30% liberal, and 20% unidentified.

The school year is 6 months in, so it is early January. The sophomore class has an assignment in their English composition courses to produce a creative piece that involves a written component and a multi-media component (art, video, website, comic, music, etc.). Student #1 and 24 other students have this class with Teacher #1, who is a 10 year veteran of the school.

Student #1 turns in a script for the concept approval portion of the project. He wants to turn the script into a film for the multi-media requirement. The script contains graphic references to violence and obscene language and acts.

Round 1

As your assigned role, what are options for response (positive, negative, or neutral)?

Choose the six (6) most realistic of the possible responses. Number them at random.

Rank each possible response as increasing sense of isolation (+), reducing sense of isolation (-), or having no effect on sense of isolation (N) [SAVE FOR FUTURE ITERATIONS]

We will roll dice to determine which response is going to occur.

What are some possible conflicts that could arise?

Choose the six (6) most realistic conflicts to consider. Number them at random.

For this round, we will share our options and thoughts. We will roll the dice to determine which conflict arises, and then again to determine which modifier is discovered.

Group discussion.

Round 2

Where do we go from here? Think through for yourself what your role might do next.

As your assigned role, what are options for response (positive, negative, or neutral)? Don’t share these this round.

Choose the six (6) most realistic of the possible responses. Number them at random.

How does it change your thinking to not know what options others are choosing? Group discussion.

Each participant will roll dice to determine which response is going to occur for that role.

What are some possible conflicts that could arise?

Choose the six (6) most realistic conflicts to consider. Number them at random.

We will roll the dice to determine which conflict arises, and then again to determine which modifier is discovered.

Round 3

Where do we go from here? Think through for yourself what your role might do next.

As your assigned role, what are options for response (positive, negative, or neutral)? Don’t share these this round.

Choose the six (6) most realistic of the possible responses. Number them at random.

How does it change your thinking to not know what options others are choosing? Group discussion.

Each participant will roll dice to determine which response is going to occur for that role.

What are some possible conflicts that could arise?

Choose the six (6) most realistic conflicts to consider. Number them at random.

We will roll the dice to determine which conflict arises, and then again to determine which modifier is discovered.

At designated times during the exercise, new information was introduced to add complexity to the environment. Such Modifiers can be found in the far right column of the characters chart in Table 1. 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 Counselor goes on leave and is either a) replaced by a temp, or b) has the role filled in by a PT teacher

Had there been enough players in the first wargame testing, at the end of the run of scenarios, it was initially anticipated the participants could have discussed the following questions. However, after further workshopping with wargaming SMEs, these questions will be rethought to avoid overdetermination within the exercise and to allow more agency and control (feedback) from the players.

• 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 allow space to draw out various possible angles to explore into what combinations of actions, reactions, and interpretations could contribute to 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 was also expected to provide insight into what conditions, actions, and reactions could de-escalate interpersonal conflict.

War-Gaming Environment and Conditions

The area for this research is focused on high school or college level academic campuses because this is an area with ample and recent literature and research. Initially it was though that for ease of access and in efforts to minimize costs and barriers, a local high school or the George Mason campus would 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.

However, both during the initial wargaming session and in subsequent workshopping with wargame experts at MORS, it became apparent that even the simulated environment of a wargame or serious game could prove triggering and unsettling to some participants, especially to high school or college students. Potential solutions to this are addressed below.

Data Analysis, Methodological Obstacles, Challenges and Difficulties

The first iteration of the wargame faced several difficulties in terms of participant availability. Timing conflicts landed the wargame on a holiday weekend, which posed problems for some participants.  Another participant had a conflicting engagement he was unable to step away from. And yet another participant was defending his dissertation the same weekend. Although there was interest and remains interest in future iterations from several potential participants, this particular run ended up having only two participants. Both participants were SMEs in the area of domestic terrorism and hate group research.

Despite the small showing, productive insights were gathered that will aid significantly in developing future iterations, and aid in understanding better the rich complexity of the environment and narrative involved in school mass violence. As the facilitator and participants workshopped the potential outcomes, numerous questions were raised about the characters, the environment, and the systems. These insights are discussed below. This led the focus of analysis to center on narrative development and understanding.

Aside from availability of participants, defining the components of the wargame narrative was another obstacle that arose. Narrative here is being analyzed in terms of what is needed for a full(er) understanding of the environment, scenarios, and stories to be told. In needing to replicate the environment and narrative to facilitate the wargame, what is not known yet about the narrative, its environment, and its players needs to be explored before the next wargame session. Wargames require a richer set of information to be explicitly detailed. In applying the central elements of storytelling (Week 10 class notes), the primary actors need to be described in extensive details, including multiple relationships, mental state(s), criminal background, household conditions, classroom conditions, cultural status, to name a few examples. Helpers and obstructionists also need to be detailed in depth, as they play as significant a role in the interaction and game development as the primary actors. In fact, the primary actor could shift as different roles and perspectives take center stage in the development of the story. Wargaming employs a multi-perspective approach at storytelling, examining the interactions and role play from the multiple angles of the multiple roles. The setting as well needs rich descriptions so players know whether they are engaging in an area of political tensions, low budgets, internal conflicts, among many other variables. As each role involved becomes part of the tapestry of the narrative, multiple purposes, goals, and themes will develop. The goal isn’t to narrow in on an encompassing theme or message, but to understand how competing and disparate themes and messages emerge through the multi-player interactions within a well defined space and time, as well as how beliefs, intentions, understandings, and misunderstandings play a role in not only the emerging themes, but also the resulting actions and reactions. While the initial wargame turned out to be significantly lacking in narrative and character development, the exercise still produced a much richer understanding of variables to be researched and included in future wargame exercises.

Findings

Data Gathered

As each round of the wargame exercise was workshopped, notes were taken as to what potential actions players might take. This helps define action cards for future exercises.[3] Notes also included questions and suggestions raised during play to address in future exercises. The notes are detailed in Table 2 below, and include potential actions, questions about character details, questions about scenarios, and questions about the environment and related systems (school system, curriculum, etc.). Actions are results of brainstorming from the perspective of the particular role in play at the time (Role column). Non-action items that posed questions to address or areas of improved game development are highlighted in yellow.

Note	Role	Round	Comment Category	Observation
Try to get copy of script from teacher – talk to the teacher	Counselor	2	Action	An artifact would be helpful here — sample script, could use a publicly available manifesto
Try to politicize the incident toward his goals re: weapons detection	Counselor	2	Action	Artifacts helpful here too — political rally flyers, school board speech, letters to editors, etc.
Counselor will know record of student	Counselor	2	Character	Considering what a character might do raises questions about the character — what is the character’s awareness, state of mind, ability range, relationship with other characters, group dynamics, competing needs and goals, place and abilities within system
Based on knowledge of student, could arrange to talk to student (but could escalate based on background of student)	Counselor	2	Action	Any school rules about teacher-student contact and conversations?
Direct confrontation with student	Counselor	2	Action
Indirectly chat with student about how things are going	Counselor	2	Action
What is confidentiality of counselor-student interactions	Counselor	2	System	School system culture, standards, restrictions, etc.
Would student trust counselor	Counselor	2	Character	Relationship insight
Could be a lag in response due to being PT (what is the case load)	Counselor	2	System	How quickly can the counselor address an issue? Does the schedule permit response to all issues?
What do teachers think of counselor? Could be rivalry or conflicts?	Counselor	2	Group Dynamics	Is it realistic the teacher might go to the counselor? Is it realistic the interaction would be productive?
Could hold an assembly to address topic	Counselor	2	Action
Could dismiss it as not an issue	Counselor	2	Action
Could do social media ‘investigation’ of the student	Counselor	2	Action
Could start asking around with other students	Counselor	2	Action
Assumes censorship	Dice Roll	2		Decision of action/response based on dice roll
Assume the teacher doesn’t understand	Student	2	Action
Could have a productive conversation with the teacher	Student	2	Action
Could be perceived as he’s inadequate, singled out	Student	2	Action
Could perceive as he can’t ever get it right	Student	2	Action
Could ‘play the game’, performance for teacher	Student	2	Action
Comes up with something worse and puts up on social media	Student	2	Action
What is the student’s knowledge and savvy about social media venues	Student	2	Character	What does the student follow? Any chat rooms? What type of rhetoric? Able to see info about the school faculty and staff? How much does the student put on social media? Is it available for school staff to see?
Could rant about it online	Student	2	Action
Could increase animosity toward teacher	Student	2	Action
Could claim discrimination on view	Student	2	Action
Does the student know the teacher’s political views and activities	Student	2	Character/Group Dynamics	Level of insight/exposure?
Could plaster walls with protest against teacher as oppressing the student	Student	2	Action
Could talk to other students	Student	2	Action
What do we know about the student’s social circles or connections?	Student	2	Character	Further develop social life
Apathy – do nothing	Student	2	Action
What kind of student is this? Care or not about grades and success and pleasing teacher?	Student	2	Character	Any shifts over time? At time of scenario, what is and has been his mindset? Is there a recent shift?
Misogyny and other perceptions of gendered elements and roles	Student	2	Action
(most people are in the dark about most things)	Student	2	Group Dynamics	Observational comment
Talk to mom about paper	Student	2	Action
What is his academic performance so far	Student	2	Character	See above comment — how does assignment potentially affect his academic standing?
Action: can never getting it right	Dice Roll	2		Decision of action/response based on dice roll
What is student’s pre-existing mental state? Other signs of depression or mental unease?	Teacher	2	Character/Group Dynamics	Any shifts over time? At time of scenario, what is and has been his mindset? Is there a recent shift?
Serious disconnect with reality of situation (socialized to see differently, neurodiverse, withdrawing)	Student	2	Character	What is known and by whom about the student’s state of mind?
Teacher could do a “see me” (common practice)	Teacher	2	Action
Teacher worried about contract renewal and doesn’t say anything	Teacher	2	Action
Teacher provides extensive notes on the draft	Teacher	2	Action
Teacher pulls student aside at beginning or end of class to ask to meet and discuss the paper	Teacher	2	Action
Is teacher confrontation averse	Teacher	2	Character	Character development
Communication with students has changed in recent years	Teacher	2	Character	Character insight
Is the project going to be shared with other students?	Teacher	2	System	Class and assignment structure; could also be affected or defined by school standards and rules
Is student socialized on the internet	Teacher	2	Character	Level of social media connection? Obsession? Influences?
Some things need more fleshed out (home environment, relationships to students and parents and neighbors, demographics of school)	Hot Wash	NA	Game Structure/ Character	(Hot Wash is a post exercise workshopping of what worked, what didn’t, what to do going forward)
Prep book, play book – individualized information; assign roles	Hot Wash	NA	Game Structure
Keep some details secured to those with role	Hot Wash	NA	Group Dynamics
Learning who characters are as progress, based on decisions	Hot Wash	NA	Game Structure
Swapping roles	Hot Wash	NA	Game Structure
Defining process and steps better	Hot Wash	NA	Game Structure
Predictive behaviors	Hot Wash	NA	Game Structure/ Character
Criminal record – needs fleshed out	Hot Wash	NA	Game Structure/ Character
Artifacts – like manifesto, film script, mental health record for counselor, academic record, flyers etc from political rallies, social media profiles and posts, classroom photos	Hot Wash	NA	Game Structure
Town characteristics and where roles fit in that structure	Hot Wash	NA	System
Ask questions (to self, to others) What is the goal of the paper? Glorify violence, explore violence?	Teacher	1	Action
Talk to other teachers as to whether seen this in other classes	Teacher	1	Action
Could try to work with the student to refine the telling of this story	Teacher	1	Action
What is the teacher’s perspective on the language and expression?	Teacher	1	Character	Character development
Talk to student one on one	Teacher	1	Action
Contact student’s parents (may be escalation)	Teacher	1	Action
What is mode of the script (historic, realistic, about a mass shooting, . . .)	Teacher	1	System	Artifact useful here, more details about the script, sample pages or full artifact
Shuts down the project immediately (publicly, one on one)	Teacher	1	Action
Check student records for infractions or warning signs	Teacher	1	Action
What is known about the student’s past?	Teacher	1	Character/ Group Dynamics	What does player representing student need to know? What of this is known by other roles?
Talk to the student’s friends to ask about the paper topic	Teacher	1	Action
Inquire as to whether the student is bullied?	Teacher	1	Action
Teacher reacts with concern and fear and discusses with a friend outside of school	Teacher	1	Action
Teacher assumes it’s not an issue and overlooks	Teacher	1	Action
Teacher avoids student in following class	Teacher	1	Action
Over reacting, assuming planning – lead to other actions	Teacher	1	Action
Escalates to send student to counselor in front of class	Teacher	1	Action
Calls student out in front of class	Teacher	1	Action
Could call out the topic in front of class	Teacher	1	Action

Artifacts: Several times the benefit of an artifact was raised. Artifacts are material items that provide insights into the characters, activities, mindsets, interactions, relationships, political leanings, among others. An example would be a manifesto that a counselor found in the student’s locker. Some manifestos from past perpetrators are available online and could work as an artifact for this purpose. Another example is a flyer from a political rally a teacher attended, which could provide insights into the teacher’s thinking. Whether this flyer is seen by a student could add another layer of insight or complexity to the game play.

Character Insight and Awareness: What the characters do and don’t know can affect what actions they take. This could take the form of whether the teacher is aware the student is being bullied, or whether the school counselor has insight into a student’s criminal record. Several times such questions were raised during the exercise. Such questions both provided advice for future exercises and highlighted just how complex and nuanced the environment of a school can be.

Character Development: Much like character insight and awareness, there were questions about the characters themselves. In order to role play a character, even one the player actually lives outside of game play (for instance, a teacher playing the Teacher role), the players need rich understanding of the nuances of the characters they are assigned. Some of the characteristics may only be known by the player playing the role, but affect their understanding of how the player may respond to actions and circumstances in play.

System Understanding: Some questions were raised about the systems themselves, such as what the budget of the school is, course load of teachers, and assignment details and restrictions. Each detail could affect decisions and reactions. This information could also play a role in character insight and awareness.

Group Dynamics: In addition to who the characters are, how do different roles interact with each other? What are the group dynamics between the teachers and the counselor? Among the teachers? Between teachers and students? What is the formality of the school?

Several suggestions in the hot wash[4] at the end of the exercise also provided guidance for the Game Structure in future exercises.

Data Analysis

Although this exercise was a form of role play, it was particularly useful in further unpacking the deep complexity of the problem area of school mass violence. The results of this low scale, introductory exercise also highlight the incredible difficulty faced in uncovering root causes to mass violence. Modeling is not going to be adequate, as the interactions, actions, reactions, and environmental and structural factors are so highly variable and dynamic that a single model will not be able to capture interactions beyond a single case study. There wouldn’t be adequate application to other cases or potential future cases. Surveys would prove particularly inadequate, as this exercise highlighted how there are multiple layers of knowing and not knowing, potential for misinterpretation and mal-interpretation, and insufficient insight and awareness. Enhanced awareness could also alter direction of actions and reactions.

Field observations may provide insights into some of the environmental and systemic variables and details. This is a tactic being considered for richer descriptions of the game environment. Studying of a representative or sample school or schools could provide insight into characteristics raised in questions during the initial exercise – staff dynamics, staff awareness and insight that could be expected, school system parameters and obstacles, and similar situational awareness factors.

Further work was conducted with wargaming experts during a MORS wargaming certification course. Feedback from instructors and participants during workshopping sessions echoed the immense complexity of this particular area of study. Despite such complexity, there was consensus that wargaming may be the best option for exploring school mass violence, given some shifts in focus.

Unlike the more typical wargame, where the territory, physical obstacles, weaponry, mechanics, and communications require more of a physical layout on which to conduct an exercise, the elements of early-stage emergence of school mass shootings plays out very much in relationships, interactions, social and system structures, belief systems, knowledge and misperceptions, and other mental, emotional, and social ‘landscapes,’ making this an area of study best suiting a card-based wargame. Card-based wargames work well when there are multiple personalities and roles represented in relationship and interaction-based role play. This does mean it may be more possible to conduct an exercise remotely (although in person will still be the preference). This structure does also rely heavily on expert participation, so roles are played by individuals with in-depth knowledge of the roles and their obstacles and dynamics.

Conclusion

Highly complex, multi-cell, highly dynamic problem areas such as school mass violence have proven to be particularly problematic for research. This doesn’t mean this area can’t be researched or research needs to settle for inadequate answers. It does mean needing to be more creative and thoughtful about how these wicked areas are studied. Wargaming provides a way to observe and simulate field research in a safer environment, even with some obstacles yet to resolve.

Highlighted in both the exercise and the workshopping with MORS, even drawing the field of observation out of the schools and into the role playing arena, this could be a very tricky and possibly unethical activity to involve current students in direct play and participation. One of the participants in the exercise mentioned that it was even triggering for her to think through the possible variables in the scenario presented. The MORS experts didn’t feel such an exercise would pass IRB approval with students.

Taking this into consideration, there are a couple of possibilities going forward. One option is to shift the wargame to solely focus on social isolation (removing the references to mass violence), which would require a whole new game structure and narrative. A second option is to only have adult SMEs participate, with a SME(s) from psychology or sociology standing in for the student role(s). After each exercise, surveys would be developed from the exercise findings, and these surveys would be taken to students for their feedback. Both of these options are under consideration at this point.

In writing up the results of this exercise, it also became clear that the focus of the exercise became too narrowly focused on a Student profile that was designed to match that of a known past perpetrator of school mass violence (in this case, characteristics and scenarios garnered from the Columbine shooting). This started to center the exercise, potential responses, scenarios, and thus results toward how a student already predisposed would respond, and how teachers and staff might respond to someone already disposed, regardless of their awareness. This clearly steered the exercise and discussion away from the more central questions of what leads to intense social isolation. While the original line of questioning does aim at what leads to volatile social isolation, jumping right to that stage overlooks and doesn’t give space for what more minor stages could come before, and what contributes to escalation. Redirecting the narrative toward the original focus of stages of isolation may also be a way to develop a wargame that is more compatible with student participation.

Wargaming also relies on a multi-modal approach to research. Surveys and field observations provide details to flesh out the characters, environment, systems, and other facets of the game that provide a rich enough experience for players to engage in a realistic manner in the simulated environment. In working through the nuances of developing a wargame for this research, a richer understanding of the problem area was also gained. The process itself becomes a part of the discovery and increased knowledge about how mass violence can potentially emerge in schools.

Appendix 1

Time Lapse for Wargame

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
   • Discover dynamics at play
   • Introduce 1st scenario
   • Play out possible actions
   • Announce end of day 1 simulation
2. Either continue 1st scenario or introduce scenario 2
   • Play out possible actions
   • Announce end of day 2 simulation
3. [After mid-day break] Either continue 2nd scenario or introduce scenario 3
   • Play out possible actions
   • Announce end of day 3 simulation
4. Either continue 3rd scenario or introduce scenario 4
   • Play out possible actions
   • 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

Appendix 2

Acronyms for Character Descriptions

YIS: Year In School (student grade or adult years of service)

SM: Single Mother

SF: Single Father

MF: Mother and Father

YS: Younger Sibling

OS: Older Sibling

NS: No Sibling

HET: Heterosexual

HOM: Homosexual

UND: Undetermined Orientation

Religion:  A (Active), O (Occasional Attendance), I (Inactive), PA (Previously Active)

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

MORS. 17-21 April 2023. D1L2 What Is a Wargame? 202206.pptx. MORS Certificate in Wargaming, Online. https://www.mors.org/Events/Certificates/Certificate-in-Wargaming

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] 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)

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

[3] Action Cards are a tool used in some wargames to provide actions, variables, obstacles, and other aspects of the game play into the narrative. They typically contain rich details about the characters, scenarios, environment, setbacks, and outcomes. Those who have played role playing games (RPGs) may have used cards as game equipment.

[4] Hot Wash is a post exercise workshopping of what worked, what didn’t, what to do going forward.