Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/School shooting motivation

Imagine this ... On the 14th of December 2012, Newtown, Connecticut, U.S., was struck by tragedy (Schultz et al., 2013). Adam Peter Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School armed with a rifle and opened fire on a first grade classroom. In fewer than 12 minutes, the 20-year-old killed 20 students and 6 staff before police arrived, after which the gunman proceeded to take his own life. This harrowing ordeal shook the community and caused major outcry (see Figure 1). Many called for more gun control and mental health reform but the question remained: why did this happen? What motivated the perpetrator to do this? How could this have been prevented?

Understanding the motives of school shootings can help prevent them or reduce the likelihood. Children and teachers should feel safe in their learning environment and given the ongoing threat, there is much that can be improved. Psychological science can be used to identify at risk individuals for early intervention and significantly reduce the risk of school shootings.

Motives of school shooters vary based on a number of factors. Aspects including political and religious views, bullying, mental health, and negative peer influences have all appeared to be linked to motives of mass gun violence in a school setting. Through understanding what motivates individuals to make this choice, prevention strategies can be put in place to protect schools and help the individual in need.

The frustration-aggression hypothesis is a psychological theory that offers an explanation as to why people engage in aggressive behaviours. The theory explains that an individual experiences some sort of block to achieving a goal which causes them to feel frustrated and act out in order to resolve the blockage (Tiemann, 2024). If there is no way for the individual to direct their aggression towards the blockage, anger may be displaced to something unrelated as a means to reach catharsis. Once the emotional tension has been released, the cycle ends (see Figure 2).

By applying the principles of this theory to school shootings, aggressive behaviour motives can be explained. For example, many of the perpetrators of school shootings have identified being bullied in the past (Miller, 2017). This is true for instances such as Seung-Hui Cho who carried out the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, Bryan Oliver who committed the 2013 shooting at Taft Union High School and Eric Harris of the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School. In these cases, bullying was a cause of frustration that was blocking their goal of attending school in peace. When the bullying was not resolved the frustration to aggression cycle continued until the individual being bullied acted out in an aggressive manner. This aggression can be directed towards the cause for the frustration, or it can be displaced to act in an aggressive way towards another individual unrelated to the blocking of the goal. In the example of school shootings, the act of the aggression is the shooting in which the target is either the perpetrator of bullying, or it is displaced an innocent people are harmed. This is the case for Seung-Hui Cho and Eric Harris, who shot and killed other students as an act of displaced anger towards their bullies. Through the lens of the frustration-aggression hypothesis, school shootings are motivated by the blocking of a goal causing frustration, leading to aggressive behaviour so that individuals can experience an emotional release (catharsis).

This theory, however, does not come without its limitations. These complaints were in regard to the theory’s overgeneralisation and specificity, as it failed to account for other kinds of aggression and explained that frustration only lead to aggression (Mentovich & Jost, 2017). This lead to the theory being revised twice to broaden that frustration does not always lead to aggression and that there are different types of aggression. The relationship between frustration and aggression is more complex than originally anticipated by Dollard and his colleagues. While the theory has been amended in an attempt to account for other kinds of responses to frustration, the theory still explains the relationship between hostile aggression and frustration. Hostile aggression is described as an act in which the individuals goal is to inflict harm, which is known to be a motive in some school shooting cases (National Threat Assessment Center, 2021).

General strain theory explains the relationship between stressors, lack of effective coping strategies and criminal activity (James, Bunch and Clay-Warner, 2015). The principles of the theory describe that experiencing strain or stressors causes negative emotions which lead to criminal activity.

Strain is defined in three ways:

• removal of positive stimuli,
• the presentation of negative stimuli, and
• failure to achieve valued goal.

Examples of this include, perceived school unfairness, loss of a loved one or lack of a romantic partner. It is important to note that strain only needs to be perceived to motivate criminal behaviour. Different kinds of strain are also not equally likely to lead to criminal activity, and it is not necessarily an accumulation of strains that motivate the behaviour. Individuals then experience negative emotions in which they attempt to correct their perceived unjustness with aggression. This can be practically applied to case studies of previous shootings. For example, according to the National Threat Assessment Center (2021) 91% of individuals found to be plotting a school shooting had experienced life stressors up to five years prior to the discovery of their plan. Of these, 81% were found to be experiencing these stressors at the time their plan was discovered. This could be an explanation of general strain theory as individuals may attempt to correct the injustice by seeking revenge for it.

General strain theory has some similarities with the frustration-aggression hypothesis. The two ideas attempt to explain delinquent behaviour as caused by the individual trying to use their negative behaviour as a means to correct their feeling of anger or frustration. One of the key differences, however, is that general strain theory provides solutions to avoid the reduce the negative affect. Agnew (1992) suggests that learning coping skills is a mitigating factor to engaging in delinquent behaviour after a stressor. People are then more likely to choose to engage in a more helpful or positive behaviour rather than engaging in crime.

While general strain theory provides a different application of how life stressors can lead to violent behaviours, there are criticisms. As the theory reached audiences, there became ongoing concern for its application to varying types of strain as well as types of responses to it (Brezina, 2017). The relationship between crime and strain is complex and ongoing research is being conducted. While it does not account for all situations, general strain theory provides a basic explanation of how stressors impact an individuals motive to commit crime.

Before the act of violence, perpetrators typically give warning signs that can be observed in retrospect but went unnoticed at the time. Paying attention to these can mean the difference between it occurring or not and it is important to know what they are and what to do if you are concerned.

The FBI conducted research into the patterns of school shootings and developed a threat assessment model. From this, teachers and parents can use it as a guide to identify the level of risk after threat of a school shooting (O’Toole, 1999). These behaviours, personality traits and circumstances can be categorised into four prongs called the Four Prong Assessment Model. By looking at the student and their threat in a broader context it can assist in determining whether the motivation, means and intent are likely to lead to an act of violence at the school.

Personality of the student includes risks of low tolerance for frustration, poor coping skills, failed love relationships, perceived injustice, depressive symptoms, narcissism, alienation, dehumanisation of others, desire for attention and an interest in violence.

Family dynamics include risks of lack of supervision, abnormal relationship to parents and access to weapons.

School dynamics are relevant to the school itself and the way that it operates which educators need to critique to find from the perspective of the student why they would target the school. This includes analysing aspects of perceived injustices in the school environment, unsupervised computer access, lack of trust in staff, previous acts of violence at school and rigid school culture.

Social dynamics include risks of unsupervised use of media, individual or group that has an interest in violence, attitudes towards substances and the activities that they engage in outside of school.

Some of these circumstances and personality traits can be considered strains or obstructions to a goal. This assessment model considers aspects of general strain theory and the frustration aggression hypothesis in its risk assessment approach. It looks at stressors in an individuals life to establish motive for school violence.

Through the analysis of completed and averted school shootings, researchers have identified eight warning sign behaviours that individuals typically engage in before a school shooting attack (Winch et al., 2024). While these warning signs are not a checklist, they can be helpful behaviours to look out for when assessing whether a student is likely to engage in such violence. The eight warning behaviours are outlined below with explanations and how these behaviours present (see Figure 3).

The warnings behaviours can be associated with the frustration-aggression hypothesis as they identify potential other outbursts of anger as potential indications that someone is planning a school shooting. Individual that experience a block to a goal they perceive as important may attempt to resolve this frustration through acts of aggression such as getting into a fight or threatening individuals. This could be a last resort behaviour before they carry out their plan. Similarly, these warning behaviours may be their attempt to correct their negative emotions by engaging in delinquent behaviour. This application of general strain theory provides an explanation of why warning signs like these may occur.

Figure 3: Table of 8 warning signs

Note: Information compiled from Winch et al., (2024) and Silver et al., (2018).

Early intervention, such as reporting concerning behaviours and carrying out wellness checks before reaching a crisis point, are two simple strategies that can be used to prevent school shootings from happening. By having prevention strategies in place, students who need help can get support they need as individuals that are making this choice are often times depressed, ostracised and isolated. Students may not feel that mass violence is an option if there are reliable people that can help them.

An evaluation was completed by Silva & Green-Colozzi in 2022 of foiled and failed mass shootings. From this evaluation of incidents between 1999 and 2020, leakage and plan discovery were identified as the top two reasons for school shooting preventions. This is because individuals either heard threats and reported them, or their plan was discovered by individuals who had concerns and notified authorities. For instance, one individual had photos developed of him surrounded by guns which triggered the clerk to be concerned, and they made police aware of this behaviour. Upon searching the individual's home, a large number of writings were discovered as well as a 19-minute video which detailed his plot to kill a significant amount of people at a college. This example of plan discovery demonstrates why early intervention is important in preventing an attack. Leakage behaviours are another strong factor in early intervention of school shootings. This is because it is usually easy to identify as a warning sign as it is clear and specific when someone threatens this kind of violence. For example, a student informed peers of his thoughts to attack the school in which the leakage behaviour was reported to the principal and interventions could be put in place (National Threat Assessment Center, 2021). Individual's typically plan attacks for months or years before carrying it out (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2022). This means that there is time to intervene and prevent these attacks from happening. Early intervention is key to the prevention of school attacks which is why it is so important to take threats seriously and report to the appropriate parties (Reeping et al., 2021).

A common prevention strategy used around the world against gun violence is universal background checks and assault weapons ban (Schildkraut & Carr, 2020). While this may seem like an obvious solution to some, there are a variety of concerns raised including impeding on constitutional rights and that the issue won’t be resolved by the ban. However, recent research shows that states with more permissive gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership lead to high rates of K-12 school shootings (Reeping et al., 2022). In order to meaningfully reduce the rates of K-12 shootings, states must implement more restrictive gun policies to reduce access to at risk individuals. Some of the ways this can be achieved is by having stricter permit laws, banning large capacity magazines and abolishing concealed carry. By incorporating these strategies, even at a state level, communities will become less at risk of gun violence as a whole as well as reducing school shootings. Providing stricter laws allows for citizens to keep their rights whilst protecting the public from unnecessary harm.

Policies within a school system can assist in prevention by providing supports, implementing safety procedures and having protocols in place for threat assessment and intervention of a potential school shooting (Reeping et al., 2022). Individuals that had planned or executed an attack on a school oftentimes had adverse life experiences that they needed support with. Many students identified grievances as a motivating factor in choosing to engage in violence, for example. By having appropriate resources for students to use at schools, students may choose to engage in these services instead of choosing to shoot their classmates. Dealing with the issue itself, whether that be substance abuse, domestic violence or bullying, can make all the difference for students (National Threat Assessment Center, 2021). Evidence for arming teachers and conducting school shooting drills is inconclusive (Reeping et al., 2022). Many individuals have mixed feelings on these issues and there are concerns surrounding wellbeing of students and practicality of implementing such strategies. Arming teachers is a relatively unknown strategy to protect students against school shootings. Research suggests that this could cause more anxiety in students. There are also questions surrounding the implementation as proper training and laws to keep people safe would have to be created. Additionally, while shooter drills demonstrate what to do in the event of a threat and provide practise in doing this, there are also concerns about how this impacts the mental health of students.

School shootings are complex topics. They are devastating acts of violence that cause fear and pain in communities. Understanding motives, how to identify at risk individuals and how to reduce the risk of this event are key factors to keeping school systems safe. The frustration-aggression hypothesis demonstrates how blockage to a goal can cause frustration which leads individuals to act out in violent ways to release the aggression. This can be applied to school shootings as some individuals experience bullying which blocks their goal of having a stress free school experience which explains why they may act out in violence as a means to release their aggression. General strain theory is another explanation as to why some school shooters may choose violence. They experience a strain (removal of positive stimuli, the presentation of negative stimuli or failure to achieve valued goal) and then attempt to amend the negative emotions that it caused by acting out in a violent way. This could be seen as an individual getting revenge on a teacher that ignored their bullying by targeting them in their plan. The risk of shootings can be reduced through a few different means but research suggests that multiple strategies should be used for the best outcome. This includes school policies, gun control policies and early intervention. Early intervention may look like having a threat assessment model in place to assess at risk individuals. It also involves noticing and following up on warming signs that are typically exhibited in individuals that may be planning an attack. In order to create the lowest risk for school shootings, schools should have a sound understanding of all three elements discussed in this chapter and use that to inform best practice to keep schools safe.

• Mass murder motivation (Book chapter, 2021)
• School shootings (Wikipedia)
• Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (Wikiepdia)

• Sandy Hook Promise (Sandy Hook Gun Violence Facts)
• School Safety (US Government Website)