When I decided to make the move from Oklahoma Panhandle State University to my current post at University of Arkansas-Fort Smith, my intention was to increase my research productivity by having access to larger samples and a larger pool of potential undergraduate research assistants. My hopes have begun to bear fruit, especially over the last couple years.
For example, my book chapter on aggression in the most recent edition of the Encyclopedia of Mental Health was published late last fall. You can read the abstract here. I do have an article on authoritarianism and attitudes toward torture as well as an article applying framing theory to attitudes toward torture (the latter coauthored with Sara Oelke, a UAFS alumna who is currently finishing her Masters in Counseling), both of which should be in print later this summer. There are a couple other papers coauthored with Brad Bushman that are in various stages of the review process that should appear in print later this year or sometime the following year. I also have some data collected with the assistance of various UAFS psychology majors that I hope to work on writing up over the May interterm or during the summer, and hopefully will have those under review late in the year.
Overall, I am happy with my level of productivity, given my teaching load (I usually teach four courses per semester) and lack of a stable lab space for conducting experiments. I am hoping one or both of those particular constraints are removed sufficiently to really do the quality and quantity of research that I expect of myself. That is, of course, a work in progress.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Busting Myths About Gun Violence
On the day that President Obama held a town hall appearance to address gun violence in the US, Mother Jones posted an article entitled 7 Myths About Gun Violence, Debunked. The article provides links to previous articles that have addressed various claims made about gun violence, in the process separating fiction from fact. What I like best about the article (and the links therein) is that it takes an evidence-based approach to reporting and interpreting the available evidence. A few of the issues raised in the article are ones I've discussed before, including the controversy over how to define mass shootings (Mother Jones uses a very cautious operational definition, which is probably wise) as well as the lack of evidence to support a popular but wrong claim regarding the role of mental illness on mass shootings (to which I would add gun violence in general). What I appreciate most about this particular article is that it lays out a legitimate social and public health problem in a way that cuts through the misinformation, and in the process hopefully spurs thought and conversation rather than ill-informed panic.
Some study tips
With a new semester coming up, this would appear to be as good a time as any to post a friendly reminder that your best bet as a student is to study smarter (courtesy of Vox):
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Gender equality on "The Force Awakens": Two thumbs up!
My friend, Karen Dill Shackleford, recently posted about The Force Awakens on her blog. Suffice it to say, she likes what she sees. As a long time fan of the Star Wars franchise, I'm quite pleased as well. The latest film in the series has been panned in some circles for being a bit of a throwback to the original back in the late 1970s. However, when it comes to gender equality and how women are portrayed, the newest film is very much a product of the social changes occurring currently.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Fried Green Y'all Qaedas, Anyone?
As many of you are undoubtedly aware at this point, there is currently an armed standoff on a federal wildlife sanctuary near Burns, Oregon. The root cause of this particular standoff is simple enough: a couple ranchers were convicted of arson on federal property, and received a mandatory minimum sentence of five years each. The original judge who presided over the case thought the mandatory minimum sentence was excessive, and instead opted to sentence the individuals to serve a fraction of that time. The federal government successfully appealed that sentence, and as a result, these individuals are to serve the remainder of their five year prison terms. Although there is a legitimate discussion about the usefulness of mandatory minimum sentences, themselves a relic of the "get tough on crime" ethos that dominated the 1980s and 1990s political landscape in the US, that discussion has been obscured by the antics of those who showed up to protest.
Initially there was minimal national media coverage, and CNN in particular managed to botch coverage of the protest in Burns and the armed standoff that ensued. As of this writing that appears to have changed. Hence, on social media platforms such as Twitter, the hashtag #OregonUnderAttack began to trend as a critical mass of users decided to spread the news on their own. As of this writing, that particular hashtag continues to trend on Twitter. There appeared to be some pushback by apologists for the militia members who seized the nearby wildlife sanctuary in response. What followed, however, was an example of what Twitter users with mainstream political views do best: they created additional hashtags to mock those involved in this particular armed standoff. Among those hashtags are #YallQaeda, #VanillaISIS, #YeeHawd, #YokelHaram, #CowTippingTerrorists, #FailQaeda, #Infantada, #WhiteSIS, #SaturdayNightTreason, and #TrailerDaesh. The first three of those hashtags in particular caught on. These hashtags accompanied any of a number of clever quips, humorous photoshopped images, and also links to some serious commentary about terrorism, white privilege, racism (the Bundy family, a member of whom is leading this particular action, is notorious in that regard) and gun use. None of the users of these hashtags appeared to accept the explanation by the would be insurrectionists and their apologists that the armed occupiers were harming no one. Given some of the rhetoric to the contrary used by some of the members of this particular militia, that is understandable.
The negative reaction to any sort of armed action is not terribly surprising, given the potential for violence. There is ample evidence in the psychological literature that protests that are violent or threaten violence do change attitudes, but not in the direction the protesters would intend. Rather, violent and potentially violent protests persuade onlookers to become more pro-government in their attitudes. I can think of a number of experiments that Bob Altemeyer ran and published back in the 1980s and early 1990s that demonstrated this phenomenon quite well. Even if you read the coverage of what the locals in Burns think about the protesters, the impression you'll be left with is that the protesters are largely unwanted, even if they agree that the sentence given to the two convicted of arson was excessive, and even if many of them may be rather jaded in their views regarding the federal government and its land management policies.
As an aside, it is worth noting that in recent history, attempts to instigate armed revolt or revolution in stable democratic societies have typically failed to win over the public. The member of the Bundy family who has spearheaded this particular armed standoff in Oregon has argued that his militia's purpose is simple: the residents in Burns are too weak to stand up to the federal government and need the militia's help to gain sufficient courage to fight. The same rationale has been used previously by revolutionary groups. The notorious Red Army Faction, which terrorized West Germany during the 1970s and into the 1980s rationalized their acts of terrorism as needed because the average West German would not do so. The public reception of the Red Army Faction was not entirely negative at first, when their actions did not involve casualties, but once they began to kill civilians, support vanished. The organization was mocked as the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and it became popular to voice distance from the Red Army Faction by placing bumper stickers on vehicles (especially BMWs, given that the group drove stolen BMWs for a while) stating “Ich gehöre nicht zur Baader-Meinhof Gruppe" ("I am not a member of the Baader-Meinhof Group"). When the West German government cracked down on leftist organizations, as a result of the terrorism caused by that organization (as well as some splinter organizations), there was broad support for the government's decision. Rather than act as a vanguard for resistance, the organization became something of a laughingstock and something to be loathed. Interestingly enough, both the right-wing militia and the RAF appear to be arguing from a position of privilege, to the extent that they claim to have the necessary background and courage to overthrow the system that the rest of the population is too weak or ignorant to do themselves. That rhetorical tactic will be unlikely to win over too many converts.
The lesson to be learned is that violent rhetoric and actions rarely persuade those outside the circles of the already converted. In a social psychology course, we could start using terms like polarization and reactance to describe the typical reaction toward such tactics. It really matters little what the ideology of those involved in using such rhetoric and actions happens to be. The reaction among those with attitudes that are more within the mainstream will be generally negative.
A belated happy new year to those of you who read this blog. I will be back later in the month with some fresh content.
Initially there was minimal national media coverage, and CNN in particular managed to botch coverage of the protest in Burns and the armed standoff that ensued. As of this writing that appears to have changed. Hence, on social media platforms such as Twitter, the hashtag #OregonUnderAttack began to trend as a critical mass of users decided to spread the news on their own. As of this writing, that particular hashtag continues to trend on Twitter. There appeared to be some pushback by apologists for the militia members who seized the nearby wildlife sanctuary in response. What followed, however, was an example of what Twitter users with mainstream political views do best: they created additional hashtags to mock those involved in this particular armed standoff. Among those hashtags are #YallQaeda, #VanillaISIS, #YeeHawd, #YokelHaram, #CowTippingTerrorists, #FailQaeda, #Infantada, #WhiteSIS, #SaturdayNightTreason, and #TrailerDaesh. The first three of those hashtags in particular caught on. These hashtags accompanied any of a number of clever quips, humorous photoshopped images, and also links to some serious commentary about terrorism, white privilege, racism (the Bundy family, a member of whom is leading this particular action, is notorious in that regard) and gun use. None of the users of these hashtags appeared to accept the explanation by the would be insurrectionists and their apologists that the armed occupiers were harming no one. Given some of the rhetoric to the contrary used by some of the members of this particular militia, that is understandable.
The negative reaction to any sort of armed action is not terribly surprising, given the potential for violence. There is ample evidence in the psychological literature that protests that are violent or threaten violence do change attitudes, but not in the direction the protesters would intend. Rather, violent and potentially violent protests persuade onlookers to become more pro-government in their attitudes. I can think of a number of experiments that Bob Altemeyer ran and published back in the 1980s and early 1990s that demonstrated this phenomenon quite well. Even if you read the coverage of what the locals in Burns think about the protesters, the impression you'll be left with is that the protesters are largely unwanted, even if they agree that the sentence given to the two convicted of arson was excessive, and even if many of them may be rather jaded in their views regarding the federal government and its land management policies.
As an aside, it is worth noting that in recent history, attempts to instigate armed revolt or revolution in stable democratic societies have typically failed to win over the public. The member of the Bundy family who has spearheaded this particular armed standoff in Oregon has argued that his militia's purpose is simple: the residents in Burns are too weak to stand up to the federal government and need the militia's help to gain sufficient courage to fight. The same rationale has been used previously by revolutionary groups. The notorious Red Army Faction, which terrorized West Germany during the 1970s and into the 1980s rationalized their acts of terrorism as needed because the average West German would not do so. The public reception of the Red Army Faction was not entirely negative at first, when their actions did not involve casualties, but once they began to kill civilians, support vanished. The organization was mocked as the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and it became popular to voice distance from the Red Army Faction by placing bumper stickers on vehicles (especially BMWs, given that the group drove stolen BMWs for a while) stating “Ich gehöre nicht zur Baader-Meinhof Gruppe" ("I am not a member of the Baader-Meinhof Group"). When the West German government cracked down on leftist organizations, as a result of the terrorism caused by that organization (as well as some splinter organizations), there was broad support for the government's decision. Rather than act as a vanguard for resistance, the organization became something of a laughingstock and something to be loathed. Interestingly enough, both the right-wing militia and the RAF appear to be arguing from a position of privilege, to the extent that they claim to have the necessary background and courage to overthrow the system that the rest of the population is too weak or ignorant to do themselves. That rhetorical tactic will be unlikely to win over too many converts.
The lesson to be learned is that violent rhetoric and actions rarely persuade those outside the circles of the already converted. In a social psychology course, we could start using terms like polarization and reactance to describe the typical reaction toward such tactics. It really matters little what the ideology of those involved in using such rhetoric and actions happens to be. The reaction among those with attitudes that are more within the mainstream will be generally negative.
A belated happy new year to those of you who read this blog. I will be back later in the month with some fresh content.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Common denominators in mass shootings
This Washington Post article does an adequate job of describing some common characteristics of mass shootings and mass shooters. The main gist is that the majority of mass shootings appear to involve firearms that were legally obtained. In addition, perpetrators of mass shootings tend to bring multiple firearms: averaging around three. Pistols seem to be the most frequently used firearms in mass shootings. Not surprisingly, nearly all mass shooters are males.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Do we really have a mass shooting per day on average? It depends on the operational definition
In the immediate aftermath of the mass shootings in San Bernardino, CA and Savannah, GA earlier this week, several infographics circulated around social media and internet news sites showing that the US averages around one mass shooting per day. That, to say the least, is an eye-opening statistic. Second Amendment rights advocates balked at that figure, contending that the actual number of mass shootings was far lower, and at any rate once gang violence, drug deals gone bad, family kidnappings, and so forth were taken into consideration, our mass shooting rate would be no different than that found in European countries.
The truth of the matter is that there is apparently no agreed-upon definition of the term mass shooting. Some of those sources tracking mass shootings count only those incidents in which a single shooter kills four or more people (although here there is some dispute as to whether or not to include gang-related shootings, etc. - see Mother Jones' tracker, for example). Other trackers, such as Reddit's Mass Shooting Tracker and the Gun Violence Archive count any shooting with four or more victims who were injured or killed, excluding the shooter or shooters. The Gun Violence Archive defines the incidents in which four or more people are killed as mass murders, a distinct sub-class within mass shootings. The debate over the appropriate operational definition of mass shooting incidents matters to the extent that it frames the extent to which there is a problem and the extent to which it is worsening. If we use Reddit's Mass Shooting Tracker or the Gun Violence Archive, one will come away with the impression that mass shootings are now a daily occurrence, and that the number of victims each year is in the thousands. The mass shooting definition used by Mother Jones, which is perhaps the most conservative of all the definitions, suggests a far lower number of incidents but that they have increased in frequency in recent years. USA Today's tracker which includes gang-related incidents, but only counts those with four or more murdered, suggests that the frequency is actually going down.
In the behavioral and social sciences, disagreements about operational definitions are quite common, and often those definitions that eventually become accepted are those that are able to produce consistently replicable findings. In the case of mass shootings, since there is a very heated debate regarding whether even mild regulation of firearms in the US should be considered, the debate over how to define them is tied quite strongly to ideology. Those who are in favor of stricter gun laws are likely to gravitate toward those definitions that seem to best make their case (Mother Jones' tracker, or either of the other two trackers), whereas those in favor of further liberalizing gun laws are likely to gravitate toward those definitions that make their case (e.g., the USA Today tracker). In other words, the debate over how to define mass shootings is not merely an academic debate, but one that is very politically loaded at the moment, suggesting that arriving on an agreed-upon definition that will satisfy most interested parties is not likely any time soon.
Regardless of the operational definition of mass shootings, the question of just how uniquely American this phenomenon is one that appears to have an answer. Using a fairly restrictive definition of mass shootings (four or more murdered, excluding the shooter or shooters), Adam Lankford discovered that the frequency of mass shootings was considerably higher in the US than any other developed nation as well as other nations that make up the Global South. Lankford found that approximately one third of mass shootings in his data set were committed in the US. Generally, these findings make some sense, given that firearms are more readily available in the US than in much of the rest of the world (see this article comparing gun laws in the US to a selection of other nations). Not all will agree with these findings, of course, and I am sure that there are ways of finessing the data to make particular political points.
The question of why mass shootings occur is one that is also politically charged, but in principle should be answerable. Often, commentators view mental illness as a factor. However, those making that claim fail to take into consideration that people who are mentally ill are usually less likely to commit acts of violence (including gun-related violence) than those who are not mentally ill - a topic I touch on briefly in my recently published book chapter on aggression. It may turn out that mental health status of mass shooters, however defined, may turn out to be truly unique among those who perpetrate gun-related violent incidents. Without the necessary research, the "mental illness" explanation remains untested, and should be treated with some skepticism. It would also be useful to know the extent to which extreme religious and ideological beliefs factor in to mass shootings, given that a number of the perpetrators of high profile shootings (those that received a great deal of media coverage) have had religious or political motivations. Finally, some have floated the idea of a Columbine effect, suggesting that many of the mass shootings in the US may be copycat crimes inspired by the two teenagers who killed and injured a large number of people at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO in 1999. It is certainly an interesting idea that may explain those incidents that have occurred on high school and college campuses since 1999. The extent to which those incidents outside school grounds are related to the Columbine shooting is for now debatable.
There does appear to be a problem, and one that is more so in the US than elsewhere as a general rule. Skeptics are certainly correct in pointing out that stricter gun regulations would not guarantee an end to mass shootings or other forms of gun-related violence. Even in those countries with stricter laws, gun-related violence still happens, and mass shootings are not entirely out of the question (see what happened in Norway a few years ago as one example). However, in those nations, such incidents are considerably less frequent elsewhere, and one can even go through a significant portion of one's own life without ever having experienced a mass shooting on one's own soil - something that probably has some effect on the social psychological makeup of those who have the chance to live without such occurrences. In Australia, for example, there is now an entire generation that has never experienced a mass shooting. For those wondering what life might be like without the worry of when and where the next shooting rampage might happen, the Australian experience is quite edifying.
The truth of the matter is that there is apparently no agreed-upon definition of the term mass shooting. Some of those sources tracking mass shootings count only those incidents in which a single shooter kills four or more people (although here there is some dispute as to whether or not to include gang-related shootings, etc. - see Mother Jones' tracker, for example). Other trackers, such as Reddit's Mass Shooting Tracker and the Gun Violence Archive count any shooting with four or more victims who were injured or killed, excluding the shooter or shooters. The Gun Violence Archive defines the incidents in which four or more people are killed as mass murders, a distinct sub-class within mass shootings. The debate over the appropriate operational definition of mass shooting incidents matters to the extent that it frames the extent to which there is a problem and the extent to which it is worsening. If we use Reddit's Mass Shooting Tracker or the Gun Violence Archive, one will come away with the impression that mass shootings are now a daily occurrence, and that the number of victims each year is in the thousands. The mass shooting definition used by Mother Jones, which is perhaps the most conservative of all the definitions, suggests a far lower number of incidents but that they have increased in frequency in recent years. USA Today's tracker which includes gang-related incidents, but only counts those with four or more murdered, suggests that the frequency is actually going down.
In the behavioral and social sciences, disagreements about operational definitions are quite common, and often those definitions that eventually become accepted are those that are able to produce consistently replicable findings. In the case of mass shootings, since there is a very heated debate regarding whether even mild regulation of firearms in the US should be considered, the debate over how to define them is tied quite strongly to ideology. Those who are in favor of stricter gun laws are likely to gravitate toward those definitions that seem to best make their case (Mother Jones' tracker, or either of the other two trackers), whereas those in favor of further liberalizing gun laws are likely to gravitate toward those definitions that make their case (e.g., the USA Today tracker). In other words, the debate over how to define mass shootings is not merely an academic debate, but one that is very politically loaded at the moment, suggesting that arriving on an agreed-upon definition that will satisfy most interested parties is not likely any time soon.
Regardless of the operational definition of mass shootings, the question of just how uniquely American this phenomenon is one that appears to have an answer. Using a fairly restrictive definition of mass shootings (four or more murdered, excluding the shooter or shooters), Adam Lankford discovered that the frequency of mass shootings was considerably higher in the US than any other developed nation as well as other nations that make up the Global South. Lankford found that approximately one third of mass shootings in his data set were committed in the US. Generally, these findings make some sense, given that firearms are more readily available in the US than in much of the rest of the world (see this article comparing gun laws in the US to a selection of other nations). Not all will agree with these findings, of course, and I am sure that there are ways of finessing the data to make particular political points.
The question of why mass shootings occur is one that is also politically charged, but in principle should be answerable. Often, commentators view mental illness as a factor. However, those making that claim fail to take into consideration that people who are mentally ill are usually less likely to commit acts of violence (including gun-related violence) than those who are not mentally ill - a topic I touch on briefly in my recently published book chapter on aggression. It may turn out that mental health status of mass shooters, however defined, may turn out to be truly unique among those who perpetrate gun-related violent incidents. Without the necessary research, the "mental illness" explanation remains untested, and should be treated with some skepticism. It would also be useful to know the extent to which extreme religious and ideological beliefs factor in to mass shootings, given that a number of the perpetrators of high profile shootings (those that received a great deal of media coverage) have had religious or political motivations. Finally, some have floated the idea of a Columbine effect, suggesting that many of the mass shootings in the US may be copycat crimes inspired by the two teenagers who killed and injured a large number of people at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO in 1999. It is certainly an interesting idea that may explain those incidents that have occurred on high school and college campuses since 1999. The extent to which those incidents outside school grounds are related to the Columbine shooting is for now debatable.
There does appear to be a problem, and one that is more so in the US than elsewhere as a general rule. Skeptics are certainly correct in pointing out that stricter gun regulations would not guarantee an end to mass shootings or other forms of gun-related violence. Even in those countries with stricter laws, gun-related violence still happens, and mass shootings are not entirely out of the question (see what happened in Norway a few years ago as one example). However, in those nations, such incidents are considerably less frequent elsewhere, and one can even go through a significant portion of one's own life without ever having experienced a mass shooting on one's own soil - something that probably has some effect on the social psychological makeup of those who have the chance to live without such occurrences. In Australia, for example, there is now an entire generation that has never experienced a mass shooting. For those wondering what life might be like without the worry of when and where the next shooting rampage might happen, the Australian experience is quite edifying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)