Refine
Document Type
- Article (20)
- Postprint (5)
- Habilitation Thesis (1)
Language
- English (26) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (26)
Keywords
- justice sensitivity (9)
- rejection sensitivity (5)
- prevention (4)
- rampage (4)
- risk factor (4)
- school shooting (4)
- Justice sensitivity (3)
- adolescence (3)
- aggression (3)
- hostile attribution bias (3)
Institute
Leaking comprises observable behavior or statements that signal intentions of committing a violent offense and is considered an important warning sign for school shootings. School staff who are confronted with leaking have to assess its seriousness and react appropriately - a difficult task, because knowledge about leaking is sparse. The present study, therefore, examined how frequently leaking occurs in schools and how teachers identify leaking and respond to it. To achieve this aim, we informed teachers from eight schools in Germany about the definition of leaking and other warning signs and risk factors for school shootings in a one-hour information session. Teachers were then asked to report cases of leaking over a six- to nine-month period and to answer a questionnaire on leaking and its treatment after the information session and six to nine months later. Our results suggest that leaking is a relevant problem in German schools. Teachers mostly rated the information session positively and benefited in several aspects (e.g. reported more perceived courses of action or improved knowledge about leaking), but also expressed a constant need for support. Our findings highlight teachers' needs for further support and training and may be used in the planning of prevention measures for school shootings.
Leaking comprises observable behavior or statements that signal intentions of committing a violent offense and is considered an important warning sign for school shootings. School staff who are confronted with leaking have to assess its seriousness and react appropriately - a difficult task, because knowledge about leaking is sparse. The present study, therefore, examined how frequently leaking occurs in schools and how teachers identify leaking and respond to it. To achieve this aim, we informed teachers from eight schools in Germany about the definition of leaking and other warning signs and risk factors for school shootings in a one-hour information session. Teachers were then asked to report cases of leaking over a six- to nine-month period and to answer a questionnaire on leaking and its treatment after the information session and six to nine months later. Our results suggest that leaking is a relevant problem in German schools. Teachers mostly rated the information session positively and benefited in several aspects (e.g. reported more perceived courses of action or improved knowledge about leaking), but also expressed a constant need for support. Our findings highlight teachers' needs for further support and training and may be used in the planning of prevention measures for school shootings.
Two of a kind?
(2014)
School attacks are attracting increasing attention in aggression research. Recent systematic analyses provided new insights into offense and offender characteristics. Less is known about attacks in institutes of higher education (e.g., universities). It is therefore questionable whether the term “school attack” should be limited to institutions of general education or could be extended to institutions of higher education. Scientific literature is divided in distinguishing or unifying these two groups and reports similarities as well as differences. We researched 232 school attacks and 45 attacks in institutes of higher education throughout the world and conducted systematic comparisons between the two groups. The analyses yielded differences in offender (e.g., age, migration background) and offense characteristics (e.g., weapons, suicide rates), and some similarities (e.g., gender). Most differences can apparently be accounted for by offenders’ age and situational influences. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and the development of preventative measures.
Research indicates individual pathways towards school attacks and inconsistent offender profiles. Thus, several authors have classified offenders according to mental disorders, motives, or number/kinds of victims. We assumed differences between single and multiple victim offenders (intending to kill one or more than one victim). In qualitative and quantitative analyses of data from qualitative content analyses of case files on seven school attacks in Germany, we found differences between the offender groups in seriousness, patterns, characteristics, and classes of leaking (announcements of offences), offence-related behaviour, and offence characteristics. There were only minor differences in risk factors. Our research thus adds to the understanding of school attacks and leaking. Differences between offender groups require consideration in the planning of effective preventive approaches.
School shooters are often described as narcissistic, but empirical evidence is scant. To provide more reliable and detailed information, we conducted an exploratory study, analyzing police investigation files on seven school shootings in Germany, looking for symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) in witnesses' and offenders' reports and expert psychological evaluations. Three out of four offenders who had been treated for mental disorders prior to the offenses displayed detached symptoms of narcissism, but none was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. Of the other three, two displayed narcissistic traits. In one case, the number of symptoms would have justified a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. Offenders showed low and high self-esteem and a range of other mental disorders. Thus, narcissism is not a common characteristic of school shooters, but possibly more frequent than in the general population. This should be considered in developing adequate preventive and intervention measures.
Kill one or kill them all?
(2015)
Research indicates individual pathways towards school attacks and inconsistent offender profiles. Thus, several authors have classified offenders according to mental disorders, motives, or number/kinds of victims. We assumed differences between single and multiple victim offenders (intending to kill one or more than one victim). In qualitative and quantitative analyses of data from qualitative content analyses of case files on seven school attacks in Germany, we found differences between the offender groups in seriousness, patterns, characteristics, and classes of leaking (announcements of offences), offence-related behaviour, and offence characteristics. There were only minor differences in risk factors. Our research thus adds to the understanding of school attacks and leaking. Differences between offender groups require consideration in the planning of effective preventive approaches.
School attacks are attracting increasing attention in aggression research. Recent systematic analyses provided new insights into offense and offender characteristics. Less is known about attacks in institutes of higher education (e.g., universities). It is therefore questionable whether the term “school attack” should be limited to institutions of general education or could be extended to institutions of higher education. Scientific literature is divided in distinguishing or unifying these two groups and reports similarities as well as differences. We researched 232 school attacks and 45 attacks in institutes of higher education throughout the world and conducted systematic comparisons between the two groups. The analyses yielded differences in offender (e.g., age, migration background) and offense characteristics (e.g., weapons, suicide rates), and some similarities (e.g., gender). Most differences can apparently be accounted for by offenders’ age and situational influences. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and the development of preventative measures.
Justice sensitivity captures individual differences in the frequency with which injustice is perceived and the intensity of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral reactions to it. Persons with ADHD have been reported to show high justice sensitivity, and a recent study provided evidence for this notion in an adult sample. In 1,235 German 10- to 19-year olds, we measured ADHD symptoms, justice sensitivity from the victim, observer, and perpetrator perspective, the frequency of perceptions of injustice, anxious and angry rejection sensitivity, depressive symptoms, conduct problems, and self-esteem. Participants with ADHD symptoms reported significantly higher victim justice sensitivity, more perceptions of injustice, and higher anxious and angry rejection sensitivity, but significantly lower perpetrator justice sensitivity than controls. In latent path analyses, justice sensitivity as well as rejection sensitivity partially mediated the link between ADHD symptoms and comorbid problems when considered simultaneously. Thus, both justice sensitivity and rejection sensitivity may contribute to explaining the emergence and maintenance of problems typically associated with ADHD symptoms, and should therefore be considered in ADHD therapy.
Individuals differ in their sensitivity toward injustice. Justice-sensitive persons perceive injustice more frequently and show stronger responses to it. Justice sensitivity has been studied predominantly in adults; little is known about its development in childhood and adolescence and its connection to prosocial behavior and emotional and behavioral problems. This study evaluates a version of the justice sensitivity inventory for children and adolescents (JSI-CA5) in 1472 9- to 17-year olds. Items and scales showed good psychometric properties and correlations with prosocial behavior and conduct problems similar to findings in adults, supporting the reliability and validity of the scale. We found individual differences in justice sensitivity as a function of age and gender. Furthermore, justice sensitivity predicted emotional and behavioral problems in children and adolescents over a 1- to 2-year period. Justice sensitivity perspectives can therefore be considered as risk and/or protective factors for mental health in childhood and adolescence.
Individual differences in justice sensitivity and rejection sensitivity have been linked to differences in aggressive behavior in adults. However, there is little research studying this association in children and adolescents and considering the two constructs in combination. We assessed justice sensitivity from the victim, observer, and perpetrator perspective as well as anxious and angry rejection sensitivity and linked both constructs to different forms (physical, relational), and functions (proactive, reactive) of self-reported aggression and to teacher- and parent-rated aggression in N=1,489 9- to 19-year olds in Germany. Victim sensitivity and both angry and anxious rejection sensitivity showed positive correlations with all forms and functions of aggression. Angry rejection sensitivity also correlated positively with teacher-rated aggression. Perpetrator sensitivity was negatively correlated with all aggression measures, and observer sensitivity also correlated negatively with all aggression measures except for a positive correlation with reactive aggression. Path models considering the sensitivity facets in combination and controlling for age and gender showed that higher victim justice sensitivity predicted higher aggression on all measures. Higher perpetrator sensitivity predicted lower physical, relational, proactive, and reactive aggression. Higher observer sensitivity predicted lower teacher-rated aggression. Angry rejection sensitivity predicted higher proactive and reactive aggression, whereas anxious rejection sensitivity did not make an additional contribution to the prediction of aggression. The findings are discussed in terms of social information processing models of aggression in childhood and adolescence. Aggr. Behav. 41:353-368, 2015. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.