Back in My Day: Generational Beliefs About School Shootings

Abstract

Following a school shooting, the public and media search to understand what factors led to such tragedy. Faced with grief, fear, and confusion, people often seek to make sense of traumatic events. As such, this study uses a 2020 Amazon Mechanical Turk survey (N = 739) to examine the impact of generational cohort on the blameworthiness of various perceived causes of school shootings. Findings support some generational differences. Baby Boomers were more likely to believe in societal-related causes of school shootings compared to Millennials and Generation Z. Conversely, Millennials and Generation Z were more likely than Baby Boomers to attribute the cause of school shootings to bullying, mental health, and school security. These findings suggest that future school shooting policies will seek to address bullying, mental health, and school security, while policies surrounding societal factors may be phased out.

Keywords

school shootings generational cohort school safety

Immediately after the April 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, which left 12 students and a teacher dead, politicians and the public were quick to blame the two perpetrators’ parents, violent media, and bullying (Baldwin, 1999; Cullen, 2009, 2019a; Fox & DeLateur, 2014; Mears et al., 2017). After 20 elementary school students and six adults were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the public lasered in on the shooter's mental health and relationship with his mother (Long, 2012; Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013; Shriver, 2012). Six years later, after the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSD), where three staff/faculty members and 14 students lost their lives, not only was there immense attention on gun control, but also questions were raised about the security of the school, particularly around armed security (including teachers) and the inadequate responses of law enforcement (Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission, 2019).

Underlying the need to blame something as the cause of these school shootings is the desire to prevent this from occurring somewhere else (Jonson, 2017; Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014). And, this blame game not only exists in the towns and cities victimized by these tragedies but also occurs across the country as the reverberations of these incidents extend well beyond the communities in which they took place (Lowe & Galea, 2015; Peterson & Densley, 2020). Despite enduring a raging coronavirus pandemic, massive social justice movements, financial disruptions, and the political turmoil of the election cycle, more than 6 in 10 American adults indicated mass shootings were a significant source of stress in 2020 (American Psychological Association [APA], 2020). Importantly, stress about school shootings has not been limited solely to adults, with more than half of Generation Z (Gen Z) indicating they are worried and stressed about a shooting occurring in their own school (APA, 2018; Graf, 2018).

This ensuing stress and worry can be a driving factor to take action to prevent the next tragedy (Burton et al., 2020; Jonson et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2020). As a result, what the public views as the root causes of such incidents has the ability to shape gun and school policies across the nation (see Jonson et al., 2021). Using a nationwide sample of 739 individuals, we examine five categories of school shooting causes: gun-related, security-related, societal-related, mental health-related, and bullying. With younger generations living in an “age of school shootings,” their time within the schoolhouse has been markedly different than their parents’ and grandparents,’ with active shooter and lockdown drills, metal detectors, access control measures, and armed security becoming the norm (Interlandi, 2018; Jonson, 2017; Jonson et al., 2021). Thus, it is quite possible these differing educational experiences could influence their beliefs about the causes of school shootings. As younger generations become a larger voting bloc and more involved in legislative processes in the near future, this generational analysis provides insight into future policy debates on how the public will protect students and educators from school shootings (Fry, 2020; Lee, 2020; Rubin, 2018).

The Blame Game: The Public's Explanations of School Shootings¹

Inevitably after a school shooting occurs, one of the first collective questions is “Why?” As indicated above, answering this question becomes an urgent need for individuals to make sense of the unimaginable and to take action to prevent future tragedies from occurring. Below we briefly review five of the most common factors the public holds culpable for enabling or encouraging a school shooting.

Gun-Related Causes

Within hours of the MSD shooting, the nation's attention squarely focused on gun control. MSD students and parents were confronting politicians to enact gun control legislation, a national #NeverAgain movement was born, and public support for stricter laws on gun sales soared to a 25-year high (Blake, 2018; Haner et al., 2019; Jones, 2018). Just as in the aftermath of the Columbine and Sandy Hook shootings, a flood of legislative action commenced to control access to firearms, ranging from requiring background checks to raising the minimum age for purchase, limits on high-capacity magazines, and increasing waiting periods (Burton et al., 2020; Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014; Stockler, 2019).

Discussions about gun-related causes of school shootings are thrust into the national dialog for three main reasons. First, as the name suggests, a school “shooting” involves the use of a firearm in order for the event to occur. As a result, it is logical that attention becomes focused on the weapon used to carry out such an attack and how it was obtained.

Second, due to the highly political nature of guns in America, school shootings bring about a situation where politicians can leverage their supporters (Conley, 2019; Schutten et al., 2022). Gun supporting politicians, along with influential lobbying organizations like the NRA, take to the airwaves suggesting the shooting could have been stopped with a “good person with a gun,” and that gun control advocates are going to begin to strip away the Second Amendment in the name of public safety (Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013). Conversely, gun-control-oriented politicians’ plea to the country that the death of schoolchildren should serve as an impetus to pass stricter gun legislation, including the limiting of firearm access (Cullen, 2019b; Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013). Consequently, politicians on both sides of the aisle seek to make political gains in the aftermath of a school shooting, stating their opposition to or support for gun control.

Third, when examining media coverage of school shootings, research has found that the news media most commonly frame their stories with a gun control/gun access lens (Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013; Silva, 2020). Like clockwork, each high-profile school shooting results in media outlets from across the country (and, at times, around the world) descending on the location to report the news. This coverage becomes a salient source of information for the public in understanding how such a tragedy could happen (Silva, 2020; Silva & Capellan, 2019). With the vast majority of this content centered on the role of gun control/gun access, Americans become most exposed to this potential cause of school shootings (Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013; Silva, 2020).

Although there is debate if gun control can prevent future shootings (Fox & DeLateur, 2014; Kleck, 2009; Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014), the public still emphatically blames the availability of guns. For example, less than three weeks after the shooting at Columbine, more than 70% of Americans believed the easy availability of guns was a “very important” cause in the shooting (Newport, 1999). Similarly, within months of the MSD shooting, 63% of the public believed banning the sale of assault and semi-automatic guns could be effective at reducing shootings at schools, and more than 60% of a nationwide sample believed easy access to weapons caused school shootings (Lee et al., 2020; Newport, 2018), with another 52% blaming poor enforcement of gun laws and about half pointing the finger at weak gun control laws (Lee et al., 2020; see also AP/NORC, 2019). As a result, gun control is often pointed to not only as a “usual suspect” in the cause of these tragic events but also as a potential reform to limit another future school shooting (Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013).

Security-Related Causes

After the Columbine shooting, the U.S. embarked on a “school securitization movement” that resulted in the fortification of schools (King & Bracy, 2019, p. 275). Alongside the motivational posters and school mascots that lined the hallways, schoolhouses began to be outfitted with metal detectors, armed school resource officers (SROs), locked school entrances, and security cameras (Addington, 2009, 2014; Madfis, 2014, 2020; Rocque, 2012). This movement is best illustrated by “America's Safest School” in Shelbyville, Indiana—a high school with school-wide alarms, bullet-proof doors, smoke cannons to distract intruders, panic buttons, hardened exterior glass, military-grade cameras, and a price tag of $400,000 (Fittes, 2018).

However, the fortification of schools has not prevented all school shootings. Although increased security measures have been credited with averting some school shootings (Silva, 2021; Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2021), there also have been instances where access control measures have been breached (e.g., Sandy Hook Elementary), metal detectors bypassed (Red Lake High School), and shootings occurred despite having an SRO (MSD) (Jonson, 2017; Madfis, 2016; Peterson et al., 2021). Adding to the challenge of securing the school, the increased presence of surveillance measures within our nation's schoolhouses has had the unintended consequence of some students feeling more fearful and greater numbers of students, particularly students of color, being arrested and/or punished with exclusionary discipline (Hirschfield, 2008; Homer & Fisher, 2020; Payne & Welch, 2015). Thus, schools are in the uncomfortable position where they have to “find a healthy middle ground between hypervigilance and excessive caution” (Lankford, 2013, p 267).

Furthermore, in the aftermath of school shootings, there is often a flurry of lawsuits claiming negligence of the school to keep students, staff, and faculty safe (Schildkraut & Elsass, 2016). Under this intense public scrutiny, schools quickly increase security measures to lessen liability and prevent future ligation concerning negligence (Gialopsos et al., In press). For example, in the aftermath of the MSD, Florida has nearly doubled the number of police officers in their schools (Curran, 2020). Relatedly, in the aftermath of the 2021 Oxford High School shooting in Michigan, discussions of metal detectors, additional SROs, and locking mechanisms have been abundant (Pasche, 2022). As all this plays out in the public eye, it garners much media attention, exposing the public to security (or perceived lack of security)-related causes of school shootings.

Security-related causes of school shootings are still prominent in the minds of many Americans. Despite inconsistent effectiveness and the potentially iatrogenic effects of securing schools, the public has not been deterred from pointing to a lack of security as contributing to school shootings. In a recent study, Lee et al. (2020) uncovered that a substantial minority (40%) believe subpar security was responsible for school shootings occurring in the United States.

Societal-Related Causes

Beginning with the shooting at Columbine, a war was declared on prevailing societal influences (Birkland & Lawrence, 2009; Markey & Ferguson, 2017). Then-Senator Jeff Sessions pointed his finger at the shooters’ parents, lack of religion, violent video games, and music with “violent and nihilistic” lyrics (Cherkis, 2017). This scapegoating of the “breakdown of society” continued in 2012, with Mike Huckabee boldly claiming that schools have become “places of carnage” because “we have systematically removed God from our schools” (Lavender, 2012). And, the war on violent media was still going strong in 2018 when then-President Trump blamed the shooting at MSD on violent video games and grisly movies (Ducharme, 2018; see also Markey & Ferguson, 2017).

Not only do politicians single out societal causes of school shootings, but violent media also are touted in the news media as contributing to America's school shooting problem (Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013; Silva, 2020). News coverage often zeroes in on the music the perpetrator listened to, movies and television shows they watched, and the video games they played to understand the motives for the shooting. Although this frame is not as prominent as gun control/gun access or mental illness and is generally declining, it still remains one way in which news media explain school shootings to the public (Silva, 2020).

Nearly 20 years after the Columbine shooting, Lee et al. (2020) revealed that this blaming of societal factors was still prevalent, with more than half of their respondents believing that poor parenting, the deterioration of family values, and a culture glorifying violence are to blame (see also Newport, 1999). Furthermore, more than one third considered violent entertainment media and a removal of religion in schools to be contributing factors. However, none of these “causes” have definitive empirical support. The link between violent media and mass violence is so limited that the Society for Media Psychology and Technology—Division 46 of the APA—asked the media and policymakers to “not attribute or insinuate blame for acts of violence on video games or other fictional media” (Ferguson et al., 2017; see also Ferguson et al., 2020; Markey & Ferguson, 2017; Markey et al., 2020). Similarly, there appears to be no evidence suggesting a direct connection between a lack of religion and school shootings (Zuckerman, 2019). Yet, despite little to no empirical backing, these societal “causes” have continued to be suspected by the public as factors pushing people to perpetrate a school shooting.

Mental Health-Related Causes

After the shooting at Sandy Hook, the public began to laser in on mental health as a cause. Political pundits claimed, “guns don't kill people, the mentally ill do” (Coulter, 2013), a blog was published sympathizing with the perpetrator's mother about raising a son with mental illness (Long, 2012), and the NRA blamed “people…so possessed by voices and driven by demons, that no sane person can every [sic] possibly comprehend them” (The Washington Post, 2012). As the public began to narrow its focus to specifically blame Asperger's syndrome—an autism spectrum disorder—parents of children with the disorder feared for the safety of their own kids facing comments like “this is a killers’ disease, now” (Pawlowski, 2012).

Contributing to the public's blaming of mental illness as a cause of school shootings is the news media coverage surrounding these events (Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013; Silva, 2020). Although not as common as gun control/gun access frames, news media often emphasize mental illness as a way to frame their story, highlighting the shooter's mental health diagnoses and treatment and mental illness more broadly in society (see Silva, 2020). As a result, mental health has become viewed as a prominent cause of school shootings among the public (Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013; Silva, 2020).

This distortion of the role of mental health as a cause of school shootings has serious ramifications. Although 40% of school attackers from 2008 to 2017 had a mental health diagnosis and 63% exhibited mental health symptoms prior to the shooting (National Threat Assessment Center, 2019), psychologists and health professionals caution against painting the school shooting problem as a mental health problem (Fox & DeLateur, 2014; Rocque & Duwe, 2018). As the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent, the public embracement of mental illness as a major cause of school shootings may stigmatize and discourage individuals from seeking treatment (Rocque & Duwe, 2018). Regardless of the pushback from health professionals, mental health is still viewed as a main contributor to shootings. Polls have consistently found that over 60% of Americans blame mental illness or a lack of easily accessible mental illness treatment as a main reason for school shootings (Lee et al., 2020).

Bullying as a Cause

One of the public's most persistent beliefs is that there is a causal link between bullying and school shootings (Langman et al., 2018; Mears et al., 2107). It is easy to understand how this notion has been able to etch itself into the mind of the American public. Looking back over our school years, we can all recall witnessing kids picked on, teased, and harassed. And, it does not take much of a cognitive leap to believe that this experience could push someone to take revenge on their bullies (Mears et al., 2017).

The public's perception of bullying as a cause of school shootings harkens back to the news media coverage of the Columbine High School shooting. In the immediate hours following the tragedy, with the nation “desperate for an explanation,” bullying as a motive of the killers became a dominant storyline, despite being “hopelessly wrong” (Cullen, 2009a). Although the media eventually published corrections retracting statements about bullying as a motive for the killings, millions of Americans had already seen the coverage, solidifying bullying as a cause of such tragedies (Cullen, 2009a).

Despite bullying often being seen as a cause of school shootings, the research surrounding the bullying-school shooting connection is complicated. When examining the motives of previous school shooters, bullying seems to play a factor in some cases but not in others (Dumutriu, 2013). In a recent review of targeted school violence (not necessarily school shootings) from 2008 to 2017, 8 in 10 perpetrators were bullied by fellow classmates, with 46% indicating their attacks were retaliation against such bullying (National Threat Assessment Center, 2019; see also Klein, 2012; Levin & Madfis, 2009; Madfis & Levin, 2013). However, this finding alone does not mean bullying causes school shootings. Although bullying is a common characteristic among school shooters, roughly 20% of students in 8^th through 12^th grade, corresponding to over 11 million teens, experience bullying nationwide (stopbullying.gov, 2021). As a result, the vast majority of students bullied will never engage in a rampage killing, making the causal relationship between bullying and school shootings tenuous (Mears et al., 2017). Still, the public firmly implicates bullying, with a recent poll finding 88% of people place blame on students bullying other students (AP-NORC, 2019).

Why Would We Expect Generational Differences?

As reviewed above, there are five popular causes attributed to explain school shootings. Yet, a relatively uncharted inquiry is whether generational membership is associated with the type of causes of school shootings that an individual endorses. Have younger generations who have grown up in an era of school shootings (i.e., Millennials, Gen Z) formed different beliefs than older generations (i.e., Baby Boomers, Gen X) who grew up without the fear and worry of school shootings? If generational differences exist, what causes are most widely accepted among younger generations such as Millennials and Gen Z as opposed to older generations (i.e., Baby Boomers, Gen X)?

Definition of a Generation

Before exploring these questions, what constitutes a generation must be defined. A generation refers to “a group of individuals born and living contemporaneously” (“Generation,” n.d.). The concept of a generation has been appealing to both academics and non-academics for centuries, as indicated by the following quote from Socrates (469-399 B.C.):

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Advancing the perception of generational differences, several academics developed theories to explain why generations might exhibit unique personalities, behaviors, and attitudes.

Generational Theories

Major efforts to advance the conceptual development of generation have been made in sociology. In 1928, the German sociologist Karl Mannheim published an essay titled “The Problem of Generations,” which is considered “the seminal theoretical treatment of generations as a sociological phenomenon” (Pilcher, 1994, p. 481). Central to his theory are three focal concepts: generation location, generation as actuality, and generation unit. First, individuals of the same generation share a generation location, which is the socio-historical location determined by the biological rhythm of birth and death. Because of a similar generation location, as Mannheim argues (1928/1970), generational cohorts experience “the same event and data, etc.” and formulate “a similarly ‘stratified’ consciousness” (p. 176). Second, individuals of the same age are united as an actual generation (or generation as actuality) “in so far as they participate in the characteristic social and intellectual currents of their society and period, and in so far as they have an active or passive experience of the interactions of forces, which made up the new situation” (Mannheim, 1928/1970, p. 183). Third, there can exist separate generation units within the same actual generation because individuals may experience the same historical problems differently. And dominant generation units have a stronger influence on the historical process, while opposed units exert countering forces (Simirenko, 1966).

Mannheim (1928/1970) claims that a generation is likely to develop “collective impulses and formative principles original to itself,” depending on “the tempo of social change” (p. 189), to adapt swiftly in response to major social events. And he contends that an individual's experiences during late adolescence and early adulthood (between ages 17 and 25) are critical in shaping lasting perspectives throughout the rest of life. The inventory of experiences absorbed in early youth, states Mannheim (1928/1970), becomes “the historically oldest stratum of consciousness” that stabilizes as the natural view of the world and influence the meanings of later experiences (p. 179). Subsequent scholars tested this idea empirically and coined the term “generational imprinting” (Schuman & Scott, 1989, p. 378; see also Fine & Eisenberg, 2002; Jacobson, 2016; Jennings, 1987; Marwell, Aiken, & Demerath, 1987; Pilcher, 1994; Whittier, 1997; but see Barnes, 1972; Holsti & Rosenau, 1980; Weil, 1987).

Mannheim's theory was succeeded and further expanded by other scholars, such as Norman Ryder (1965), who presented a cohort perspective. Ryder (1965) suggests comparing birth cohorts as a way to study social change because a cohort is “a structural category with the same kind of analytical utility as a variable like social class” and a surrogate index for “the common experiences of many persons in each category” (p. 847). He considers a generation as a demographic cohort who “experience the same event within the same time interval” (p. 845), and their commonalities can be measured by mean scores on attitudinal and behavioral variables. Ryder's perspective departs from Mannheim's in that it seeks to parcel out the “separate” effects of age, period, and cohort, whereas Mannheim's theory theorizes that a generation exerts an inseparable “gestalt” effect of biological, social, and historical processes—an important distinction that relates to critiques against generational research. Nevertheless, Ryder's work influenced subsequent generational research—notably the work by Jean Twenge and her colleagues, who conducted a thorough examination of generational differences in various psychological traits (see, e.g., Twenge, 1997a, 1997b, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b, 2010, 2006, 2017; Twenge et al., 2010; Twenge & Campbell, 2001, 2008; Twenge et al., 1966 Twenge & Foster, 2010; Twenge & Im, 2007; Twenge et al., 2008; Twenge et al., 2004).

Generational Divides in the Causes of School Shootings

In sum, according to generation theorists, individuals in the same generation develop similar behaviors, feelings, and thoughts because they are exposed to common historical events and sociocultural influences (Mannheim, 1928/1970; Ryder, 1965; Strauss & Howe, 1991). For example, Baby Boomer's formative experiences center on the Vietnam War, Woodstock, and economic prosperity, whereas Gen X experienced the Gulf War, the end of the Cold War, and the computer revolution. For Millennials, their formative experience comes from the 9/11 attacks, the explosion of the internet, and the legalization of gay marriage. Finally, for Gen Z, this group, albeit still young, has shared the experiences of the election of Donald Trump, the rise of social media, and a highly technological environment (Fietkiewicz et al., 2016; Hayes et al., 2015). Given the impact of these unique experiences, generational differences have been examined extensively across various fields—spanning the areas of political science, business, psychology, sociology, and education (for an extensive review, see Lee, 2020).

Given these considerations, it is plausible that generational differences exist in the accounts of why school shootings occur. And these potential generational differences are important not only for descriptive purposes but also for their potential policy ramifications, as public opinion has been found to influence criminal justice policymaking, particularly when the topic is highly salient (Burnstein, 2006; Lax & Phillips, 2012; Pickett, 2019). Additionally, the 2020 election brought record-breaking voter participation, with a 7-percentage point jump from the 2016 election. However, among young voters, this increase was 11-percentage points (McAndrew & Symton, 2021). This has led some to define the 2020 election as a “generational change” election (Alter, 2021).

Beyond the record turnout, older generations are beginning to lose their “iron grip on American political power” (Alter, 2021). Despite Baby Boomers remaining the largest bloc of voters, their numbers are declining simultaneously as the number of Gen Z and Millennial voters is increasing (Alter, 2021). Furthermore, small shifts are beginning to be seen in elections, with more Millennials elected to office, while the number of Baby Boomers remains stable or in decline (Schaeffer, 2021). As many responses to school shootings are dependent on elected officials, ranging from local school boards to U.S. Congressional Representatives and Senators, generational divides in the causes of school shootings may impact decisions on how schools and communities address these tragic events.

Thus, the current study examines the relationship between generational membership and the blameworthiness of various perceived causes of school shootings. Given the media framing explanations and portrayals of various school shootings, which may have differentially impacted these generations, we anticipate that Baby Boomers will fixate on older causes about school shootings (e.g., breakdown of family values, religion, violent videogames, bullying), whereas, Gen Z and Millennials, who have grown up experiencing these changes in schools as well as being consumers of violent media, will attribute them to newer causes about school shootings (e.g., mental health). As guns are immediately and consistently blamed after each shooting, we expect no generational differences concerning gun-related causes of school shootings.

Methods

Sample

Data for this study come from a large nationwide opt-in survey fielded between March 20^th and 21^st, 2020, using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk “workers” opt-in to complete tasks for small incentives—in this case, $3.90—based on their qualifications. In this survey, to increase the quality of respondents, respondents were restricted to those who had completed over 500 HITs (human intelligence tasks), had a 95% or higher successful completion rate, were 18 or older in age, and were residing in the U.S. (Peer et al., 2014). The use of online opt-in samples, such as these, helps to reduce satisficing, speeding, and social desirability bias as well as eliminate interviewer bias (Anson, 2018; Chang & Krosnick, 2009; Weinberg et al., 2014). In addition, MTurk samples have been found to produce generalizable inferences about the nature of relationships in criminal justice research, especially when that relationship is statistically significant, but the magnitude of these relationships is less precise (Thompson & Pickett, 2020). Thus, such samples are useful for exploratory research, such as done here.

From the original 845 respondents, the analytic sample was reduced to 739 due to missing responses on key constructs in this study (<5%). Table 1 presents the characteristics of the final sample (for comparison, estimates of the 2018 American Community Survey are included in parentheses). The sample was, on average, 37.69 years old (SD = 10.56; 46.92 years old), 42.8% female (50.8%), 76.5% White (72.2%), and 43.4% married (47.8%). Additionally, 22.5% of this sample identified as Republicans, which is comparable to estimates of Pew Research Center (2018) (26%).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 739).

Variable	Percent/ Mean (SD)	Range	Scale Alpha	Factor Loadings
Dependent Variable
Gun-Related causes	3.48 (1.14)	1-5	.859	.777-.913
Security-Related causes	3.13 (.90)	1-5	.767	.647-.779
Societal-Rrelated causes	2.60 (1.03)	1-5	.740	.562-.812
Mental Health-Related causes	3.96 (.82)	1-5	.527	.824-.824
Bullying	4.00 (.97)	1-5	--	--
Theoretical Controls
Anger about Crime	2.48 (1.02)	1-5	.815	.919-.919
Dangerous World Beliefs	2.93 (1.14)	1-5	.894	.838-.892
Belief in Myth of Rising Crime Rates %	57.4	0-1	--	--
Victim of Crime %	44.4	0-1	--	--
Racial Resentment	2.54 (1.19)	1-5	.912	.823-.886
Low Self-Control	1.96 (.77)	1-4	.857	.796-.870
Police Legitimacy	3.44 (.98)	1-5	.909	.708-.859
Demographic Controls
Generational Cohort	37.69 (10.56)	20-74	--	--
Baby Boomer %	8.9	0-1	--	--
Generation X %	24.9	0-1	--	--
Millennial %	64.0	0-1	--	--
Generation Z %	2.2	0-1	--	--
Female %	42.8	1-2	--	--
White %	76.5	0-1	--	--
Married %	43.4	0-1	--	--
Education	4.22 (1.31)	1-7	--	--
Income	4.30 (1.61)	1-7	--	--
Full-Time Employment %	75.4	0-1	--	--
Republican %	22.5	0-1	--	--
Conservatism	2.66 (1.20)	1-5	--	--
South %	35.9	0-1	--	--
Crime TV Viewership %	1.21 (.84)	0-2	--	--

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Dependent Variables

To assess support for the perceived causes of school shootings, respondents were asked to report their level of agreement ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree” to the 16 items seen in Table 2. These items were derived by the researchers to explore this topic (Lee et al., 2020). Responses were assessed using exploratory factor analysis, which resulted in the production of five key domains: Gun-Related Causes; Security-Related Causes; Societal-Related Causes; Mental Health-Related Causes; and Bullying. Responses to the respective items in each domain were averaged to produce scales in which higher values indicate greater support for the respective domain being the source of school shootings (See Table 1 for each scale's alphas and factor loadings).

Table 2.

Perceived Causes of School Shootings Responses: Percentages (N = 739).

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neither Agree nor Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree	Total Agree
Questions Stem: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? School shootings happen because of:
Gun-Related Causes
Weak gun control laws	14.7	12.2	10.0	29.6	33.4	63.0
Easy access to weapons	5.7	8.3	9.3	32.3	44.4	76.7
The National Rifle Association (NRA)	31.9	13.8	17.7	19.2	17.3	36.5
Poor enforcement of current gun laws	10.3	13.7	14.5	29.5	32.1	61.6
Security-Related Causes
Inadequate responses by law enforcement to suspicious persons	8.3	18.1	22.1	35.5	16.1	51.6
Failure of people (e.g., students, teachers, family members) to report suspicious persons to authority	4.7	12.4	20.6	43.6	18.7	62.3
Lack of school discipline	18.3	25.0	22.9	23.1	10.7	33.8
Lack of security features in schools (e.g., metal detectors, security cameras)	15.0	20.4	18.7	31.9	13.9	45.8
Lack of armed staff and/or security officers in schools	24.2	20.0	18.5	23.1	14.1	37.2
Societal-Related Causes
Violent videogames/movies/TV/music	43.4	19.5	11.0	17.7	8.4	26.1
Removal of religion in schools	60.1	12.0	10.0	8.8	9.1	17.9
The deterioration of family values in the United States	28.0	14.2	18.4	23.0	16.4	39.4
A culture that promotes and rewards violence in the United States	12.2	14.9	21.1	32.5	19.4	51.9
Mental Health-Related Causes
Mental Illness	3.2	6.2	12.2	49.9	28.4	78.3
Lack of easily accessible mental health treatment	3.5	5.0	18.1	37.3	36.0	73.3
Bullying
Bullying	2.7	5.5	14.2	44.2	33.3	77.5

Note. Some percentages may not equal to 100% due to rounding.

Key Independent Variable

In this study, Generational Cohort was established using the year cutoffs set forth by the Pew Research Center and self-reported year of birth (Dimock, 2019). Those born between 1946 and 1964 were identified as “Baby Boomers,” between 1965 and 1980 as “Generation X,” between 1981 and 1996 as “Millennials,” and those between 1997 and 2012 as “Generation Z.”²

Theoretical Control Variables

Based on previous research, several factors aside from generational cohort may influence beliefs related to perceived causes of school shootings. Thus, we include seven constructs as controls (for more detail on these measures, see Appendix A). First, anger about crime was measured by asking respondents about their level of anger about crime in (1) their community and (2) the country. Responses to these items were averaged to produce a scale in which higher values indicate a greater Anger about Crime (α = .815; factor loadings between .919 and .919).

Second, respondents were asked to report their level of agreement with four statements pertaining to the belief that the world is a dangerous place (e.g., “Any day now chaos and anarchy could erupt around us. All signs are pointing to it”), which were averaged to produce a scale in which higher values indicate a greater belief in a Dangerous World (α = .894; factor loadings between.838 and .892) (Stroebe et al., 2017).

Third, to assess general knowledge about crime rates, respondents were asked to report if, since the 1990s, they felt that crime in the United States was increasing or decreasing. This variable, Belief in Rising Crime Rates, was coded to indicate those believing crime was increasing ( = 1) as opposed to decreasing ( = 0). Fourth, respondents were also asked to indicate (1 = Yes, 0 = No) if they had ever been the Victim of a Crime, which may influence views about the effectiveness of security-related efforts.

Fifth, to control for the known relationship between Racial Resentment and gun control preferences (Filindra & Kaplan, 2016, 2017), respondents were asked to report their level of agreement with five statements (e.g., “It is really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as Whites”; Kinder & Sanders, 1996). Responses were averaged to produce a scale in which higher values indicate greater Racial Resentment (α = .912; factor loadings between .823 and .886).

Sixth, to account for Low Self-Control (Pratt & Cullen, 2000), respondents were asked to report their level of agreement with four items (e.g., “I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think”; Grasmick et al., 1993). Responses to these items were averaged to produce a scale in which higher values indicate lower self-control (α = .857; factor loadings between .708 and .859).

Views about the legitimacy of the police may shape perceived causes endorsed for school shootings (especially security-related beliefs). Therefore, respondents were asked to report their level of agreement with seven items (e.g., “You should support the decision made by police officers even when you disagree with them”; Trinker et al., 2018), which were averaged to produce a scale in which higher values indicated greater Police Legitimacy (α = .909; factor loadings between .708 and .859).

Demographic Controls

Additionally, nine sociodemographic characteristics were controlled for as follows: Sex (2 = Female, 1 = Male), Race (1 = White, 0 = All others), Married (1 = Married, 0 = All others), Education (ranging from 1 = less than high school degree to 7 = Doctoral degree), Income (ranging from 1 = 0-$9,999 to 7 = $100,000 + ), Employment (1 = Full-time, 0 = All others), Republican (1 = Republican, 0 = All others), Conservatism (ranging from 1 = Very liberal to 5 = Very conservative), and Southerner (1 = residing in a southern state by the U.S. Census based on self-identified postal (ZIP) code, 0 = All others). Respondents were also asked to report if (Yes/No) they had regularly watched either fictional crime shows or true crime shows/documentaries. Affirmative responses to these two items were summed to create a Crime TV Viewership index.

Analytic Plan

Analyzes for this study started with describing the responses to the perceived causes of school shootings (Table 2). Next, multivariate analyzes using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression estimated the impact of generational cohort on these causes while accounting for theoretical and sociodemographic controls. These analyzes use Baby Boomers as the reference group under the first listing of “Generational Cohort” and Gen X as the reference group under the second listing of “Generational Cohort” to help further understand the differences between cohort groups. In addition, due to the smaller group sizes of the Baby Boomer and Gen Z groups, additional analyzes were completed, combining these birth cohorts into two groups (1) Baby Boomer and Gen X and (2) Millennial and Gen Z. Results of these analyzes were substantively similar and available upon request. Across all analyzes, the variance inflation factors (VIF) did not exceed 4, suggesting no concern for multicollinearity in these analyzes (Weisburd & Britt, 2014).

Results

As seen in Table 2, beliefs about the perceived causes of school shootings varied widely, with the removal of religion least frequently endorsed (17.9% total agree) and bullying endorsed most frequently (77.5% total agree). With the exception of the NRA, gun-related causes were endorsed by nearly two-thirds of respondents, and mental health-related causes endorsed by roughly three in four respondents. In regard to security-related causes, only inadequate responses by law enforcement to suspicious persons (51.6%) and failure of people to report suspicious people (62.3%) were endorsed (agree and strongly agree) by at least half of respondents. Likewise, just over half of respondents (51.9%) endorsed the societal-related cause of a culture that promotes and rewards violence in the United States; all other causes were endorsed (agree and strongly agree) by less than half of respondents.

Given this widespread variation, multivariate models were estimated to understand the unique influence of generational cohort in these responses while also controlling for theoretical and sociodemographic variables. As seen in Table 3, five models are presented, using each of the five domains as dependent variables. When examining Model 1 relating to gun-related causes, there are no significant generational differences in the endorsement of these causes, regardless of the reference group. In Model 2, security-related causes saw significant increases in endorsements by Gen Z respondents (β = .085) compared to Baby Boomers. When Gen X is used as the reference group, significant differences in endorsements persist between Gen Z and Gen X (β = .087), whereas Millennials and Baby Boomers are not significantly different in their endorsement of security-related causes.

Table 3.

Regression Models for Perceived Causes of School Shootings (N = 739).

	Model 1 - Guns			Model 2 - Security			Model 3 - Societal			Model 4 – Mental Health			Model 5 - Bullying
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	B	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Generational Cohort¹
Generation X	.136	.129	.051	-.013	.113	-.006	-.199	.114	-.084	.145	.118	.076	.107	.138	.048
Millennial	.038	.122	.016	.066	.108	.035	-.329	.108	-.153**	.335	.112	.195**	.381	.131	.189**
Generation Z	.203	.254	.026	.523	.224	.085*	-.610	.225	-.086**	.515	.233	.091*	.421	.272	.063
Generational Cohort²
Baby Boomers	-.136	.129	-.034	.013	.113	.004	.199	.114	.055	-.145	.118	-.050	-.107	.138	-.031
Millennial	-.098	.080	-.041	.078	.071	.042	-.130	.071	-.061	.189	.073	.110*	.274	.086	.136**
Generation Z	.068	.238	.009	.535	.210	.087*	-.411	.210	-.058	.369	.218	.065	.314	.255	.047
Theoretical Controls
Anger about Crime	.153	.036	.136***	.116	.031	.132***	.116	.031	.114***	.025	.033	.031	.007	.038	.007
Dangerous World Beliefs	.059	.038	.058	.165	.033	.210***	.262	.033	.290***	.006	.034	.008	.044	.040	.052
Belief in Rising Crime Rates	.094	.077	.041	.236	.068	.130**	.167	.068	.080*	-.044	.070	-.026	.240	.082	.122**
Victim of Crime	-.209	.068	-.091**	.054	.059	.030	-.050	.060	-.024	.104	.062	.063	.043	.072	.022
Racial Resentment	-.377	.035	-.392***	.014	.031	.019	.001	.031	.001	-.017	.063	-.024	-.090	.038	-.110*
Low Self Control	.172	.048	.115***	.064	.042	.055	.191	.042	.142***	-.097	.044	-.090*	-.049	.051	-.038
Police Legitimacy	.004	.036	.003	.093	.032	.102**	.041	.032	.039	.057	.033	.068	.074	.038	.075
Demographic Controls
Female	.021	.070	.009	-.014	.062	-.008	.025	.062	.012	-.048	.064	-.029	-.049	.075	-.025
White	-.271	.082	-.101**	-.127	.072	-.060	-.088	.072	-.036	.113	.075	.058	-.027	.088	-.012
Married	.173	.077	.075*	.137	.067	.076*	.119	.068	.057	.081	.070	.049	.095	.082	.048
Education	.063	.029	.072*	.051	.025	.075*	.114	.025	.145***	.032	.026	.050	-.038	.031	-.051
Income	.028	.023	.039	-.017	.020	-.030	-.010	.020	-.015	.013	.021	.026	-.025	.025	-.041
Full-Time Employment	.089	.079	.033	.009	.070	.005	-.094	.070	-.039	-.057	.073	-.030	-.120	.085	-.053
Republican	-.069	.105	-.025	.028	.093	.013	.189	.093	.077*	.110	.096	.056	-.034	.113	-.015
Conservatism	-.282	.040	-.297***	.068	.035	.091	.178	.035	.208***	-.131	.036	-.192***	-.047	.043	-.058
South	.025	.070	.012	.060	.061	.032	-.029	.062	-.014	-.044	.064	-.025	.035	.075	.017
Crime TV Viewership	-.002	.041	-.001	.048	.036	.045	-.026	.036	-.021	.089	.037	.090*	.145	.043	.125**
Intercept	3.920	.297	--	1.312	.262	--	.366	.262	--	3.665	.272	--	3.836	.318	--
Adjusted R-Squared	.410			.256			.433			.049			.061

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. 1 – Reference group is Baby Boomers; 2 - Reference group is Generation X.

In the third model, which explores societal-related causes, compared to Baby Boomers, Millennials (β = −.153) and Gen Z respondents (β = −.086) saw significant decreases in agreement with societal-related causes of school shootings. However, none of these birth cohorts were significantly different from Gen X.

In contrast, in Model 5, compared to Baby Boomers, Millennials (β = .195) and Gen Z (β = .091) saw significantly increased agreement with mental health-related causes for school shootings. Gen X did not significantly differ in endorsements from Baby Boomers. When Gen X was used as the reference category, Millennials held significantly different views (β = .110) from Gen X, but Gen Z did not significantly differ from Gen X.

Finally, Model 4 reports Millennials (β = .189) significantly perceived bullying as a cause of school shootings compared to Baby Boomers. However, there were no significant differences between perceptions for Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Z. When used as the reference group, Gen X and Millennials held significantly different views of bullying as the cause of school shootings, with Millennials more inclined to endorse this item (β = .136). Again, no significant differences existed between Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Z.

Discussion

“High School Massacre”—the headline from The Denver Post seems like it could be ripped from a headline in 2022, but rather, it stems from the 1999 Columbine High School shooting (Obmascik, 1999). In the more than 20 years since tragedy struck Columbine High School, school shootings have continued to be a source of concern not only for those in the communities in which they occur but also for individuals across the country (APA, 2020). In the hopes to prevent future shootings, law enforcement, politicians, academics and researchers, school officials, parents, and countless others, search for answers to why and how such violence occurs. Although we can identify some commonalities among school shooters (Peterson & Densley, 2020), there is no definitive profile of a school shooter nor a single cause of these tragedies (National Association of School Psychologists, 2015). Nevertheless, media sources are filled with exposés and dramatizations about what may have led the shooter to engage in such violence and what should be done to prevent the next one, which are readily devoured by their consumers.

In the aftermath of these tragedies, administrators, school boards, and local, state, and federal legislators feel immense pressure from the public to ensure the safety of students, educators, and staff. Understanding how the public perceives various causes of school shootings provides some insight into the subsequent policies that may be implemented in response to the events (Burnstein, 2006; Lax & Philips, 2012; Pickett, 2019). Thus, this study attempts to determine if there are generational differences in the perceived causes of school shootings. As Millennials and Gen Z become larger voting blocs and Baby Boomers continue to age, it is possible that understanding generational differences in the causes of school shootings may provide a glimpse into policies that will be both adopted and abandoned in the future (Alter, 2021; Schaeffer, 2021). Below is a summary of our key findings.

First, no generational differences were found for support related to gun-related causes of school shootings. Reflecting on any shooting event that has risen to national attention, this finding is not surprising. Given the political frenzy surrounding gun rights and gun control in the aftermath of a school shooting and news coverage that commonly frames these incidents through a gun control/gun access lens, gun-related causes are most likely to be seen by the American public, regardless of their generational cohort (Kleck, 2009; Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014; Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013; Schutten et al., 2021; Silva, 2020). As such, we argue that this debate surrounding gun control and Second Amendment rights will continue to persist for school shootings as it does with mass shootings more broadly, seeking to balance the “Price of Liberty or Never Again” (Haner et al., 2019).

Second, only Gen Z significantly differed from Baby Boomers and Gen X, more fervently supporting security-related causes for school shootings. This finding is somewhat unexpected given that Millennials grew up in the era of increased securing of schools, Gen Z experienced similar levels of fortification, and schools being the safest in the most recent decades (Fox & Friedel, 2018). Still, these results indicate a search for increased physical security at school by Gen Z, which is reflected in their levels of stress about school shootings (APA, 2018). However, this effect in our study is statistically small and does not persist with Millennials, which provides a rocky future for further security-related policies.

One potential explanation for Millennials’ not supporting security-related causes is that their educational experience was interrupted with the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School. Similar to older generations acutely aware of airport practices pre- and post-9/11 (Kujawinski, 2021), Millennials are able to remember a time when schools were not outfitted with metal detectors, SROs, and access control measures. Thus, unlike the generations before them who did not experience the dramatic rise in security measures and Gen Z, who have only gone to school in a time marked by increased fortifications, Millennials are uniquely situated to understand fully the impact of the “school securitization movement” (King & Bracy, 2019, p. 275). With Columbine occurring prior to and other prominent shootings occurring after the hardening of the schools, it is possible Millennials may not hold much stock in security-related causes of school shootings. Furthermore, it is possible that the price tag associated with such security measures (e.g., $400,000 for the country's “safest school,” Fittes, 2018; $80,000 per SRO, Hill, 2013) may lead Millennials, who are already-debt-burdened and socially-conscious, with preferences for more holistic and less costly solutions (Lee, 2020). However, future research should explore this potential explanation further.

Third, compared to Baby Boomers, Millennials and Gen Z were significantly less likely to perceive societal factors as a cause of school shootings. Furthermore, Millennials and Gen Z were no different from Gen X in these perceptions. Given the initial reporting from the media about the Columbine shooters’ fascination with violent media (Baldwin, 1999; Frymer, 2009), it is not surprising that Baby Boomers may have seized and continue to focus on it as a cause, while Millennials and Gen Z, due to their age, likely were not exposed to this potential cause and thus do not fixate on it. Moreover, Millennials and Gen Z members are avid consumers of violent video games and movies, with 7 of the top 10 rated video games of the last decade requiring a rating of “M” for mature audiences (Dietz, 2020) and 9 of the top 10 rated films of the last decade requiring a rating of “PG-13” or higher (Filmsite, 2021). Having consumed such content themselves, they may recognize its lack of translation from screen to actual violent behavior. Additionally, research on religion finds a rapid decline in religious participation in the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2019) and that “disbelievers share many of the same moral values endorsed by believers” (Ståhl, 2021, p. 20). Thus, our results are not surprising, with Millennials and Gen Z respondents’ beliefs about the relationship between religion and school shootings. As a result, we argue that the belief in societal factors as a cause of school shootings will be phased out along with calls for policies related to this belief, such as the reinstallation of God in schools (Lavender, 2012) and doing “something” about video games and movies (Ducharme, 2018).

Fourth, Gen Z and Millennials, when compared to Baby Boomers, viewed mental health as a cause of school shootings, with Millennials more likely to blame mental health than Gen X. One explanation for this finding is that younger generations are living in a time where there are conscious efforts to remove the stigma around seeking help for mental health-related issues (Avera, 2017). Additionally, younger generations are more acutely aware of the suffering associated with mental health-related issues, as they are more likely to report poorer mental health and to have received treatment for therapy than Gen X or Baby Boomers (APA, 2018). As community mental health programs and school-based adolescent mental health programs stemming from recommendations from the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003) are more commonplace in schools, it is possible this increased awareness may lead to more people to attribute school shootings to mental health related-causes, and more policies focused on recognizing and providing treatment will be more common in the future.

Fifth, Millennials, compared to Baby Boomers and Gen X, increasingly perceived bullying as a cause of school shootings. Beyond bullying being presented in the news and popular entertainment media (Schildkraut et al., 2018; Silva, 2020; Walsh, 2018), this birth cohort may be especially primed to fixate this explanation based on a cultural shift to address bullying (Tunde & Ramona, 2019). Such efforts have prompted programs, such as Rachel’s Challenge (2021), National Bullying Awareness Month (started in October 2006; PACER, 2021), and Melania Trump's “Be Best” campaign (Trump White House, n.d.). As such, given the increased political participation of Millennials compared to their predecessors (Cilluffo & Fry, 2019; Fry, 2017), we expect that future policies surrounding school shootings will likely be driven by bullying as a cause of school shootings by up-and-coming voters and policymakers.

Our Need to Know Why: The Need for Cognitive Closure

Still, left unexplored in this study is “why” these respondents believed in these causes of school shootings. One potential explanation is that humans have a natural desire to make sense of tragedy (Kagan, 1972). In an attempt to address these feelings of worry and ambiguity, individuals search for explanations for how such an event was able to occur—or, have a need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). In seeking this cognitive closure, individuals often “seize” on the first available information, often without verifying its truth (Konnikova, 2013; Roets et al., 2015). People then seek to make this closure as permanent as possible by “freezing” on that explanation, discounting anything that challenges their frozen beliefs (Konnikova, 2013; Roets et al., 2015).

This process of “seizing” and “freezing” information is critical when examining the public opinion on the causes of school shootings. Due to the vast media coverage (Chyi & McCombs, 2004; Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013; Silva, 2020), people are inundated with information when a shooting occurs. Initial reports—often plagued with false information (Elsass et al., 2014; Robinson, 2011)—can have powerful impacts, as the public can “seize” and “freeze” on the information, refusing to consider other relevant factors contributing to the shooting or to disavow false information. As a result, it is possible each generation—with their unique exposure to historical events—may “seize” and “freeze” on different causes of school shootings (Mannheim, 1928/1970; Ryder, 1965; Strauss & Howe, 1991). This study is the first to assess these potential generational differences.

In this context, older generations, such as Baby Boomers and Gen X, are theorized to have “seized” on the media's initial reporting from older instances such as Columbine (i.e., societal factors, bullying, guns) and “froze” on these perceived causes. In contrast, younger generations, such as Millennials and Gen Z, “seize” and “freeze” on causes that are more currently represented in the media (i.e., mental health, security, guns). As we found generational differences that align with the media framing literature (except for bullying), future research should examine why these differences emerge using a cognitive closure framework.

Limitations

No study is without its limitations, and the current study is not unique in this regard. First, future studies would benefit from the use of a more generalizable sample; opt-in samples such as this are capable of adequately detecting significant relationships, but they are less certain about the magnitude (Thompson & Pickett, 2019). Second, in this sample, Gen Z was limited to those who were 18 and over, which precludes the investigation and analyzes of a large portion of this generation. Still, when examining the magnitude of the regression coefficients relative to their standard errors, it seems that a larger subgroup of Gen Z respondents would help elucidate any differences between this birth cohort compared to the others. As such, results pertaining to this group should be viewed as preliminary. Thus, future research should seek to include the entirety of this generation to reach more conclusive evidence.

Third, there may be some question about the factor loadings and reliability of the scales used for the dependent variables. However, the construction of these scales was derived from exploratory factor analysis based on an understanding of the previous research in this area, and each item indicated a minimum acceptable score (Costello & Osborne, 2005). As such, we attempted to retain as many items as possible to (1) avoid p-hacking and (2) present the fullest picture of causes that were endorsed. Still, analyses were run removing the poorest performing item from the security-related causes scale—failure to report suspicious activity—and the societal-related causes scale—a culture that promotes and rewards violence, with substantially similar results obtained between the full scales and the reduced scales.³

Finally, there are some individuals who criticize generational research on both theoretical and methodological grounds (e.g., Costanza et al., 2017; Rudolph et al., 2019; Rudolph & Zacher, 2017; Terracciano, 2010; Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010). For example, Rudolph et al. (2019) suggest that “the separation of period and cohort effects is an intractable problem even in the population” [emphasis in original] because each of these three factors is entirely determined by the other two. Although not a perfect remedy, studies have employed statistical techniques using longitudinal data (e.g., cross-temporal meta-analysis, cross-classified hierarchical linear modeling) to mitigate the concerns (for a review, see Lee, 2020). As a result, this current study indicates there may be generational differences in the causes of school shootings; however, future research should explore this finding longitudinally.

Conclusion

Fear, worry, and stress about school shootings are a reality in America (APA, 2018, 2020; Graf, 2018) and will likely remain a source of concern for the foreseeable future. As such, there will be continual demands on various stakeholders (e.g., school administrators, legislators) to do something to prevent or reduce these incidents. Using a generational framework, this study sought to provide insight into the policies that may be implemented, retained, or abandoned to address this issue in the coming years. Based on the findings, we predict that future policies to reduce school shootings will likely address gun control, bullying, and mental health. Additionally, policies around security-related measures will likely continue to be debated, while efforts to address societal-related causes (e.g., violent media, religion, family values) will most likely fall out of the public's favor. Although the future is uncertain, these findings provide a glimpse into the probable policies that Millennials and Gen Z will support as they become the largest voting bloc in the United States.

Footnotes

Appendix A: Survey Items

______________________________________________________________________

Appendix B. Perceived Causes of School Shootings Responses by Cohort: Percentages (N = 739)

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neither Agree nor Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree	Total Agree
Questions Stem: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? School shootings happen because of:
Gun-Related Causes
Weak gun control laws	14.7	12.2	10.0	29.6	33.4	63.0
Baby Boomers	24.2	21.2	6.1	22.7	25.8	48.5
Generation X	18.5	12.0	10.3	28.8	30.4	59.2
Millennial	12.5	11.2	10.6	30.2	35.5	65.7
Generation Z	0.0	6.3	6.3	50.0	37.5	87.5
Easy access to weapons	5.7	8.3	9.3	32.3	44.4	76.7
Baby Boomers	9.1	15.2	6.1	34.8	34.8	69.6
Generation X	8.7	8.7	7.1	32.1	43.5	75.6
Millennial	4.2	7.2	10.6	31.7	46.3	78.0
Generation Z	0.0	6.3	12.5	43.8	37.5	81.3
The National Rifle Association (NRA)	31.9	13.8	17.7	19.2	17.3	36.5
Baby Boomers	47.0	16.7	21.2	9.1	6.1	15.2
Generation X	35.9	12.5	17.4	15.8	18.5	34.3
Millennial	28.8	13.7	17.1	22.4	18.0	40.4
Generation Z	18.8	18.8	25.0	6.3	31.3	37.6
Poor enforcement of current gun laws	10.3	13.7	14.5	29.5	32.1	61.6
Baby Boomers	18.2	22.7	12.1	21.2	25.8	47.0
Generation X	13.0	12.0	13.6	26.6	34.8	61.4
Millennial	8.2	13.1	15.0	32.1	31.5	63.6
Generation Z	10.3	13.7	14.5	29.5	32.1	61.6
Security-Related Causes
Inadequate responses by law enforcement to suspicious persons	8.3	18.1	22.1	35.5	16.1	51.6
Baby Boomers	16.7	19.7	19.7	31.8	12.1	43.9
Generation X	7.1	23.4	21.2	33.2	15.2	48.4
Millennial	7.8	16.1	22.6	36.8	16.7	53.5
Generation Z	0.0	12.5	25.0	37.5	25.0	62.5
Failure of people (e.g., students, teachers, family members) to report suspicious persons to authority	4.7	12.4	20.6	43.6	18.7	62.3
Baby Boomers	4.5	13.6	15.2	48.5	18.2	66.7
Generation X	4.9	12.5	20.1	46.2	16.3	62.5
Millennial	4.9	12.11	21.8	42.1	19.2	61.3
Generation Z	0.0	18.8	12.5	37.5	31.3	68.8
Lack of school discipline	18.3	25.0	22.9	23.1	10.7	33.8
Baby Boomers	19.7	30.3	18.2	25.8	6.1	31.9
Generation X	14.7	33.2	18.5	24.5	9.2	33.7
Millennial	20.1	21.1	25.2	22.2	11.4	33.6
Generation Z	0.0	25.0	25.0	25.0	25.0	50.0
Lack of security features in schools (e.g., metal detectors, security cameras)	15.0	20.4	18.7	31.9	13.9	45.8
Baby Boomers	10.6	25.8	19.7	30.3	13.6	43.9
Generation X	9.8	24.5	14.1	35.3	16.3	51.6
Millennial	18.0	18.0	19.9	30.9	13.3	44.2
Generation Z	6.3	25.0	31.3	31.3	6.3	37.6
Lack of armed staff and/or security officers in schools	24.2	20.0	18.5	23.1	14.1	37.2
Baby Boomers	13.6	22.7	18.2	30.3	15.2	45.5
Generation X	21.7	23.9	15.8	23.4	15.2	38.6
Millennial	27.1	18.4	18.6	22.6	13.3	35.9
Generation Z	12.5	12.5	50.0	6.3	18.8	25.1
Societal-Related Causes
Violent videogames/movies/TV/music	43.4	19.5	11.0	17.7	8.4	26.1
Baby Boomers	22.7	19.7	18.2	27.3	12.1	39.2
Generation X	38.0	20.7	10.3	22.8	8.2	31.0
Millennial	48.2	18.6	10.1	14.8	8.2	23.0
Generation Z	50.0	31.3	12.5	6.3	0.0	6.3
Removal of religion in schools	60.1	12.0	10.0	8.8	9.1	17.9
Baby Boomers	51.5	16.7	13.6	10.6	7.6	18.2
Generation X	58.2	13.0	11.4	7.6	9.8	17.4
Millennial	61.3	11.4	8.9	9.1	9.3	18.4
Generation Z	81.3	0.0	12.5	6.3	0.0	6.3
The deterioration of family values in the United States	28.0	14.2	18.4	23.0	16.4	39.4
Baby Boomers	22.7	12.1	12.1	22.7	30.3	53.0
Generation X	20.1	18.5	15.2	24.5	21.7	46.2
Millennial	31.7	12.3	20.1	23.0	12.9	35.9
Generation Z	31.3	31.3	31.3	6.3	0.0	6.3
A culture that promotes and rewards violence in the United States	12.2	14.9	21.1	32.5	19.4	51.9
Baby Boomers	12.1	18.2	19.7	33.3	16.7	50.0
Generation X	8.2	14.7	21.2	35.9	20.1	56.0
Millennial	14.0	14.2	20.7	31.3	19.9	51.2
Generation Z	6.3	25.0	37.5	25.0	6.3	31.3
Mental Health-Related Causes
Mental illness	3.2	6.2	12.2	49.9	28.4	78.3
Baby Boomers	4.5	6.1	13.6	47.0	28.8	75.8
Generation X	5.4	6.0	13.6	50.5	24.5	75.0
Millennial	2.3	6.3	11.6	50.5	29.2	79.7
Generation Z	0.0	6.3	6.3	37.5	50.0	87.5
Lack of easily accessible mental health treatment	3.5	5.0	18.1	37.3	36.0	73.3
Baby Boomers	7.6	13.6	22.7	27.3	28.8	56.1
Generation X	4.9	5.4	15.8	40.2	33.7	73.9
Millennial	2.5	3.4	18.8	37.6	37.6	75.2
Generation Z	0.0	12.5	6.3	37.5	46.8	84.3
Bullying
Bullying	2.7	5.5	14.2	44.2	33.3	77.5
Baby Boomers	1.5	7.6	24.2	48.5	18.2	66.7
Generation X	4.3	7.1	13.0	50.0	25.5	75.5
Millennial	2.3	4.7	13.5	41.4	38.1	79.5
Generation Z	0.0	6.3	6.3	43.8	43.8	87.6

Note. Some percentages may not equal to 100% due to rounding. Bold values represent percent for entire sample.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Amanda Graham

Cheryl Lero Jonson

Notes

Author Biographies

Amanda Graham is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Georgia Southern University. Her research interests focus on policing, fear of police brutality, the impact of race in police-community relationships, police legitimacy, scale development, and measurement. Her work appears in journals such as Crime & Justice: A Review of Research, Criminal Justice Review, Crime & Delinquency, Policing: An International Journal, Victims & Offenders, and the American Journal of Criminal Justice.

Cheryl Lero Jonson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Xavier University. Her current research interests focus on the effectiveness and psychological impacts of active assailant protocols, the effect of prison sentences on recidivism, public opinion about gun control, the public's response to the coronavirus pandemic, and crime in the U.S. National Park System. Her work has appeared in Criminology & Public Policy, Justice Quarterly, Crime & Justice: A Review of Research, and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

Heejin Lee is an Post-Doctorate Research Fellow in criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests focus on the perception of crime actors, correctional reform, public opinion and policy, and the application of virtual reality technology in social science. Her work has appeared in Justice Quarterly, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and American Journal of Criminal Justice.

References

Addington

L. A.

(2009). Cops and cameras: public school security as a policy response to columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1426–1446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332556

Addington

L. A.

(2014). Surveillance and security approaches across public school levels. In Muschert

G. W.

Henry

Bracy

N. L.

Peguero

A. A.

(Eds.), Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect (pp. 71–88). Lynne Rienner Publisher.

Alter

(2021, May 18). The 2020 election was a breakthrough moment for young voters. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/6049270/2020-election-young-voters/

American Psychological Association. (2018). Stress in America Generation Z. Author.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Stress in America 2020: A national mental health crisis. Author.

Anson

I. G.

(2018). Taking the time? Explaining effortful participation among low-cost online survey participants. Research and Politics, 5(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168018785483

AP/NORC (2019, March). School safety and shootings. Author. http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/School-Safety-and-Shootings--.aspx

Avera

A. S.

(2017). Differences in mental health education across Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials [Unpublished Honors Thesis]. Georgia Southern University.

Baldwin

(1999, April 22). Movies, music, and games are blamed for the Colorado tragedy. Entertainment Weekly. https://ew.com/article/1999/04/22/movies-music-and-games-are-blamed-colorado-tragedy/

10.

Barnes

S. H.

(1972). The legacy of fascism: generational differences in Italian political attitudes and behavior. Comparative Political Studies, 5, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407200500102

11.

Birkland

T A

Lawrence

R G

(2009). Media framing and policy change after Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1405–1142.

12.

Blake

(2018, February 22). Marco Rubio’s intense, emotional exchange with the father of a Parkland victim, annotated. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/22/marco-rubios-intense-emotional-exchange-with-the-father-of-a-parkland-victim-annotated/

13.

Burstein

(2006). Why estimates of the impact of public opinion on public policy are too high: Empirical and theoretical implications. Social Forces, 84(4), 2273–2289. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0083

14.

Burton

A. L.

Pickett

J. T.

Jonson

C. L.

Cullen

F. T.

Burton

V. S.

(2020). Public support for policies to reduce school shootings: A moral-altrustic approach. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427820953202

15.

Chang

Krosnick

J. A.

(2009). National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the Internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 641–678. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp075

16.

Cherkis

(2017, February 3). Sen. Jeff Sessions blamed culture, not guns on Columbine massacre. The Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-guns-columbine_n_5894d54de4b0c1284f25dd10

17.

Chyi

H. I.

McCombs

(2004). Media salience and the process of framing: Coverage of the Columbine school shootings. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100103

18.

Cilluffo

Fry

(2019, May 29). Gen Z, Millennials and Gen X outvoted older generations in 2018 midterms. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/29/gen-z-millennials-and-gen-x-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/

19.

Conley

M. A.

(2019). Asymmetric issue evolution in the American gun rights debate. Social Science Research, 84, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.06.008

20.

Costanza

D. P.

Darrow

J. B.

Yost

A. B.

Severt

J. B.

(2017). A review of analytical methods used to study generational differences: Strengths and limitations. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wax002

21.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

J. W.

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9, https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868.

22.

Coulter

(2013, January 30). Guns don’t kill people, the mentally ill do. The Southern Illinoisan. https://thesouthern.com/news/opinion/editorial/coulter/guns-don-t-kill-people-the-mentally-ill-do/article_40094b9e-62a4-11e2-a7ca-001a4bcf887a.html

23.

Cullen

(2019a, February 9). From Columbine to Parkland: How we got the story wrong on mass shootings. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/10/columbine-parkland-gun-crime-dave-cullen

24.

Cullen

(2009). Columbine. Hackette Book Group.

25.

Cullen

(2019b). Parkland: Birth of a movement. HarperCollins.

26.

Curran

F. C.

(2020). The expanding presence of law enforcement in Florida schools. University of Florida Education Policy Research Center.

27.

Dietz

(2020, January 4). Best video games of the decade (2010-2019). Metacritic. https://www.metacritic.com/feature/best-videogames-of-the-decade-2010s

28.

Dimock

(2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

29.

Ducharme

(2018, March 12). Trump blames video games for school shootings. Science isn’t so sure. Time. https://time.com/5191182/trump-video-games-violence/

30.

Dumitriu

(2013). School violence around the world: A social phenomenon. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92(10), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.676

31.

Elsass

H. J.

Schildkraut

Stafford

M. C.

(2014). Breaking news of social problems: Examining media consumption and student beliefs about school shootings. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law. & Society, 15(2), 31–42.

32.

Ferguson

C. J.

Copenhaver

Markey

(2020). Reexaming the findings of the American Psychological Association’s 2015 task force on violent media: A meta-analysis 15(6), 1423–1443.

33.

Ferguson

C. J.

Klisinan

Hogg

J. L.

Wilson

Markey

P. M.

Przbylski

Elson

Linebarger

Gregerson

Farley

Siddiqui

(2017). News media, public education and public policy committee. Division 46 Society for Media Psychology and Technology, American Psychological Association.

34.

Fietkiewicz

K. J.

Lins

Baran

K. S.

Stock

W. G.

(2016). Inter-generational comparison of social media use: Investigating the online behavior of different generational cohorts. 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences . https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.477

35.

Filindra

Kaplan

(2017). Testing theories of gun policy preferences among Blacks, Latinos, and Whites in America. Social Science Quarterly, 98(2), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12418

36.

Filindra

Kaplan

N. J.

(2016). Racial resentment and Whites’ gun policy preferences in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 38, 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9326-4

37.

Filmsite (2021). Box office hits by decade and year. Author. https://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice2.html

38.

Fine

G. A.

Eisenberg

(2002). Tricky dick and slick willy: Despised presidents and generational imprinting. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764202238062

39.

Fittes

E. K.

(2018, March 14). Why all schools aren’t like the “safest school in America.” Indy Star. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2018/03/14/why-all-schools-arent-like-safest-school-america/398955002/

40.

Fox

J. A.

DeLateur

M. J.

(2014). Mass shootings in America: Moving beyond Newtown. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913510297

41.

Fox

J. A.

Friedel

E. E.

(2018). The menace of school shootings in America: Panic and overresponse. In Shapiro

(Ed.), The Wiley handbook on violence in education: Forms, factors, and preventions (pp. 15–36). Wiley/Blackwell Publishers.

42.

Fry

(2017, July 31). Gen Zers, Millennials and Gen Xers outvoted Boomers and older generations in 2016 election. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/31/gen-zers-millennials-and-gen-xers-outvoted-boomers-and-older-generations-in-2016-election/

43.

Fry

(2020). Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as American’s largest generation. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/28/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers-as-americas-largest-generation/

44.

Frymer

(2009). The media spectacle of Columbine: Alienated youth as an object of fear. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1387–1404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332554

45.

Generation (n.d.). The Merriam-Webster.com. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generation

46.

Gialopsos, B. M., Jonson, C. L., Moon, M. M. & Stadler, W. A. (In press). A case of American exceptionalism: The influence of supercontrollers in mass school shootings. In E. Madfis & A. Lankford (Eds.), All American massacre: The tragic role of American culture and society in mass shootings. New York University Press.

47.

Graf

(2018). A majority of U.S. teens fear a shooting could happen at their school, and most parents share their concern. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/18/a-majority-of-u-s-teens-fear-a-shooting-could-happen-at-their-school-and-most-parents-share-their-concern/

48.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Jr Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030001002

49.

Haner

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

Burton

A. L.

Kulig

T. C.

(2019). Price of liberty or never again: Americans’ views on preventing mass murder. Justice Evaluation Journal, 2(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2019.1569474

50.

Hayes

van Stolk-Cooke

Muench

(2015). Understanding Facebook use across the psychological affects of use across generations. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 507–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.040

51.

Hill

E. W.

(2013). The cost of arming schools: The price of stopping a bad guy with a gun. Urban Publications, 678, 1–16. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1677&context=urban_facpub

52.

Hirschfield

P. J.

(2008). Preparing for prison?: The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480607085795

53.

Holsti

O. R.

Rosenau

J. N.

(1980). Does where you stand depend on when you were born? The impact of generation on post-Vietnam foreign policy beliefs. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1086/268563

54.

Homer

E. M.

Fisher

B. W.

(2020). Police in schools and student arrest rates across the United States: Examining differences by race, ethnicity, and gender. Journal of School Violence, 19(2), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2019.1604377

55.

Interlandi

(2018, September 5). How do you walk back into a classroom again? Teaching in the age of mass shootings. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/05/magazine/school-shootings-teachers-support-armed.html

56.

Jacobson

G. C.

(2016). The Obama legacy and the future of partisan conflict: Demographic change and generational imprinting. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667, 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216658425

57.

Jennings

M. K.

(1987). Residues of a movement: The aging of the American protest generation. American Political Science Review, 81, 367–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961957

58.

Jones

J. M.

(2018, March 14). U.S. preference for stricter gun laws highest since 1993. Gallup Poll. https://news.gallup.com/poll/229562/preference-stricter-gun-laws-highest-1993.aspx

59.

Jonson

C. L.

(2017). Preventing school shootings: The effectiveness of safety measures. Victims & Offenders, 12(6), 956–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1307293

60.

Jonson

C. L.

Burton

A. L.

Cullen

F. T.

Pickett

J. T.

Burton

V. S.

(2021). An apple in one hand, a gun in the other: Public support for arming our nation’s school. Criminology & Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12538

61.

Kagan

(1972). Motives and development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032356

62.

Kinder

D. R.

Sanders

L. M.

(1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago, IL.

63.

King

Bracy

N. L.

(2019). School secuirty in the post-Columbine era: Trends, consequences, and future directions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 35(3), 274–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219840188

64.

Kleck

(2009). Mass shootings in schools: The worst possible case for gun control. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1447–1464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332557

65.

Klein

(2012). The bully society: School shootings and the crisis of bullying in American schools. New York University Press.

66.

Konnikova

(2013, April 30). Why we need answers. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/why-we-need-answers

67.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Webster

D. M.

(1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.”. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263

68.

Kujawinski

(2021, September 9). Air travel after 9/11: Just get through it. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/travel/airline-travel-september-11.html

69.

Langman

P. L.

Petrosino

Peterson

(2018). Five misconceptions about school shootings. WestEd. https://www.wested.org/resources/five-misconceptions-about-school-shootings/

70.

Lankford

(2013). A comparative analysis of suicide terrorists and rampage, workplace, and school shooters in the United States from 1990 to 2010. Homicide Studies, 17(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767912462033

71.

Lavender

(2012, December 15). Mike Huckabee: Newtown shooting no surprise, we’ve “systematically removed God” from schools. The Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mike-huckabee-school-shooting_n_2303792

72.

Lax

J. R.

Phillips

J. H.

(2012). The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00537.x

73.

Lee

(2020). Millennials as the future of corrections: A generational analysis of public opinions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Cincinnati.

74.

Lee

Pickett

J. T.

Burton

A. L.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

Burton

V. S.

(2020). Attributions as anchors: How the public explains school shootings and why it matters. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2020.1769710

75.

Levin

Madfis

(2009). Mass murder at school and cumulative strain: A sequential model. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1227–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332543

76.

Long

(2012, December 14). Thinking the unthinkable. The Anarchist Soccer Mom. https://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/search?q=I+am+Adam+Lanza%27s+mom

77.

Lowe

S. R.

Galea

(2015). The mental health consequences of mass shootings. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015591572

78.

Madfis

(2014). The risk of school rampage: Assessing and preventing threats of school violence. Palgrave Macmillian.

79.

Madfis

(2016). “It’s better to overreact”: School officials’ fear and perceived risk of rampage attacks and the criminalizaton of American public school. Critical Criminology, 24(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9297-0

80.

Madfis

(2020). How to stop school rampage killings: Lessons from averted mass shootings and bombings. Palgrave Macmillian.

81.

Madfis

Levin

(2013). School rampage in international perspective: The salience of cumulative strain theory. In Böckler

Seeger

Sitzer

Heitmeyer

(Eds.), School shootings (pp. 79–104). Springer.

82.

Mannheim

(1970). The problem of generations. Psychoanalytic Review, 57, 378–404. (Original work published 1928).

83.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission (2019). Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission: Initial Report . http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/msdhs/commissionreport.pdf

84.

Markey

P. M.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2017). Mortal Kombat: Why the war on violent video games is wrong. BenBella Books.

85.

Markey

P. M.

Ivory

J. D.

Slotter

E. B.

Oliver

M. B.

Malalang

(2020). He does not look like a video game made him do it: Racial stereotypes and school shootings. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 9(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000255

86.

Marwell

Aiken

M. T.

Demerath

N. J. I. I. I.

(1987). The persistence of political attitudes among 1960s civil rights activists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1086/269041

87.

McAndrew

Smyton

(2021, April 29). Half of young people voted in 2020, major increases from 2016. Tuft University. Retrieved from https://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/half-young-people-voted-2020-major-increase-2016

88.

Mears

D. P.

Moon

M. M.

Thielo

A. J.

(2017). Columbine revisited: Myths and realities about the bullying-school shootings connection. Victims & Offenders, 12(6), 939–955. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1307295

89.

National Association of School Psychologists (2015). Threat assessment at school: Brief facts and tips. Author. https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/school-safety-and-crisis/systems-level-prevention/threat-assessment-at-school

90.

National Threat Assessment Center (2019). Protecting America’s schools: A U.S. Secret service analysis of targeted school violence. U.S. Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security.

91.

Newport

(1999). Public continues to believe a variety of factors caused Littleton. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/3856/public-continues-believe-variety-factors-caused-littleton.aspx

92.

Newport

(2018). Broad agreement on most ideas to curb school shootings. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/229805/broad-agreement-most-ideas-curb-school-shootings.aspx

93.

Obmascik

(1999, April 21). High school massacre: Columbine bloodbath leaves up to 25 dead. The Denver Post. A-01.

94.

PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center (2021). October is National Bullying Prevention Month. Author. https://www.pacer.org/bullying/nbpm/

95.

Pasche

(2022, January 26). Oxford High School security toughened; More measures planned. The Oakland Press. https://www.theoaklandpress.com/2022/01/26/oxford-high-school-security-toughened-more-measures-planned/

96.

Pawlowski

(2012, December 22). Asperger’s parents anxious following Sandy Hook shootings. Daily Press. https://www.dailypress.com/news/education/dp-xpm-20121222-2012-12-22-dp-nws-aspergers-school-shooting-bully-20121222-story.html

97.

Payne

A. A.

Welch

(2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(4), 539–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X12473125

98.

Peer

Vosgerau

Acquisti

(2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y

99.

Peterson

Densley

(2020). The Violence Project database of mass shooters. The Violence Project. https://www.theviolenceproject.org

100.

Peterson

Densley

Erickson

(2021). Presence of armed school officials and fatal and nonfatal gunshot injuries during mass school shootings, United States, 1980-2019. JAMA Network Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37394

101.

Pew Research Center (2018, March 20). Party identification trends, 1992–2017. Author. https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/party-identification-trends-1992-2017/

102.

Pew Research Center (2019, October 17). In U.S., decline of Christianity continues at rapid pace. Author. https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

103.

Pickett

J. T.

(2019). Punishment and solidarity? An experimental test of the educative-moralizing effects of legal sanctions. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9287-1

104.

Pilcher

(1994). Mannheim’s sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology, 45, 481–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/591659

105.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 38(3), 931–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00911.x

106.

Rachel’s Challenge (2021). About Rachel’s Challenge. Author. https://rachelschallenge.org/about-us

107.

Robinson

M. B.

(2011). Media coverage of crime and criminal justice. Carolina Academic Press.

108.

Rocque

(2012). Exploring school rampage shootings: Research, theory, and policy. The Social Science Journal, 49(3), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2011.11.001

109.

Rocque

Duwe

(2018). Rampage shootings: An historical, empirical, and theoretical overview. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19(2), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.025

110.

Roets

Kruglanski

A. W.

Kossowska

Pierro

Hong

(2015). The motivated gatekeeper: New directions in need for closure theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 221–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.001

111.

Rubin

(2018, March 2). Here’s how millennials could change politics. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/03/02/heres-how-millennials-could-change-politics/

112.

Rudolph

C. W.

Costanza

D. P.

Wright

Zacher

(2019). Cross-temporal meta-analysis: A conceptual and empirical critique. Journal of Business and Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09659-2

113.

Rudolph

C. W.

Zacher

(2017). Considering generations from a lifespan developmental perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw019

114.

Ryder

N. B.

(1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843–861. https://doi.org/10.2307/2090964

115.

Schaeffer

(2021, March 10). The changing face of Congress in 7 charts. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/10/the-changing-face-of-congress/

116.

Schildkraut

Elsass

H. J.

(2016). Mass shootings: Media, myths, and realities. Praeger Books.

117.

Schildkraut

Elsass

H. J.

(2016). Mass shootings: Media, myths, and realities. Praeger Books.

118.

Schildkraut

Elsass

H. J.

Meredith

(2018). Mass shootings and the media: Why all events are not created equal. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(3), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2017.1284689

119.

Schildkraut

Hernandez

T. C.

(2014). Laws that bit the bullet: A review of legislative responses to school shootings. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9214-6

120.

Schildkraut

Muschert

G. W.

(2013). Violent media, guns, and mental illness: The three ring circus of causal factors for school massacres, as related to media discourse. Fast Capitalism, 10(1), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.32855/fcapital.201301.015

121.

Schuman

Scott

(1989). Generations and collective memories. American Sociological Review, 54, 359–381. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095611

122.

Schutten

N. M.

Pickett

J. T.

Burton

A. L.

Jonson

C. L.

Cullen

F. T.

Burton

V. S.

(2022). Are guns the new dog whistle? Gun control, racial resentment, and vote choice. Criminology, 60(1), 90–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12292

123.

Shriver

(2012, December 23). The scapegoating of Nancy Lanza. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/23/no-tears-nancy-lanza-newtown-mother

124.

Silva

J. R.

(2020). The news media’s framing of mass shootings: gun access, mental illness, violent entertainment, and terrorism. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law, & Society, 21(2), 76–98. https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/14176-the-news-media-s-framing-of-mass-shootings-gun-access-mental-illness-violent-entertainment-and-terrorism

125.

Silva

J. R.

(2021). Mass shooting outcomes: A comparison of completed, attempted, failed, and foiled incidents in America. Deviant Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2021.1991248

126.

Silva

J. R.

Capellan

J. A.

(2019). The media’s coverage of mass public shootings in America: Fifty years of newsworthiness. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2018.1437458

127.

Silva

J. R.

Green-Colozzi

E. A.

(2021). An exploratory study of failed mass shootings in America. Security Journal, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-020-00281-z

128.

Simirenko

(1966). Mannheim’s generational analysis and acculturation. British Journal of Sociology, 17, 292–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/588776

129.

Ståhl

(2021). The amoral atheist? A cross-national examination of cultural, motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, and their implications for morality. PLOS One. 16(2), e0246593. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246593

130.

Stockler

(2019, December 19). Since Parkland shooting, states haved enacted 137 measures restricting gun access and reduce gun violence, analysis shows. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/gun-laws-states-giffords-report-1478273

131.

StopBullying.gov (2021). Facts about bullying . https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/facts#stats

132.

Strauss

Howe

(1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. William Morrow and Company.

133.

Stroebe

Leander

N. P.

Kruglanski

A. W.

(2017). Is it a dangerous world out there? The motivational bases of American gun ownership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1071–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217703952

134.

Terracciano

(2010). Secular trends and personality: Perspectives from longitudinal and cross-cultural studies—commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609357017

135.

The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003). Achieving the promise: Transforming the mental health care system in America. Author.

136.

The Washington Post (2021, December 21). Remarks from the NRA press conference on Sandy Hook school shooting, delivered on Dec. 21, 2012 (Transcript). Author. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/remarks-from-the-nra-press-conference-on-sandy-hook-school-shooting-delivered-on-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/bd1841fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

137.

Thompson

A. J.

Pickett

J. T.

(2020). Are relational inferences from crowdsourced and opt-in samples generalizable? Comparing criminal justice attitudes in the GSS and five online samples. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(4), 907–932.

138.

Trinker

Jackson

Tyler

T. R.

(2018). Bounded authority: Expanding ‘appropriate’ police behavior and police procedural justice. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000285

139.

Trump White House. (n.d.). BE BEST. Author. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/bebest/

140.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Donnellan

M. B.

(2010). Rethinking “generation me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976–2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609356789

141.

Tunde

Ramona

(2019). The bullying phenomenon among the generations. Journal of Educational Science & Psychology, 9(71), 36–42. https://www-proquest-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/docview/2302389651

142.

Twenge

J. M.

(2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before. Atria.

143.

Twenge

J. M.

(2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9165-6

144.

Twenge

J. M.

(2017). Igen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—and completely unprepared for adulthood—and what that means for the rest of us. Simon & Schuster.

145.

Twenge

J. M.

Abebe

E. M.

Campbell

W. K.

(2010). Fitting in or standing Out: Trends in American parents' choices for children’s names. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 19–25.

146.

Twenge

J. M.

(2000a). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.1007

147.

Twenge

J. M.

(1997b). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00099.x

148.

Twenge

J. M.

(2001a). Birth cohort changes in extraversion: A cross-temporal metal-analysis, 1966–1993. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00066-0

149.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

S. M.

(2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_3

150.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

S. M.

(2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904367

151.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

W. K.

Freeman

E. C.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

W. K.

Gentile

(1966). Generational differences in young adults' life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(5), 409–427.

152.

Twenge

J. M.

(1997a). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766650

153.

Twenge

J. M.

(2001b). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.133

154.

Twenge

J. M.

Foster

J. D.

(2010). Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among American college students, 1982–2009. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 1, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609355719

155.

Twenge

J. M.

(2007). Changes in the need for social approval, 1958–2001. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.006

156.

Twenge

J. M.

Konrath

Foster

J. D.

Campbell

W. K.

Bushman

B. J.

(2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality, 76, 875–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x

157.

Twenge

J. M.

(2000b). Similarities and differences in past and present personality measures [(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan]. Ann Arbor, MI.

158.

Twenge

J. M.

Zhang

(2004). It’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960–2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_5

159.

Walsh

(2018, August 28). The pop culture fascination with school shootings. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/the-pop-culture-fascination-with-school-shootings/2018/08

160.

Webster

D. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

(1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1063. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049

161.

Weil

F. D.

(1987). Cohorts, regimes, and the legitimation of democracy: West Germany since 1945. American Sociological Review, 52, 308–324. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095352

162.

Weinberg

J. D.

Freese

Mcelhattan

(2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a19

163.

Weisburd

Britt

(2014). Statistics in criminal justice (4th ed.). Springer.

164.

Whittier

(1997). Political generations, micro-cohorts, and the transformation of social movements. American Sociological Review, 62, 760–778. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657359

165.

Zuckerman

(2019, August 11). Op-ed: Mike Huckabee ties mass shootings to an absence of faith in God. Social science proves him wrong. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-09/op-ed-guns-and-god-disproving-the-huckabee-hypothesis

Back in My Day: Generational Beliefs About School Shootings

Abstract

Keywords

The Blame Game: The Public's Explanations of School Shootings 1

Gun-Related Causes

Security-Related Causes

Societal-Related Causes

Mental Health-Related Causes

Bullying as a Cause

Why Would We Expect Generational Differences?

Definition of a Generation

Generational Theories

Generational Divides in the Causes of School Shootings

Methods

Sample

Dependent Variables

Key Independent Variable

Theoretical Control Variables

Demographic Controls

Analytic Plan

Results

Discussion

Our Need to Know Why: The Need for Cognitive Closure

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix A: Survey Items

Appendix B. Perceived Causes of School Shootings Responses by Cohort: Percentages (N = 739)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Notes

Author Biographies

References

The Blame Game: The Public's Explanations of School Shootings¹