Strained Masculinity and Mass Shootings: Toward A Theoretically Integrated Approach to Assessing the Gender Gap in Mass Violence

Abstract

Recent work by Allison and Klein examining violence and homicide introduced the concept of strained masculinity, a theoretical integration of general strain theory and hegemonic masculinity. Using qualitative data collection (n = 63), the current study considers strained masculinity themes in the context of mass shootings and the gender gap. Findings demonstrated support for the prevalence of Allison and Klein’s themes in mass shootings. The men who committed mass shootings in our sample responded to challenges to their masculinity (62%), pursued hegemonic masculinity through “sport” (33%), and pursued hegemonic masculinity through controlling space (27%). In addition, qualitative analysis revealed overlaps in strained masculinity themes for mass shooting cases, demonstrating the complexity of this type of violence. There were six outlier cases identified that did not display strained masculinity, rather the perpetrators in these cases suffered from psychological or emotional troubles before opening fire. Overall, findings indicate that the integration of traditional criminology theories and gender theories is warranted.

Keywords

mass shootings hegemonic masculinity gender gap general strain theory theoretical integration

The gender gap in crime is among the most consistent empirical realities about crime. Studies consistently show that men have much higher offending rates than women regardless of data source, time, location, or culture (Schwartz et al., 2009; Steffensmeier et al., 2005). It is no surprise then that considerable criminological research and theory building concentrates on explaining gender disparities in criminal activity. While some studies have made gender central to theoretical development (Broidy & Agnew, 1997), criminology has been largely reluctant to embrace gendered explanations. This study offers one possible route to address this limitation, as we examine the utility of an integrated and interdisciplinary perspective: “strained masculinity.”

Few other crimes exemplify the need to incorporate gendered perspectives with criminological ideas than mass shootings. Indeed, mass shootings are a growing social problem and remain a uniquely male-perpetrated phenomenon (Lankford, 2019). Depending on the data source, research suggests that men have committed roughly 94% to 97% of multi-victim public shootings in America (Follman et al., 2019; Fox & Levin, 2017). Historically, theoretical debates about mass shootings have drawn from social learning, strain, and social control theories (Fox & Levin, 2017), largely ignoring the notable gender gap and gender theories. We believe the integration of criminological theories with a gendered theoretical approach remains essential.

Our thesis centers on the following arguments: (1) general strain theory (GST) considers the influence of social and personal strain on deviant behavior, and empirical evidence supports this relationship (Agnew, 1992, 2006a), and (2) masculinity theories, such as hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) and doing gender (West & Zimmerman, 1987), consider how the construction of masculinity is shaped by social definitions and developed through social interactions. Often, hegemonic masculinity involves the internalization of risky behaviors like self-reliance, competition, toughness, or respect. Thus, adverse external events (i.e., strain) may uniquely pressure men into violence by challenging these internalized norms or encouraging maladaptive coping strategies for dealing with strain. This manuscript uses thematic qualitative analysis of 63 mass shooter storylines to examine the emergence of these dynamics in explaining the circumstances conducive to mass shootings in the United States between 2009 and 2019. Taken together, we argue that integrating GST (Agnew, 2006a) and masculinity theories (Connell, 1995; West & Zimmerman, 1987) through the interdisciplinary concept of “strained masculinity” (Allison & Klein, 2021) is a valuable approach for explaining the gender gap in mass shootings.

Against this backdrop, we begin by briefly synthesizing what we know empirically and theoretically about mass violence in America for context, including the relevant gaps. Next, we describe in more detail the integrated strained masculinity theoretical framework. The remainder of this study then reports our methodology for examining this phenomenon, followed by a qualitative analysis and discussion of the broader implications of the research findings.

The Context of Mass Shootings in the United States

Mass shootings are a prominent social and public health issue in the United States.¹ Criminology has historically given little empirical and theoretical attention to mass shootings compared to other types of offending (Fox & DeLateur, 2014). Despite this, research on mass shootings is growing and our understanding of this type of violence is deepening. To demonstrate, scholars have found that mass shootings have become deadlier in recent years (Lankford & Silver, 2020) and that the United States has six times the global share of public mass shooters (Lankford, 2019). Further, mass shootings have occurred in various contexts, including schools, shopping malls, theaters, churches, and music festivals (Lankford et al., 2019).

Many unknowns remain about the causes and prevention of these events. Mass shootings are a challenging type of crime to research due to their inherent heterogeneity (Fox & Levin, 2017; Lankford, 2015; Lankford & Hoover, 2019). Mass shootings are also rare events that involve only a handful of perpetrators, many of whom are ultimately killed or commit suicide shortly after the incident (Lankford, 2015). Consequently, there are many challenges to predicting, identifying, and averting mass shootings (Lankford, 2018; Madfis, 2018).

Consistent with the empirical advances, the theoretical explanations for mass shootings are growing but remain underdeveloped. Criminology theories, including social learning, GST, routine activities theory, and control theory, have been discussed in connection with mass shootings (Fox & Levin, 2017); however, there is limited empirical support to validate these claims. Most notably, Levin and Madfis (2009) drew on GST and formulated the concept of “cumulative strain” to explain mass murder in schools.

Despite the heterogeneity of mass shootings and the difficulties of researching this type of violence, one criminological fact endures: men commit most mass shootings in America. This trend is consistent with the gender gap in other types of crime; however, the distribution is even more skewed with this crime, as men perpetrate roughly 94% to 97% of mass shootings (Fox & Levin, 2017; Schmuhl & Capellan, 2020). Though public discourse on mass shootings often fails to recognize the role of gender (Danner & Carmody, 2001; Klein, 2005), scholars have acknowledged the gender gap in mass shootings and documented the increase in gender-based mass shootings (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Silva et al., 2021)

The current study is situated within a growing body of scholarship that considers the role of gender in mass shootings. In the context of mass shootings in schools, feminist scholars have noted the significance of masculinity and the inherently gendered nature of violence, where men are the majority of perpetrators and women are disproportionately the victims (Danner & Carmody, 2001). From a macro perspective, there has been mixed support for the feminist ameliorative and backlash hypotheses in explaining incidences of public mass shootings (Schmuhl & Capellan, 2020). Though these advancements have contributed to our understanding of the notable gender gap in mass shootings, we believe an integrated theoretical approach is timely and needed. Indeed, no research to our knowledge has qualitatively examined Allison & Klein’s (2021) concept of strained masculinity in the context of mass shootings.

Toward an Integrated Theoretical Approach to Understanding Mass Violence

General Strain Theory

Agnew (1992) proposed GST, a micro-level explanation of offending that broadly suggests that people are pressured into crime. This perspective outlines a pathway from strain to offending, such that negative relationships cause strain, which increases negative emotions, and ultimately the likelihood of offending increases. Agnew (1992) distinguished three types of strains: the blockage of goals, the removal of something valued, and the presence of something undesirable or harmful. Correspondingly, Agnew (1992) emphasized offending as an avenue to alleviate strain. GST has received substantial empirical support for the connection between strains, negative emotions, and maladaptive outcomes (see Agnew, 2006a).

GST is at the forefront among criminological theories that have examined the gender gap in offending. In their foundational work, Broidy and Agnew (1997) argued that both men and women experience strain, encounter distinct types of strain, and emotionally respond to strain in unique ways. Men are often exposed to strain that facilitates serious crime, while women experience sources of strain that restrict criminal opportunity (Broidy & Agnew, 1997). Importantly, Broidy and Agnew (1997) argue that gender differences in the types of strain and the reaction to strain illuminate the gender gap in offending. Several articles have extended their work and provided more context and nuance to the gendered GST framework (see Jennings et al., 2009; Moon & Morash, 2017; Ngo & Paternoster, 2013).

One finding from the gendered GST literature, and important in the context of the current study, is that when men encounter strain, they are significantly more likely to respond with externalizing behaviors (aggression) than women, who are more likely to internalize their negative emotions (Jennings et al., 2009; Posick et al., 2013). This finding may help us better understand the gender gap in violent offending. Despite these theoretical advancements, there is very little work that integrates masculinity theories into GST. Identifying the most salient strains that predict mass shootings among men can lead to more empirically sound prevention efforts. Given the extreme gender gap in mass shootings, we suspect the integration of GST with masculinity theories to be a beneficial framework to study arguably one of the most serious forms of violence.

The Social Construction of Masculinity

Gender scholars have pioneered the theoretical discussion around the social construction of masculinity. Masculinity theories recognize that cultural definitions of masculinity are socially constructed and change over time (Messerschmidt, 1993, 2000; West & Zimmerman, 1987). More specifically, masculinity is variable and evolves across time, cultures, and individuals, and it is not biologically determined, nor is it fixed. Indeed, our contemporary western definition of masculinity, and even femininity, is much different from historical constructions of gender.

Gender scholars argue that there are contextual and societal expectations of what it means to be a man, and these expectations must be met or exceeded (West & Zimmerman, 1987). If these standards of masculinity are not met or contradicted, there are consequences to be faced. For example, effeminate men can be subjected to many forms of mistreatment because of their characteristics, whereas men who exceed the expectation of masculinity are perceived favorably and rewarded. Some men far surpass acceptable definitions of masculinity when they employ violence, power, and control over others. Taken together, the social construction of masculinity is a beneficial framework when discussing the gender gap in offending (McFarlane, 2013).

One of the most prominent types of masculinity in the literature is that of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987). Hegemonic masculinity is most frequently recognized as a set of actions and practices by a man that are idiosyncratic and dominant when compared to other forms of masculinity (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). This type of masculinity is not customary and while men often seek to position themselves in relation to hegemonic masculinity, most are unable to attain hegemonic masculine ideals.

The relational aspect of masculinity should be considered critically important to criminologists, as this is likely where ideas of masculinity can be used to understand the gender gap in offending (Allison & Klein, 2021, p. 6–7). A growing body of mass shooting scholarship demonstrates the importance of gendered perspectives (Danner & Carmody, 2001; Silva et al., 2021). If men are attempting to seek a culturally higher form of masculinity (i.e., hegemonic masculinity), then they may be more likely to employ violence, dominance, control, and force in their pursuit of superior masculinity, which can enlighten the gender gap in offending.

Conceptualizing “Strained Masculinity”

Bridging the gap between criminology, sociology, and gender studies, Allison and Klein (2021) were the first to integrate GST and masculinity theories as an explanation for anti-homeless bias homicides. They argue, “under some circumstances, threats may result in a form of ‘strained masculinity,’ whereas bias crime is used by some men as a means of ‘corrective action’ in the pursuit of hegemony” (Allison & Klein, 2021, p. 7). They highlighted that criminology theories fail to provide explanations for bias-motivated violence, and that theoretical integration, namely criminological theories with masculinity theories, is warranted.

Their qualitative analysis utilized homicide narratives to conduct in-depth analyses on 66-anti-homeless homicides identified in an open-source extremist crime database, the U.S. Extremist Crime Database (Freilich et al., 2014). Homicide narratives were constructed using thematic analysis and repeated readings (Allison & Klein, 2021). Each homicide narrative incorporated three aspects: the precursor, the transaction, and the aftermath. Their analysis identified three themes that embodied challenges or strains to the pursuit of hegemonic masculinity in the situational context of anti-homeless homicides, including (1) response to challenges to masculinity, (2) pursuit of hegemonic masculinity through “sport,” and (3) pursuit of hegemonic masculinity through controlling space.

Our study seeks to expand the knowledge base of the aforementioned literature. Allison and Klein (2021) demonstrated the utility of using theoretically integrated approaches to studying violence. The current study seeks to explore their perspective in the context of other types of violent offending, such as mass shootings. Importantly, an integrated perspective can be instrumental in the prevention efforts of mass shootings, as disregarding the inherently gendered nature of mass shootings fails to fully encapsulate this social problem.

Current Study

Drawing on GST (Agnew, 2006a) and masculinity theories (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), we examine how the integration of these theoretical approaches can be utilized to explain the gender gap in mass shootings. The current paper seeks to extend the concept of “strained masculinity” (Allison & Klein, 2021) to mass shootings through qualitative data collection and analysis. Further, this paper seeks to extend their framework by considering how strained masculinity themes might overlap for complex types of violence, including mass shootings. Given the threat that mass shootings pose to the public, understanding the motives of male perpetrators from a theoretically integrated approach will provide critical insights into the detection and prevention of mass shootings if strained masculinity is salient. Against this backdrop, this study is guided by three primary research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): To what extent does the concept of strained masculinity explain the gender gap in mass shootings?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): Are the strained masculinity themes previously identified applicable to other forms of violent offending, such as mass shootings?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): Is there overlap in the strained masculinity themes when examining mass shootings?

We anticipate that strained masculinity will be applicable to mass shootings. Consistent with the arguments of Allison and Klein (2021), the analysis recognizes that hegemonic masculinity is a positively valued goal that most men attempt to pursue. In their pursuit of hegemonic masculinity, challenges to masculinity create a strain leading some men to overcompensate with violent behavior. As a result, mass shootings serve as a means for some men to overcome their strained masculinity.

Methods and Materials

Detailed information on American mass violence remains absent from data sources common to criminology. To address this limitation, we took advantage of the growing scholarly movement toward open-source data collection (see Dugan & Distler, 2016; Freilich et al., 2014, 2022; Gruenewald, 2013). A reliable procedure for leveraging information about rare events, open-source methodologies aim to systematically accumulate crime data from publicly available records, such as the mass media, official records, administrative and archival sources, or eyewitness accounts. Once collected and mined, these materials can then be assembled and codified for rigorous analysis (Freilich et al., 2022; Klein, 2020).

The core advantages of using this methodology are threefold. First, the data are flexible in that it allows researchers to extract both quantitative and rich qualitative materials. Second, such unique and detailed data can be useful for systematically examining the underlying nature and characteristics of understudied social problems in innovative ways. Lastly, given that open-sources include more global coverage, they may offer a reliable strategy for obtaining information on hard-to-study crimes like mass violence than do traditional social science methodologies (see Klein, 2020). Consequently, this innovative methodology may be the best approach available for investigating understudied research questions in substantively novel ways, including the role of strained masculinity processes in mass violence events.

Data Source

To get a sampling frame on mass shooting incidents and perpetrators, we obtained data from the open-source, Mother Jones database of public mass shootings (Follman et al., 2019)—an increasingly common resource used in the research literature (Booty et al., 2019; Kwon & Cabrera, 2019; Webster, 2017). These data are crowdsourced and available for public use, allowing scholars to both replicate and reproduce research findings.² We downloaded the dataset on February 24, 2020, as a .csv file, which contained perpetrator (e.g., demographic) and incident (e.g., casualties, firearm type, location) information on 115 mass shootings in the United States from 1982 to 2019 (Follman et al., 2019). The Mother Jones staff systematically reviewed multiple available public reports (O’Leary, 2016) and rigorously applied objective inclusion criteria to select mass shooting incidents and assemble the database (see Follman et al., 2019 for documentation).

Consistent with prior studies (Greene-Colozzi & Silva, 2022), qualifying “mass” shootings refer to violent incidents in which a firearm was discharged and resulted in four or more injuries or deaths, excluding the perpetrator.³ The data only include incidents in which the perpetrator was known, those occurring in public spaces, and shootings committed by one or two individuals. Thus, excluded from the database is (a) any violence involving non-firearms and unknown perpetrators, (b) shootings with less than four total victims (injuries and fatalities), gang, domestic, and for-profit instrumental violence (e.g., robberies), and (c) shootings occurring inside private homes or other private locations. To remain consistent across time and account for variations in reporting practices, we focus on all public mass shootings occurring between 2009 and 2019 to achieve our research aims (n = 63).⁴

Importantly, we acknowledge the plausibility of selectivity bias in relying on public data like Mother Jones (see Chermak et al., 2012). This validity threat is more relevant, however, for studies relying on quantitative analytic strategies. Our central aim here is to qualitatively assess known demonstrations of strained masculinity in the context of mass shootings to shed light on potentially relevant theoretical processes. Instead of generalizing to populations, we seek to clarify explanatory mechanisms. Still, careful examination of Mother Jones’ information collection procedures increases our confidence in their data coverage. For instance, they relied upon multiple public sources to identify and code information for mass shootings. Dugan and Distler (2016) call the relationship between the news media and high-profile events “synergistic” (p. 193), implying that sensational events will consistently garner intense news coverage (see also Chermak, 1995).

Gun violence that victimizes four or more people in a single, public event is among the most newsworthy of topics. Additionally, our focus on mass shootings dating back to 2009—rather than the 1980s, 1990s, or early 2000s—is beneficial in several ways. First, it provides ten years of data upon which to draw inferences. It can also help protect against retrospective bias. Errors in selecting qualifying cases are likely associated linearly with time, such that data collection discrepancies increase the farther away from the “current time” that the incident occurred. Mother Jones began collecting data in 2012 in response to the Aurora Colorado shooting (Follman et al., 2019). We can infer they likely collected three years of the data retrospectively and presumably collected 7 years of data (from 2012 onward) in real-time. In sum, public mass shootings’ sensational nature combined with Mother Jones’s data collection strategy, increases our confidence in the data’s overall representativeness.

Crafting Qualitative Casefiles

Once we obtained the data and verified the cases for inclusion, we then assembled rich qualitative records for each mass shooting. First, we used public data aggregators (like google.com) to collect publicly accessible articles published from reputable news sources into qualitative casefiles for each incident.⁵ Our principal focus was on the most reliable national news outlets (see Otero, 2020), such as the Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, and Washington Post. This strategy was efficient and remains chiefly in line with prior research (Freilich et al., 2014; Gruenewald, 2013; Klein, 2020). In short, focusing on the more reliable news companies can help to improve consistency in information due to their generally higher standards of reporting and increased reliance on carefully vetted informants (see Otero, 2020).

Further, concentrating narrowly on the most reliable news can aid scholars in replicating our data collection strategy. In certain cases when the shooting failed to garner adequate national media coverage, we relied on regional news companies to collect information, including the LA Times, The Denver Post, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, and The Seattle Times. Our casefiles ranged from as few as 1 to 19 articles, averaging five articles per mass shooting (median = 4), thereby laying the groundwork to accomplish the aims of the current research.

The date of news reports following a mass shooting is critically important, given that over time there is more accurate and reliable information published. To obtain the most factual information, we collected news articles that were published after the mass shooting occurred and the “dust settled” (Freilich et al., 2022, p. 6). In particular, the collection of news articles occurred in 2020 and 2021. All of the mass shootings analyzed in the current study occurred from 2009 to 2019. Thus, there was a large gap (i.e., months to multiple years for most cases) between the mass shooting and the date the news articles were collected.

To illustrate, the most recent mass shooting we covered was the Jersey City Kosher Market Shooting which occurred on December 10th, 2019. We collected 12 news reports from the New York Times over a year later (December 8th, 2020). Of these articles, three were published on the day of the shooting, three were published the day after the shooting, three were published 2 days after the shooting, one was published 5 days after the shooting, one was published roughly 2 weeks after the shooting, and the remaining one was published in January of 2020. Important to note that three of these articles were updated by The New York Times following their original publication, which is common in mass shooting reporting when more information is exposed.

We recognize that news reports that are published the days after a mass shooting can potentially lack information that would ultimately impact our data. However, we obtained the news articles months after they were originally published, rather than collecting articles during or shortly after the incidents. We see our collection period from 2020 to 2021 as a strength of the current study, given several of the articles published shortly following the shooting had been updated by the news outlet to reflect the most reliable information. Indeed, in all the mass shootings we reviewed the “dust settled” and the articles we obtained to construct the qualitative storylines were the most accurate and reliable information provided by new sources we could obtain (Freilich et al., 2022).

Constructing Qualitative “Storylines”

Drawing from the qualitative casefiles, we then crafted event narratives to capture the mass shootings’ antecedent motivational and situational circumstances by using prior research as a general guide (see Agnew, 2006b; Katz, 1988; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; Luckenbill, 1977; Sacco & Kennedy, 2002). Again, our attention to reputable news outlets was beneficial here because entities like the New York Times and Washington Post have the resources to conduct in-depth investigative reporting on the circumstances leading to the mass shooting. That is, reliable news media, especially in democratic societies, tends to document what matters most to the public interest (Turkel et al., 2021), and often this involves contextual insights about why the mass shooting occurred from interviews with witnesses, criminal justice actors, and other key informants (see Ettema et al., 1998; Hamilton, 2017 on investigative journalism).

Moreover, most crime-related investigative journalism remains dependent on the criminal justice system’s processing of the case, from crime scene investigations to the courts and official sentencing (see Parkin & Gruenewald, 2017). As such, the rich and detailed nature of these news publications can provide valuable qualitative materials for examining the precursors to crime, including mass violence. However, we are careful to point out that our methods and materials remain vulnerable to limitations like any other qualitative study. We caution readers in interpreting this study as the “reality” of mass shooting incidents. Instead, the data represent one reality—the one resembling the known public record—and our findings should be interpreted as such.

In constructing qualitative storylines from media reports, we included direct quotations from the respective perpetrators of the shooting when available. There were direct quotations included in the storylines from the perpetrators in a variety of ways, including passages written by the perpetrator before the incident (e.g., manifesto, suicide notes), descriptions of what the perpetrator said during the incident from survivors of the shooting, and direct quotes from the perpetrator during the aftermath and court procedures. The last type of direct quotation only occurred in mass shootings where the perpetrator was alive after the incident.

The number of direct quotations provided from the media reports varied from perpetrator to perpetrator, with some having multiple direct quotations and others having 0. For example, the mass shooter of the Isla Vista mass shooting (Case 17) left behind a detailed 140-page manifesto and much of the media provided direct quotes, whereas there was very little reported about anything said directly by the mass shooter of the Pennsylvania Hotel Bar Shooting (Case 34). Developing theory on individual-level behavior solely based on the perspective of news reporters was not our preliminary strategy, as the current study is not a media analysis. Rather, we included direct quotes from the perpetrators when available as this is stronger data in recognizing that even trustworthy news articles can have political perspectives.

We drew heavily on Agnew’s (2006b) “storylines” concept, which mirrors that of Kubrin and Weitzer’s (2003) homicide narrative approach and Allison and Klein’s (2021) research, who successfully employed criminal event narratives (see Sacco & Kennedy, 2002). In recognizing the importance of the influence of background factors on situational factors, Agnew (2006b) argued that storylines “can help us better understand the effect of background and situational factors on crime, better explain the variation in background and especially situational variables, and better control crime” (p. 120). The storyline methodology utilized in the current study parallels a growing movement in criminology to understand the narrative of offenders and stories of crime (see Carbone-Lopez et al., 2012; Maruna & Liem, 2021; Presser, 2009; Presser & Sandberg, 2019)

Like Agnew (2006b), we define mass shooting storylines broadly as “interrelated set[s] of events and conditions that increase the likelihood. . .” of someone committing a mass shooting (p. 121). However, we differ somewhat from Agnew (2006b) by extending the scope of our storylines beyond the immediate triggers for crime to include more distal background elements and proximate contextual factors that play a larger role in generating mass violence. Thus, we examine the relevant personal background social, interpersonal, and situational factors that coalesce to generate mass violence incidents. The intent of these storylines is to capture salient and objective events and other features of mass shooters’ lives associated with a temporary risk for violence (see also Agnew, 2006b; Agnew & Messner, 2015), buttressed against the shooters’ background and the situations immediately preceding mass shootings.

We relied on GST as a blueprint for studying the objective events and conditions most conducive to mass violence from our case files. In essence, GST narrows down the relevant motivational structures and processes leading to violent incidents. Upon repeatedly reading the qualitative case files, we systematically extracted known criminogenic strains associated with each mass shooting, including available data on individuals: (a) failure to obtain status, money, and success, or fulfill the expectations of traditional masculinity scripts, (b) loss of loved ones, marriage, property, valuables, social status, or success, and (c) negative interpersonal interactions like prior victimizations, abuse, bullying, social isolation, or generally harsh treatment by others.

GST also maintains that violence is beneficial only for certain individuals over others, especially when their capacity to tolerate life’s strains is particularly weak or if they are predisposed to violence (Agnew, 2006a). Therefore, when known, we also collected information on the shooter’s background characteristics (e.g., history of prior violence, psychological issues, and fascination with guns and violence) to further contextualize the narratives. In the end, we created 63 unique storylines of public mass shootings that systematically encapsulate their antecedent motivational roots, situated violent transactions, and aftermath stages.

Analytic Strategy and Coding of the Qualitative Themes

Given the completed storylines, we employed thematic analysis and systematic re-readings of the material to examine demonstrations of strained masculinity in mass shootings. All cases were hand-coded within Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. Our strategy drew from Allison and Klein’s (2021) investigation of situational indicators of hegemonic masculinity to obtain sensitizing concepts for our coding scheme (Blumer, 1954). Concerning code development and the process of theme development, we drew heavily on the themes previously constructed by Allison and Klein (2021) while simultaneously taking a deductive approach which allowed for the overlap of themes within a single mass shooting.

Every author engaged in this process, meeting to discuss the extent to which conceptions of hegemonic masculinity played a role in producing mass shooting occurrences. The 63 cases analyzed were more heterogeneous than anticipated, and thus we did not reach a point of saturation in the data. Indeed, each case had a relatively unique storyline with dynamic background factors. In total, the three unique themes previously identified by Allison and Klein (2021) were also shown to illustrate the etiological significance of strained masculinity as it relates to mass shootings.

First, we identified responses to masculinity challenges (Cohen’s kappa = 0.61; p < .01) in cases where violence occurred wholly or partly from challenges to masculinity. Examples of these strains include rejection by women, financial strain, and loss of employment. Second, we identified the pursuit of hegemonic masculinity through “sport” (Cohen’s kappa = 0.88; p < .001) in which mass violence perpetration was closely tied to the shooter’s prior obsession with violence, recreational weapons use, or methodical attack planning. Third, the pursuit of hegemonic masculinity through controlling space (Cohen’s kappa = 0.62; p < .01) was identified in cases where violence occurred due to strain linked to power and control over physical or social space.

During the iterative process, we identified many cases that demonstrated multiple strained masculinity themes and did not fit neatly into a sole strained masculinity theme. Thus, our coding of the qualitative themes considered the overlap of themes in mass shootings. This approach expands on the qualitative coding process of strained masculinity themes used by Allison and Klein (2021). We suspect the situational and contextual factors of mass shootings are more complex than anti-homeless homicides, which was reflected in multiple cases representing multiple strained masculinity themes. Of the 63 cases coded, there was evidence of multiple strained masculinity themes in 29 cases, while only 28 cases demonstrated a single theme, and six cases fell outside the scope of our themes (i.e., negative/outlier cases). In the section that follows, we present the findings from our qualitative analysis.

Findings

Table 1 summarizes the data’s key perpetrator and incident characteristics. The gender gap in mass shootings was prominent in the cases we reviewed, with over 98% of the cases being committed by men. This maps with other work that finds roughly 94% to 97% of mass shootings are committed by men (Fox & Levin, 2017; Schmuhl & Capellan, 2020) and further demonstrates how our sample is representative of this type of mass violence. Most perpetrators were white (47.62%), followed by Black (19.05%), Latinx (11.11%), Asian (6.35%), and Native American (3.17) perpetrators. 12.70% of the perpetrator’s race was coded as other “Other” or unknown in the Mother Jones dataset.

Table 1.

Univariate Statistics for Public Mass Shootings in the Mother Jones Dataset, 2009-2019 (n = 63).¹

	n	% (mean)	Range
Age of shooter	63	33.60	15-64
Gender of shooter (men)²	61	98.63	0-1
Race of shooter			1-6
White	30	47.62
Black	12	19.05
Latinx	7	11.11
Asian	4	06.35
Native American	2	03.17
Other	8	12.70
Total victims	63	25.95	4-604
Total fatalities	63	08.84	3-58
Total injured	63	17.11	0-546
Firearm³			1-3
Rifle	25	39.68
Shotgun	6	09.52
Handgun	32	50.79
Location⁴			1-10
Commercial or other public area	26	41.27
Business or manufacturing	12	19.05
School	8	12.70
Hospital/medical	2	03.17
Military	5	07.94
Religious	4	06.35
Residential	3	04.76
Municipal site	1	01.59
Airport	1	01.59
Other	1	01.59

n = number of cases; % = percent; range = minimum to maximum value.

¹To complete the data set, we filled in all missing values from the original Mother Jones file upon collecting additional open-source information for our qualitative storylines.

²Reference category is women (n = 2; 3.17%).

³Employing the hierarchy rule, we coded the most lethal firearm type in cases involving two or more firearms.

⁴We recoded Location into the 10 nominal categories shown above to provide more transparency upon collecting additional news articles. Note that “residential” refers to a residential area (e.g., apartment complex) and not a private residence.

The mass shootings we reviewed in the current study averaged 8 deaths, 17 injured, and 25 total victims per incident. The Las Vegas Strip massacre was the most violent, with 58 fatalities and 546 injured people. The firearms used by the perpetrators included handguns (50.79%), rifles (39.68%), and shotguns (9.52%). The shootings occurred in various locations, with most being committed in commercial and other public areas (41.27%).

To better understand the nature of mass shootings and the degree to which the strained masculinity framework explains this type of violence, example narratives are provided for each of the three strained masculinity themes. Below, each category is discussed in the context of prior literature and the strained masculinity framework. In addition, we discuss cases with multiple strained masculinity themes and our negative case analysis.

Strained Masculinity Themes

Response to masculinity challenges (61.90%)

Many mass shooting incidents involve offenders who experienced strain because of challenges to their masculinity (n = 39). These challenges to masculinity included experiences such as rejection by women, financial strain, and/or loss of employment. In response to the strained masculinity experienced by these offenders, they engaged in acts of mass violence in hopes of restoring their pursuit for, and commitment to, hegemonic masculine ideals.

Two years before the shooting, the 36-year-old perpetrator began withdrawing from family and friends, buying handguns and ammunition, and training with a handgun. Former coworkers noted that he often became very frustrated with being shifted from one job to another. On the day of the shooting, the suspect finished his shift at a small family-owned company that specialized in making interior signs when he was informed that after working there for 12 years, he no longer had a job with the company due to issues of tardiness, outbursts, and other problems. He responded by saying “Oh really” and immediately pulled out a 9mm Glock handgun and began shooting employees in the front office area, specifically singling some individuals out. Then, he walked to the loading dock to shoot coworkers there. In total, the perpetrator murdered six and injured one, and then committed suicide shortly after. (Case 19, Accent Signage Systems Shooting)

In the narrative above, the perpetrator encountered a direct challenge to his masculinity when, after 12 years of loyalty to the same company, he was called into the office and fired. Considering all his years of hard work at the company and the importance placed on hegemonic masculine ideals about men being hardworking and fully employed, the offender likely perceived this firing as a sign of disrespect and to “save face” (Luckenbill, 1977), the offender pulled out a gun and fired on his colleagues. There was observable evidence of this type of strained masculinity in other cases as well, including the Harry Pratt Co. Warehouse Shooting (Case 32) and the Florida Awning Manufacturer Shooting (Case 48).

Prior research has demonstrated how some men who fail to meet society’s standards of masculinity may turn to guns and violence as an alternative path for performing masculinity (Britton, 2011; Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Perpetrators, such as the one described in the narrative above, may use violence as a mechanism for not only physically establishing dominance but also symbolically in that gun ownership may allow men to emphasize their role as protectors with women and children (whom they protect) and to other men (whom they protect themselves against) (Carlson, 2015). To be sure, the connections between masculinity and gun ownership are complex, and we cannot assume that all aggressors will obtain firearms for protection. Indeed, some shooters may procure guns merely for lethal intentions (see Kleck, 2017). Whether used for protection or perpetration, firearms in the hands of aggressors often symbolize power, dominance, coercion, and control (Fagan & Wilkinson, 1998; Polk, 1994; Sheley & Wright, 1995), characteristics that dovetail with the core tenets of masculine ideals. Acts of mass violence may restore a perpetrator’s pursuit and commitment to hegemonic masculine ideals.

Notably, the perpetrator also had a history of untreated mental health issues. Prior research on masculinity and health behaviors has demonstrated how men often view health care utilization as feminine and often use health care beliefs and behaviors to demonstrate hegemonic masculine ideals, such as a refusal to admit when they are in pain and the suppression of their health needs (Courtenay, 2000). In doing so, men reinforce the idea that they are stronger than women, not as vulnerable as women, and that their bodies are superior to women’s bodies.

Demonstrating masculinity through “sport” (33.33%)

A third of mass shooters demonstrated a fascination with violence and/or guns before the shooting, and actively sought and planned their mass murders (n = 21). Many mass shooters engaged in violence as a sport to prove they can fight, demonstrating an illegitimate channel for achieving masculinity. In these cases, strain resulted from the lack of legitimate channels for achieving masculinity, and thus the perpetrators demonstrated and displayed their masculinity through mass violence.

After leaving a bar in the area around midnight, the perpetrator returned to the district carrying a rifle with a high-capacity magazine geared up in a tactical vest and hearing protection. He murdered 9 people and injured 27 others within 32 seconds. The perpetrator had a pattern of interest in violence as a sport. In high school, the perpetrator constructed a “hitlist” that outlined threats of physical and sexual violence against other students. Students remember him making dark and violent jokes, including riffs about “bodily harm.” In a previous relationship, he had shown a video of another mass shooting on a first date and later discussed that he wanted to “hurt a lot of people.” (Case 2, Dayton Entertainment District Shooting)

This perpetrator, and many others, were obsessed with violence before perpetrating incidences of mass violence. For example, people who personally knew the perpetrators in the Santa Monica Rampage (Case 18), the Sun Trust Bank Shooting (Case 35), and the Santa Fe High School Shooting (Case 40) described them as angry, “had an obsession with violence,” and aggressive, respectively. Notably, the pursuit of hegemonic masculinity through sport is not sporadic, it is a pattern of violent behavior and ideology that builds up and results in a group of innocent people being targeted. Indeed, many of these cases are calculated and methodically planned shootings, such as the Aurora theater shooting (Case 20). This perpetrator wore head-to-toe gear including a throat protector and gas mask. He described the shooting as “the mission” and discussed being calm and collected in his recollection of the shooting.

Gender scholars have recognized that men demonstrate and achieve masculinity through traditional sports, which are often considered legitimate channels despite the occurrence of aggression and violence in many sports (Messerschmidt, 2000; Rowe, 1998). Within the context of mass shootings, however, achieving and demonstrating masculinity through sport as violence is an illegitimate channel. These perpetrators may not recognize or have access to the legitimate channels for achieving masculinity, and thus resort to violence.

Further, many of the perpetrator’s obsession with violence coincided with their fascination with firearms. To demonstrate, the perpetrator in the Seattle Cafe shooting (Case 26) was described as having “a strong interest in guns,” the Rancho Tehama shooter (Case 44) fired hundreds of rounds of gunshots frequently, and the Las Vegas Strip shooter (Case 46) had a stockpile of weapons and firearms, including 33 recent additions to his collection in the year before the shooting. Scholars have suggested that men who fail to conform to more traditional standards of masculinity may turn to gun ownership and forms of violence as an illegitimate channel for pursuing masculinity (Britton, 2011; Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Moreover, gun ownership is one expression of hegemonic masculinity among American men (Gahman, 2015); whereas the active and calculated sport of gun violence, such as mass shootings, is an extreme and exaggerated display of hegemonic masculinity.

Demonstrating masculinity through controlling space (26.98%)

These mass shootings involved offenders who, to compensate for their strained masculinity, targeted specific groups of victims to regain power and control over space (n = 17). Space, in this context, is viewed as both physical (e.g., businesses, organizations) and metaphorical (e.g., space that holds symbolic meaning), and may also be general (e.g., the United States) or specific (e.g., workplace or church).

The 21-year-old white perpetrator had a long history of trouble at home and in school, trouble with the law, and racism. Before the shooting, the perpetrator released a 2,500-word manifesto that linked his direct motive to racism, noting specifically that he had to do something because, “black people are killing white people every day on the streets, and they rape white women, 100 white women a day.” On the day of the shooting, he entered the historic Emanuel AME Church, one of the oldest Black congregations in the country, and joined church members in their Wednesday night bible study for an hour. As the members closed their eyes in prayer, the perpetrator pulled out a gun and began shooting. One member told the perpetrator, “You don’t have to do this.” He responded, “I have to do it. You rape our women, and you are taking over our country. And you have to go.” In total, nine members of the church were murdered, and one woman was left alive to tell the “story” of what happened. The perpetrator fled the scene and was apprehended by police the next morning during a traffic stop. (Case 14, Charleston Church Shooting)

Such is the case in the narrative above, offenders who demonstrated masculinity through controlling space were often motivated by prejudicial beliefs about certain groups of people and engaged in fatal acts of bias-motivated violence to rid the space of them. These types of “warning-out practices” (Wachholz, 2005) are often used by bias crime offenders as a way to preserve the “hegemonic bloc” of which white, heterosexual, cisgender, protestant males own and control (Perry, 2001). By targeting a specific victim group because of their identity characteristics (e.g., race, class, gender, sexual orientation), biased crime offenders attempt to regain power and control over not only physical spaces, such as the church in the narrative above but also social space more generally. This type of violence reaches beyond the specific individuals targeted by sending the message to their larger communities that they are not welcome.

Some of the incidents that aligned with this theme involved offenders who held white supremacist ideals, such as the El Paso Walmart mass shooting (Case 27). Importantly, many of these men pursue hegemonic masculinity through violence and control over minority groups. Prior research on the far-right movement has demonstrated that most men associated with this movement have had issues pertaining to employment, either being unemployed, having part-time employment, or being self-employed as semi-skilled laborers (Smith & Damphousse, 2002). This finding suggests that many of these offenders have experienced some sort of economic strain, which violates hegemonic standards of working hard and having financial stability. Acts of violence may be directed at minority groups, whom many of these offenders might blame for their difficult positions in life, to restore their strained masculinity.

Multiple strained masculinity themes (46.03%)

There was observable evidence of multiple strained masculinity themes in close to half of the cases analyzed (n = 29). These mass shootings demonstrated more than one strained masculinity theme to be present. Of these cases, most had two strained masculinity themes, while a few cases had observable evidence of all three themes. For example, two themes were identified in the Umpqua Community College shooting, including both response to masculinity challenges and demonstrating masculinity through “sport.”

A few days before the shooting, the instructor of the writing class had asked the class for a definition of a vocabulary word. The perpetrator offered a response to the instructor’s question, which was wrong and corrected by the instructor. Later that week, the perpetrator returned to the classroom smiling and wearing black clothes and a bulletproof vest. He was heavily armed and proceeded to murder 9 of his classmates, including the instructor, and injure 9 others. The perpetrator then killed himself. Shortly thereafter the police identified a manifesto from the perpetrator that outlined his motive as perceived social rejection and involuntary celibacy and his growing interest in violence and mass shootings. Further reporting on the case revealed the perpetrator’s preoccupation with handguns, rifles, and shooting range. In an online blog post the perpetrator wrote “Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight” just a month before the shooting (Case 13, Umpqua Community College shooting).

In the narrative above, the perpetrator encountered a challenge to his masculinity from his instructor in his English course. He also demonstrated his masculinity through “sport” before the shooting through his fascination with violence and guns and ultimately during the shooting given the intentional arming with guns and the meticulously written manifesto. This narrative illuminates the utility of using a strained masculinity framework to understand mass shootings. It also demonstrates the complexity of mass shootings, given multiple strained masculinity themes were needed to understand the events.

Further underscoring how complex the situational and contextual factors that cause mass shootings are, some cases demonstrated all three strained masculinity themes. To demonstrate, the perpetrator in the Isla Vista mass murder (Case 17) discussed the rejection he faced by women (response to masculinity challenges), methodically planned and prepared (i.e., went to the shooting range) for the “Day of Retribution” which was illuminated in his manifesto titled “My Twisted World: The Story of . . .”⁶ (demonstrating masculinity through “sport”), and targeted the Alpha Phi sorority house at the University of California, a social and symbolic space for young women (demonstrating masculinity through controlling space). This case, and others, illuminate the multidimensional interaction of perceived strains and masculinity in perpetrators of mass shooters.

Negative Case Analysis

Indicators of strained masculinity were absent in six of the mass shooting cases we reviewed (9.5%). Although this may be a byproduct of limited open-source reporting, closer inspection of the perpetrators’ characteristics is informative. For instance, they were heterogeneous in their racial and ethnic backgrounds—including White (n = 2), Latinx (n = 2), Black (n = 1), and Native American (n = 1) shooters—and were disproportionately male (4 out of 6). However, every female-perpetrated mass shooting (n = 2) was encapsulated here, further stressing our thesis that strained masculinity may be necessary for shaping gendered pathways to mass violence offending.

Despite the heterogeneity, nearly every shooter in these outlier cases (sans one) suffered from psychological or emotional troubles before opening fire, such as paranoid delusions or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The relationship between mental illness, mental health treatment, and masculinity are well-known in the literature (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Boysen, 2017; Brooks, 2001). Just as hegemonic masculinity socialization can differentially influence men’s aggression, those same processes may shape their perceptions of mental illness or decisions to seek care. For instance, if baked into one’s socialization are characteristics like independence, emotional insensitivity, and toughness, men may be less likely to seek support, utilizing instead self-reliance or alternative coping mechanisms (e.g., alcohol or drugs) that fail to address the underlying problem. While beyond the scope of the current analysis to unpack these interconnected issues, the relevance of strained masculinity as it intersects with mental health remains an important consideration in understanding mass violence perpetration.⁷

Discussion and Conclusion

Summary of Key Findings

Consistent with the commonly identified gender gap in offending (Schwartz et al., 2009; Steffensmeier et al., 2005), men are responsible for well over 90% of mass shootings in America (Follman et al., 2019; Fox & Levin, 2017). Despite the recent proliferation of mass violence research in criminology, few have directly examined this extreme gap. Fewer still have explored the theoretical reasons why men commit mass shootings at much higher rates than women. Drawing on Allison and Klein’s (2021) concept of strained masculinity, we extend prior research by proposing and qualitatively examining whether the theoretical integration of Agnew’s (2006a, 2006b) GST with masculinity theories (Connell, 1995; West & Zimmerman, 1987) would be a valuable approach to understand the gender gap in mass shootings (Table 2).

Table 2.

Summary of Qualitative Findings (n = 63).

	n	% of cases
Strained masculinity themes
Response to Masculinity Challenges	39	61.90
Demonstrating Masculinity Through “Sport”	21	33.33
Demonstrating Masculinity Through Controlling Space	17	26.98
Cases with Multiple Strained Masculinity Themes	29	46.03
Negative Cases	6	9.5

Indeed, despite the presence of a few outlier cases, our analysis found support for using the concept of strained masculinity when examining the situational and motivating circumstances of mass shootings. We observed, for instance, that a substantial proportion of this violence relates to shooters responding to challenges of masculinity, their pursuit of hegemonic masculinity through sport, or their pursuit of hegemonic masculinity via controlling space. However, our replication of Allison and Klein’s (2021) qualitative coding process found considerable overlap across the strained masculinity themes, indicating that the antecedents of mass shootings likely embody a complex intersection of multiple situational and contextual factors. Overall, our research highlights the nuances of mass violence while illustrating the utility of integrating theories of masculinity with orthodox criminology to enhance the discipline’s explanatory power and scope.

Limitations of the Current Research

In any study, the use of news media has the potential for political bias to impact the results. While our study was not a content analysis of the media’s representation of mass shootings, it did utilize news articles to construct storylines of mass shootings, which were ultimately coded for themes of strained masculinity (Agnew, 2006b; Allison & Klein, 2021). Thus, we recognize the impact of political bias as a potential limitation of the current study. Importantly, we attempted to rectify this by drawing on the most reliable national news outlets (Otero, 2020), and we included direct quotes in the storylines from the perpetrators when available.

The use of direct quotes from perpetrators would be the preferred data source when developing theories at the individual level. However, relying on actual quotes would have severely reduced our sample and inhibited our methodological approach of using storylines. The only storylines that include information on the precursors, the incident, and the aftermath would be in circumstances where some type of manifesto or suicide note was left behind. Analyzing manifestos and suicide notes of mass shooters has gained traction as a useful methodological tool in the literature in recent years (see Myketiak, 2016; Pfaffendorf et al., 2021; Vito et al., 2018). We see this method as a valuable approach for future research that examines integrated theories such as strained masculinity (Allison & Klein, 2021), but beyond the purview of the current study as it is a distinct and different methodological approach.

Implications of the Current Research

There are several applied and theoretical implications that flow from the findings in the current study. First, masculinity needs to be forefront in conversations about mass shootings. The findings herein demonstrate the necessity for unpacking the interaction between general strain and masculinity in research and prevention efforts for mass shootings. For example, there was observable evidence that many perpetrators of mass shootings respond to the challenges of their masculinity with violence. Prior studies have demonstrated the links between threats or challenges to masculinity and stress and maladaptive behavior (Braly et al., 2018; Dahl et al., 2015), and mass shootings are an extreme example of this type of response. Including masculinity’s integral role in the perpetration of mass shootings will enhance academic and public discourse.

Second, given that current constructions of masculinity can have detrimental violent outcomes, a major cultural shift in the construction of masculinity is needed. Notably, many men encounter challenges to their masculinity throughout their lives, but very few respond with mass violence. Nevertheless, the findings herein demonstrate the need for redefining masculinity at a societal level to deconstruct the patriarchal social structure that places masculinity at the top of the hierarchy (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Cultural shifts in the construction of masculinity are slow; however, it is essential to identify the lethal outcomes of masculinity in societies that place masculinity as superior and the cultural standard.

To that point, the American Psychological Association (2018) lists several viable strategies for re-shaping men’s early socialization experiences to encourage healthier masculine identities and protect against violent outcomes. Noteworthy examples include society-wide media campaigns that advertise prosocial coping skills and positive masculinity (Abramsky et al., 2011; Hossain et al., 2014) and developing in-school programs that foster healthy dating and relationship behaviors and challenge harmful masculinity codes and traditional gender norms (Berke & Zeichner, 2016). As the concept of hegemonic masculinity is culturally constructed, embedded in social structure, and learned via early childhood socialization, addressing its root sources can prevent it from spreading to future generations and across society.

Third, future research should consider Allison and Klein’s (2021) concept of strained masculinity when examining the gender gap in crime and other forms of violent offending (i.e., hate crimes, terrorism, intimate partner homicide). The current study demonstrates that integrating criminological theories with gendered theoretical approaches can be helpful to uniquely illuminate the complexity of the situational and motivating circumstances of violence and the gender gap in offending. These promising avenues for future research should continue to consider the overlap of the strained masculinity themes, especially for types of offending that have complex situational and contextual factors. For instance, studies of mass violence would do well to operationalize the three strained masculinity themes we explored in this study by replicating our approach. Future comparative research examining the differential backgrounds of perpetrators who commit mass violence in response to masculinity challenges or demonstrate masculinity through sport or controlling space may help uncover distinct etiologies of this violence.

To conclude, mass shootings are a prevalent and growing social problem in the United States (Lankford, 2016, 2019; Lankford & Silver, 2020), but are poorly understood. One clear finding from prior research is that men overwhelmingly commit most mass shootings in America. As we illustrated in this study, adverse external events (i.e., strain) may uniquely pressure some men into mass violence by challenging internalized norms of hegemonic masculinity that encourage maladaptive coping strategies for dealing with strain. In some cases of mass violence, such “strained masculinity” can emerge as common challenges to the perpetrator’s masculinity that could spark violent responses. For others, mass violence may be an expression of aggressors’ pursuit of hegemonic masculinity through “sport” or their attempts to “control space.” Viewed through the integrated lens of general strain theory and gendered explanations, all three themes illustrate the complex character of mass violence perpetration and the role that hegemonic masculinity plays in shaping violent decisions. Going forward, scholars can build from this study to test more formal hypotheses on the relationship between “strained masculinity” and mass violence, using this information to develop evidence-based prevention strategies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor (Dr. Jesenia Pizarro) and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback and comments and Dr. Kristy Holtfreter for feedback on an earlier draft of this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Skyler Morgan

Notes

Author Biographies

Skyler Morgan (he/him) is a doctoral candidate in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. His research interests include criminological theory, corrections, and gender/sexuality in the criminal justice system. His previous work has been featured in Critical Criminology, Criminal Justice Studies, and Deviant Behavior.

Kayla Allison (she/her) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology & Criminology at the University of Arkansas. Her research focuses on social networks, the intersection of gender, race, class, and crime, child maltreatment, and bias crime.

Brent R. Klein (he/him) is an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. Dr. Klein’s professional and research interests center on generating more refined explanations of aggression and violence and producing empirical evidence to guide public policy. His interdisciplinary research draws from developmental and life-course criminology, situational theories, and decision-making processes to better inform understandings of aggressive actions, including homicide, gun violence, school violence, mass violence, bias crimes, and political extremism. His recent research has appeared in Crime & Delinquency (C&D), Criminology & Public Policy (CPP), the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (JIPV), the Journal of School Violence (JSV), and Justice Quarterly (JQ), among other refereed journals.

References

Abramsky

Watts

C. H.

Garcia-Moreno

Devries

Kiss

Ellsberg

Jansen

H. A.

Heise

(2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 109–109.

Addis

M. E.

Mahalik

J. R.

(2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58(1), 5–14.

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.

Agnew

(2006a). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Roxbury Publications.

Agnew

(2006b). Storylines as a neglected cause of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(2), 119–147.

Agnew

Messner

S. F.

(2015). General assessments and thresholds for chronic offending: An enriched paradigm for explaining crime. Criminology, 53(4), 571–596.

Allison

Klein

B. R.

(2021). Pursuing hegemonic masculinity through violence: An examination of anti-homeless bias homicides. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), 6859–6882.

American Psychological Association. (2018). Harmful masculinity and violence: Understanding the connection and approaches to prevention. https://www.apa.org/pi/about/newsletter/2018/09/harmful-masculinity

Berke

D. S.

Zeichner

(2016). Man’s heaviest burden: A review of contemporary paradigms and new directions for understanding and preventing masculine aggression. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(2), 83–91.

10.

Blumer

(1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.

11.

Booty

O’Dwyer

Webster

McCourt

Crifasi

(2019). Describing a “mass shooting”: The role of databases in understanding burden. Injury Epidemiology, 6(1), 1–8.

12.

Boysen

G. A.

(2017). Explaining the relation between masculinity and stigma toward mental illness: The relative effects of sex, gender, and behavior. Stigma and Health, 2(1), 66–79.

13.

Braly

A. M.

Parent

M. C.

DeLucia

P. R.

(2018). Do threats to masculinity result in more aggressive driving behavior? Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(4), 540–546.

14.

Britton

(2011). The gender of crime. Alta Mira.

15.

Broidy

Agnew

(1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3), 275–306.

16.

Brooks

G. R.

(2001). Masculinity and men’s mental health. Journal of American College Health, 49(6), 285–297.

17.

Carbone-Lopez

Owens

J. G.

Miller

(2012). Women’s “storylines” of methamphetamine initiation in the Midwest. Journal of Drug Issues, 42(3), 226–246.

18.

Carlson

(2015). Mourning Mayberry: Guns, masculinity, and socioeconomic decline. Gender & Society, 29(3), 386–409.

19.

Chermak

S. M.

(1995). Victims in the news: Crime and the American news media. Westview Press.

20.

Chermak

S. M.

Freilich

J. D.

Parkin

W. S.

Lynch

J. P.

(2012). American terrorism and extremist crime data sources and selectivity bias: An investigation focusing on homicide events committed by far-right extremists. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(1), 191–218.

21.

Connell

R. W.

(1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Polity Press.

22.

Connell

R. W.

(1995). Masculinities. Polity Press.

23.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.

24.

Courtenay

W. H.

(2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: a theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1385–1401.

25.

Dahl

Vescio

Weaver

(2015). How threats to masculinity sequentially cause public discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance over women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 242–254.

26.

Danner

M. J.

Carmody

D. C.

(2001). Missing gender in cases of infamous school violence: Investigating research and media explanations. Justice Quarterly, 18(1), 87–114.

27.

Dugan

Distler

(2016). Measuring terrorism. In LaFree

Freilich

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook of the criminology of terrorism (pp. 189–205). Wiley & Blackwell.

28.

Ettema

J. S.

Glasser

T. L.

Glasser

(1998). Custodians of conscience: Investigative journalism and public virtue. Columbia University Press.

29.

Fagan

Wilkinson

D. L.

(1998). Guns, youth violence, and social identity in inner cities. Crime and Justice, 24, 105–188.

30.

Follman

Aronsen

Pan

(2019). A guide to mass shootings in America. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com.

31.

Fox

J. A.

DeLateur

M. J.

(2014). Mass shootings in America: Moving beyond Newtown. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 125–145.

32.

Fox

J. A.

Levin

(2017). Explaining mass shootings: Types, patterns, and theories. In Wilson

L. C.

(Ed.), The Wiley handbook of the psychology of mass shootings (pp. 36–55). Wiley & Blackwell.

33.

Freilich

J. D.

Chermak

S. M.

Belli

Gruenewald

Parkin

W. S.

(2014). Introducing the United States Extremis Crime Database (ECDB). Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(2), 372–384.

34.

Freilich

J. D.

Chermak

S. M.

Connell

N. M.

Klein

B. R.

Greene-Colozzi

E. A.

(2022). Using open-source data to better understand and respond to American school shootings: Introducing and exploring the American School Shooting Study (TASSS). Journal of School Violence, 21, 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2021.1991804

35.

Gahman

(2015). Gun rites: hegemonic masculinity and neoliberal ideology in rural Kansas. Gender Place & Culture, 22(9), 1203–1219.

36.

Greene-Colozzi

E. A.

Silva

J. R.

(2022). Contextualizing firearms in mass shooting incidents: A study of guns, regulations, and outcomes. Justice Quarterly, 39, 697–721.

37.

Gruenewald

J. A.

(2013). Using open-source data to study bias homicide against homeless persons. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2, 538–549.

38.

Hamilton

J. T.

(2017). Democracy’s detectives. Harvard University Press.

39.

Hossain

Zimmerman

Kiss

Abramsky

Kone

Bakayoko-Topolska

Annan

Lehmann

Watts

(2014). Working with men to prevent intimate partner violence in a conflict-affected setting: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial in rural Côte d’Ivoire. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 339–339.

40.

Jennings

W. G.

Piquero

N. L.

Gover

A. R.

Pérez

D. M.

(2009). Gender and general strain theory: A replication and exploration of Broidy and Agnew’s gender/strain hypothesis among a sample of southwestern Mexican American adolescents. Criminal Justice Journal, 37(4), 404–417.

41.

Katz

(1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. Basic Books.

42.

Kimmel

M. S.

Mahler

(2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence: Random school shootings, 1982-2001. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439–1458.

43.

Kleck

(2017). Point blank: Guns and violence in America. Routledge.

44.

Klein

(2005). Teaching her a lesson: Media misses boys’ rage relating to girls in school shootings. Crime, Media, Culture, 1(1), 90–97.

45.

Klein

(2020). Pathways to school shootings: Toward a dual-process developmental-situational model of choice. Michigan State University.

46.

Kubrin

C. E.

Weitzer

(2003). Retaliatory homicide: Concentrated disadvantage and neighborhood culture. Social Problems, 50, 157–180.

47.

Kwon

Cabrera

J. F.

(2019). Income inequality and mass shootings in the United States. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–8.

48.

Lankford

(2015). Mass shooters in the USA, 1966–2010: Differences between attackers who live and die. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 360–379.

49.

Lankford

(2016). Are America’s public mass shooters unique? A comparative analysis of offenders in the United States and other countries. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 40(2), 171–183.

50.

Lankford

(2018). Identifying potential mass shooters and suicide terrorists with warning signs of suicide, perceived victimization, and desires for attention or fame. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(5), 471–482.

51.

Lankford

(2019). Confirmation that the United States has six times its global share of public mass shooters, courtesy of Lott and Moody’s data. Econ Journal Watch, 16(1), 69–82.

52.

Lankford

Adkins

K. G.

Madfis

(2019). Are the deadliest mass shootings preventable? An assessment of leakage, information reported to law enforcement, and firearms acquisition prior to attacks in the United States. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 35(3), 315–341.

53.

Lankford

Hoover

K. B.

(2019). Do the ages of mass shooters matter? Analyzing the differences between young and older offenders. Violence and Gender, 6(1), 11–15.

54.

Lankford

Madfis

(2018). Don’t name them, don’t show them, but report everything else: A pragmatic proposal for denying mass killers the attention they seek and deterring future offenders. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(2), 260–279.

55.

Lankford

Silver

(2020). Why have public mass shootings become more deadly? Assessing how perpetrators’ motives and methods have changed over time. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 37–60.

56.

Levin

Madfis

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

57.

Luckenbill

D. F.

(1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25(2), 176–186.

58.

Madfis

(2018). Insight from averted mass shootings. In Schildkraut

(Ed.), Mass shootings in America: Understanding the debates, causes, and responses (pp. 79–84). Praeger.

59.

Maruna

Liem

(2021). Where is this story going? A critical analysis of the emerging field of narrative criminology. Annual Review of Criminology, 4(1), 125–146.

60.

McFarlane

(2013). Masculinity and criminology: The social construction of criminal man. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52(3), 321–335.

61.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(1993). Masculinities and crime. Rowman & Littlefield.

62.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2000). Becoming “real men” adolescent masculinity challenges and sexual violence. Men and Masculinities, 2(3), 286–307.

63.

Moon

Morash

(2017). Gender and general strain theory: A comparison of strains, mediating, and moderating effects explaining three types of delinquency. Youth & Society, 49(4), 484–504.

64.

Myketiak

(2016). Fragile masculinity: Social inequalities in the narrative frame and discursive construction of a mass shooter’s autobiography/manifesto. Contemporary Social Science, 11(4), 289–303.

65.

Ngo

F. T.

Paternoster

(2013). Stalking strain, concurrent negative emotions, and legitimate coping strategies: A preliminary test of gendered strain theory. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 369–391.

66.

Otero

(2020). Media bias chart: Version 5.0. https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/.

67.

O’Leary

(2016). Mass shooting databases. Information Today, 33(5), 16–17.

68.

Parkin

W. S.

Gruenewald

(2017). Open-source data and the study of homicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(18), 2693–2723.

69.

Perry

(2001). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. Routledge.

70.

Pfaffendorf

Davis

A. P.

Kinney

A. B.

(2021). Masculinity, ritual, and racialized status threat: Examining mass shooter manifestos using structural topic models. Sociological Inquiry, 91(2), 287–312.

71.

Polk

(1994). When men kill: Scenarios of masculine violence. Cambridge University Press.

72.

Posick

Farrell

Swatt

M. L.

(2013). Do boys fight and girls cut? A general strain theory approach to gender and deviance. Deviant Behavior, 34(9), 685–705.

73.

Presser

(2009). The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology, 13(2), 177–200.

74.

Presser

Sandberg

(2019). Narrative criminology as critical criminology. Critical Criminology, 27(1), 131–143.

75.

Rowe

C. J.

(1998). Aggression and violence in sports. Psychiatric Annals, 28(5), 265–269.

76.

Sacco

V. F.

Kennedy

(2002). The criminal event: Perspectives in space and time (2nd ed.). Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

77.

Schwartz

Steffensmeier

Zhong

Ackerman

(2009). Trends in the gender gap in violence: Reevaluating NCVS and other evidence. Criminology, 47(2), 401–425.

78.

Schmuhl

Capellan

J. A.

(2020). Gendered massacres: Examining the effects of cultural and structural gender inequality on the incidence of mass public shootings. Violence and Victims, 35(6), 885–905.

79.

Sheley

J. F.

Wright

J. D.

(1995). In the line of fire: Youths, guns, and violence in urban America. Transaction Publishers.

80.

Silva

J. R.

Capellan

J. A.

Schmuhl

M. A.

Mills

C. E.

(2021). Gender-based mass shootings: An examination of attacks motivated by grievances against women. Violence Against Women, 27(12-13), 2163–2186.

81.

Smith

B. L.

Damphousse

K. R.

(2002). American terrorism study: Patterns of behavior, investigation and prosecution of American terrorists: Final report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/193420.pdf

82.

Steffensmeier

Schwartz

Zhong

Ackerman

(2005). An assessment of recent trends in girls’ violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing? Criminology, 43(2), 355–406.

83.

Turkel

Saha

Owen

R. C.

Martin

G. J.

Vasserman

(2021). A method for measuring investigative journalism in local newspapers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(30), e2105155118.

84.

Vito

Admire

Hughes

(2018). Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and violence: considering the Isla Vista mass shooting. NORMA, 13(2), 86–102.

85.

Wachholz

(2005). Hate crimes against the homeless: Warning-out New England style. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32, 141–163.

86.

Webster

D. W.

(2017). The true effect of mass shootings on Americans. Annals of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 749–750.

87.

West

Zimmerman

D. H.

(1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.