Contributions of Biobehavioral Sciences to the Study and Prevention of Firearm Violence: Perceived Threat,Cognitive Control,and Firearm Culture

Abstract

The study and prevention of firearm violence are clearly in the realm of psychology, yet the potential contributions of the biobehavioral sciences to the study of firearm violence are underexplored. Most biobehavioral research has identified individual-level vulnerabilities for violence more broadly, with less focus on how biological risk manifests in the context of firearm culture in particular. Reviewing the literature leads to two main insights: first, the nature of firearm acquisition in the United States (easy access, self-protection motives, and exaggerated perceptions of threat) can itself trigger biobehavioral processes (e.g., threat disruptions in cognitive control) representing a risk for firearm violence. Second, cutting-edge research using digital and biological phenotyping represents a potentially useful approach for tracking and forecasting the momentary risk of firearm violence among high-risk firearm carriers. Policy recommendations informed by the reviewed research can help improve prevention and intervention efforts.

Keywords

firearm suicide gun culture violence cognitive control threat

Firearm violence is rarely studied by neuroscientists. Verona et al. apply biobehavioral research to understand individual risk for firearm violence in the context of U.S. gun culture. This work informs new methods to forecast real-time risk and improve prevention efforts.

Key Points

The study and prevention of firearm violence are clearly in the realm of psychology, yet the potential contributions of the biobehavioral sciences to the study and prevention of firearm violence remain underexplored.

Emotion-based disruptions of cognitive control are central to the concern that mere gun ownership and carrying increases gun violence and suicide risk.

Gun cultural norms in the United States are characterized by fears of a dangerous world, prior experiences of trauma, and the need for self-protection.

The diffuse threat experienced by persons who obtain guns for self-protection can compromise the very cognitive systems that would promote a more measured response to potential confrontations.

Cutting-edge digital and biological phenotyping technologies can track biobehavioral signatures and temporal patterns of risk in real time.

Introduction

Although violent crime in the United States reached its lowest levels in decades by the early 2000s, the rate of deaths and injuries by firearms has seen a sharp increase recently, especially since 2020 when the firearm homicide rate rose by 34% (Kegler et al., 2022). Most homicides (about 75%) and suicides (over 50%) in this country involve a firearm, highlighting the need to restrict firearm availability in the prevention of violence and suicide in the United States (Kegler et al., 2022). Firearm violence affects people across all demographic groups, regions of the country, and stages of life, but has a disproportionate effect on certain groups. Firearm injuries have become the leading cause of death in children (above motor vehicle accidents), firearm homicides disproportionately affect young Black men and boys and communities of color, and firearm suicides are most common among older White men (Boeck et al., 2020; Goldstick et al., 2022). As such, attention to this problem requires a multilevel approach that relies on knowledge and methodologies from different disciplines.

Although epidemiological and public health approaches have taken the lead in gun violence research, the psychological and biobehavioral sciences could play a much larger role than they have so far. Psychological science has identified individual-level propensities for violence and suicide (Davidson et al., 2000; Franklin et al., 2017). At the same time, not enough has been done to apply biobehavioral research to understand firearm violence in consideration of predominant firearm cultural norms in the United States. The current article explicates how biobehavioral approaches can inform the understanding of firearm violence and the underexplored avenues for making larger contributions to prediction and policy reform.

Anticipatory Threat and Firearm Acquisition in the United States

An understanding of some distinctly American aspects of firearm acquisition and carrying set the stage for identifying key biobehavioral processes representing a risk for firearm violence. Although traditionally firearm ownership was motivated by hunting and sport in the United States, the trend has shifted toward a majority citing personal protection motives for ownership (Boine et al., 2020): 75% of firearm owners report self-protection as their primary reason for purchasing a firearm (Azrael et al., 2017). Many firearm owners, particularly White men, subscribe to the idea of an ever-increasingly dangerous world (Stroebe et al., 2017), a belief that often disregards base rates and the actual low risk of victimization for these owners (e.g., Pierre, 2019). Connected to this, some aspects of firearm culture in the United States are closely tied to racial resentment, with qualitative data indicating that many White firearm owners report the fear of hypothetical Black offenders as a motive for concealed carry (Stroud, 2012).

Self-protective motives for firearm carrying are not restricted to White men. Among predominantly Black youth in urban settings, the realistic worries of victimization promote their firearm carrying and use, with retaliation and the need to maintain reputation and respect reported as reasons they carry firearms (Black & Hausman, 2008; Carter et al., 2017). Indeed, higher rates of community violence and endorsement of retaliation motives are associated with dangerous firearm use and shootings among urban youth (Carter et al., 2020). Trauma-related experiences and cognitions may drive firearm carrying among many adolescents living in communities marked by violence (Gaylord-Harden et al., 2022). Knowledge of this larger context for firearm acquisition provides an avenue for elucidating the roles of biobehavioral processes in firearm violence.

Applications of Biobehavioral Research in the Context of Firearm Culture

As recent commentaries allude, exaggerated threat perceptions associated with firearm acquisition in the United States can degrade reasoned action and cognitive control (Buttrick, 2020; Pierre, 2019). Cognitive control refers broadly to a set of top-down cognitive operations, including selective attention, response inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility, important for regulating one's thoughts and behaviors, to meet goals (Botvinick et al., 2001; Miyake & Friedman, 2012). These cognitive control processes are activated when it is necessary to focus attention and determine the optimal behavioral responses to situations where automatic or biased processing is ill-advised (Miller & Cohen, 2001). Cognitive control operations are strongly linked to the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in the brain, particularly the dorsolateral PFC (i.e., the so-called central executive network; Menon, 2011).

Cognitive control has been specifically identified as a protective factor for violence more broadly (Paschall & Fishbein, 2002), and processes underpinned by cognitive control (e.g., behavioral control, impulsivity) have been linked to firearm acquisition and risky carrying (Hicks et al., 2023; Loeber et al., 2012). Cognitive control functions, and the brain areas involved in their functioning, are still undergoing development among adolescents (Luna, 2009), at the same time youth show a stronger drive toward immediate reward than delayed gratification (Steinberg, 2005). Firearm access in times of stress is problematic among those with underdeveloped cognitive capacities, as they are more likely to react to the immediacy of the situation and disregard long-term consequences. Unfortunately, too many youths in urban settings report carrying firearms (Carter et al., 2020), which may explain some of the age-crime curve and higher rates of violent victimization during that developmental period.

Dominant motives for firearm acquisition, notably anticipatory experiences of threat, anger, and trauma, can themselves act to reduce cognitive control. Biobehavioral research indicates that these states directly disrupt the cognitive control functions (e.g., deliberate and planful problem solving) necessary for safe firearm ownership. When confronted with threat or emotional stimuli (whether internal or external), brain regions associated with cognitive control are deprioritized in favor of systems designed to respond over shorter timescales (Arnsten, 1998). The stress response system sends a cascade of signals throughout the body to prepare the organism to respond to the threat (Adolphs, 2013). In the brain, threat exposure is associated with the activation of a network of neural circuits known as the salience network (e.g., amygdala, dorsal anterior cingulate, and anterior insula; Menon, 2015), linked to more reactive responses to the environment. Activation of the salience network can lead to the downregulation of cognitive control networks (Joëls & Baram, 2009). In such a state, immediate cues of reward and punishment are most salient, decreasing the likelihood of reasoned action and consideration of long-term consequences (e.g., Schimmelpfennig et al., 2023). From an evolutionary perspective, prioritizing processes that promote harm avoidance (e.g., heightened vigilance) at the expense of higher-order cognitive operations (e.g., inhibiting impulses, regulating emotions) would be adaptive so one can have enough resources to deal with immediate threats. Once the threat subsides, however, the system reverses its effects and returns to a homeostatic balance (Hermans et al., 2014).

This homeostatic reversal favoring higher-order cognitive control may be delayed or absent among the very individuals who are more likely to carry firearms. Experiences of chronic or diffuse threat, as is often observed in people with a belief in a dangerous world or living in high-crime neighborhoods, can produce states of sustained, heightened vigilance across time. This experience of diffuse threat and extended vigilance activates defensive centers in the brain (e.g., salience network activation) and the priming of faster motor responses, with decreased efficiency of cognitive control systems (Bresin et al., 2023; Verona et al., in press). Combining this heightened anticipatory anxiety with firearm access can result in pernicious consequences if the individual, such as a youth, is further compromised by low cognitive control. As a lab demonstration, adolescent risk-taking is higher among those susceptible to emotional disruption of cognitive control (Botdorf et al., 2017), and higher suicidality is associated with victimization precisely among adolescents who show neurobiological sensitivity to threat (Yang et al., 2023).

As this biobehavioral research implies, emotion-based disruption of cognitive control is central to the concern that mere gun ownership and carrying increase gun violence. The diffuse threat experienced by persons who purchase firearms for self-protection (Stroebe et al., 2017) is compounded by the already heightened state of alertness from being in the mere presence of a firearm (“weapons effect”; Berkowitz & LePage, 1967). Indeed, firearm carrying biases information processing, leading people to misperceive threat cues in the environment (Taylor et al., 2017; Witt & Brockmole, 2012) and to increase the likelihood of potentially-violent behavior (e.g., pointing a firearm at a perceived threat) even when no actual threat is present (Taylor et al., 2017; Taylor & Witt, 2014; Witt & Brockmole, 2012). In essence, firearm carrying can itself compromise the very cognitive systems that would promote a more measured response to potential confrontations. This disruption of cognitive control in the face of perceived threat is relevant to the ways that racial prejudices fuel firearm violence, including when firearm owners make contact with Black or Brown individuals, who are stereotypically linked to violent crime (Ito et al., 2015). The inability to overcome racial biases under perceived threats can result in shootings of unarmed racial minorities by firearm owners and law enforcement.

Difficulties considering long-term consequences in favor of responding to immediate emotions can also result in irreparable harm in the case of firearm suicide. Fully 80–90% of suicide attempts with a firearm are fatal, relative to an overall 13% fatality rate among other suicide attempt methods (Conner et al., 2019; Spicer & Miller, 2000). Firearms therefore provide little room for second chances. Experiences of depression are associated with decreases in cognitive control and inhibition (Kircanski et al., 2012). This means that individuals experiencing substantial distress will have difficulties overcoming impulsive responses to their situation, including tendencies toward suicide or violence, when a firearm is present.

Such distress may be especially risky for certain populations, such as military or law enforcement, who routinely handle firearms. In such cases, these individuals need to overcome their acquired familiarity with weapons and an already-compromised cognitive system, if they are experiencing substantial stress, depression, or posttraumatic symptoms. Thus, firearm suicides are high among military veterans and those in law enforcement (e.g., Mahon et al., 2005; Violanti et al., 2013). In essence, the combination of psychological conditions associated with distress, higher perceived ubiquity of threat, and easy access to a lethal method create a perfect storm that increases the risk of firearm-related violence.

Applications of Biobehavioral Research to Real-Time Risk Tracking

The very factors that often motivate firearm acquisition in the United States., including internal states (e.g., perceived threat) and external contexts (e.g., confrontation, trauma; Bryan et al., 2020; Verona & Bozzay, 2017), also increase the risk of firearm violence. The decision to engage in firearm violence is made more likely when real-world stressors trigger emotional dysregulation among individuals with biobehavioral predispositions and access to a firearm. However, because most individuals characterized as “at-risk” do not go on to perpetrate firearm violence (Bhatt et al., 2023), understanding the conditions that motivate firearm violence will inform more effective strategies to reduce it.

Comprehensively tracking these identified risk processes as they manifest in the real world can further efforts to understand which firearm owners are at risk of perpetrating gun violence, and when. Data from wearable activity monitors (i.e., a Garmin or Fitbit watch) can be used to identify biological (e.g., sleep, heart rate) patterns that predict angry and aggressive behaviors (Bozzay & Verona, 2023). Digital phenotyping, which relies on data derived from smartphone sensors (i.e., location, speech and language patterns) and smartphone usage patterns (i.e., social media data, texting and phone call metrics, typing patterns) can also help identify and predict the user's emotional states (i.e., distressed) and behavior (Martinez-Martin et al., 2018). Confidence in interpretations of these wearable and digital phenotyping data is enhanced when they are paired with participant reports of their experiences and behaviors at the moment. Indeed, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methodologies allow for this integration of digital data and “ground truth” data (from self-reports). EMA involves participants completing a series of brief, smartphone-based questionnaires a few times during the day to capture in-the-moment reports of their experiences as they go about their lives. EMA allows reports of internal experiences, contexts (i.e., access to a firearm, social surroundings), and current cognitive functioning (measured via performance on brief smartphone-based tasks) that often accompany aggressive urges (i.e., thoughts to use a firearm or perpetrate violence) in the participants’ natural world. The EMA data, when combined with ambulatory biological data, can link real-time emotional and cognitive states and behaviors with biobehavioral markers of risk for firearm use.

Such multimethod approaches can also identify temporal patterns in urges and behaviors related to known variability in violence risk (Bryan et al., 2020; Verona & Bozzay, 2017). For example, rates of violence vary by season, day of the week, and time of day: Aggression peaks in the summer and suicide in the spring; suicide and homicide occur most frequently in the late afternoon among young to middle-aged adults (i.e., Rumble et al., 2018; Sisti et al., 2012). Other behaviors associated with violence, such as substance use urges, also show cyclical patterns (Hasler et al., 2012). Although several psychological and social factors likely contribute to these temporal patterns, the disruption of circadian systems (which regulate 24-h cycles of physical, mental, and behavioral changes) also plays a role in violence risk. Disruptions in sleep timing, duration, and quality have been associated with more aggression the next day (Bozzay & Verona, 2023) and are related to suicide attempts involving more violent methods, such as firearms (Rumble et al., 2018). Moreover, circadian systems, including flattening in cortisol rhythms, disruptions in slow-wave brain rhythms, and alterations in connectivity between brain regions implicated in emotional regulation are linked directly to aggression risk (Bronsard & Bartolomei, 2013). The emotional triggers to many violent behaviors, such as cyclical patterns in the timing and severity of negative and positive emotions (Murray et al., 2002), can also track alongside these circadian processes. Pending further research, these circadian-linked processes suggest possibly identifying temporally sensitive markers of risk, information that can be useful in guiding strategies to prevent weapons access when those markers are detected.

The temporal dynamics of risk will not be the same for all firearm owners. Consistent with research findings specific to suicide (Bryan et al., 2020), individuals differ in the risk processes, contexts, temporal progressions, and manifestations of violent behaviors. These individual differences in the emergence of firearm violence risk can be modeled using advanced computational strategies such as machine learning. Machine learning leverages large datasets to identify distinct patterns at the levels of subgroups (e.g., individuals with versus without substance use) and individuals (e.g., specific contexts or situations that matter idiosyncratically for one person). Although less well known in the social sciences, novel analytical approaches such as dynamical systems theory (Butner et al., 2021), a branch of mathematics focused on understanding and modeling complex change processes, can also be used to make sense of large quantities of data. These models help characterize the nature and time course of the risk factors and processes that can shift an individual from a low to a high-risk for violence state (and vice versa). Ultimately, developing risk-prediction models using these methods has the potential to inform efforts to reduce violence by helping determine when shifts in risk occur for persons showing particular predispositions and access to firearms.

Public Policy and Firearm Violence Prevention

Psychological and biobehavioral research focused on emotion and cognitive processes could provide important clues to guide the development and implementation of policies, programs, and interventions aimed at reducing firearm injury and mortality. At the societal level, such research could inform changes in public education and communication strategies that mitigate the psychological vulnerabilities (e.g., threat sensitivity, anticipatory anxiety) associated with firearm carrying. For example, news media coverage of violence and aggression using sensationalized language and repeated descriptions or graphic depictions of violence can increase anxiety and stress-related responses among viewers (Hopwood & Schutte, 2017). The 24-h news cycle, social media, and wide availability of smartphones provide immediate and continuous access to these stories; all this magnifies public awareness of events that otherwise would have been known only to local or regional communities (Thompson et al., 2019; Vasterman et al., 2005). These portrayals likely bias risk appraisals across entire populations. Indeed, heightened uncertainty and fear stemming from the combined effects of a global pandemic, social unrest catalyzed by the public release of videos capturing multiple instances of police violence, and the violent insurrection surrounding election conspiracy theories may have fueled the firearm purchase surge in 2020–2021 (Hicks et al., 2023; Miller et al., 2022). The research focused on how media reporting and communication methods can contribute to firearm violence, whether directly or indirectly, could guide the development of communication guidelines that mitigate these probably unintended effects.

Policies influencing firearm availability also correlate with firearm injury and mortality (Smart et al., 2023). As biobehavioral evidence indicates, access to firearms should be limited among those most vulnerable to reactive use of a firearm (e.g., compromised cognitive control) and during periods of most vulnerability (e.g., mental health crises, ideation). Purchase age requirements, waiting periods, and child access prevention laws, for example, reduce firearm suicide; whereas prohibiting firearm access to domestic violence offenders and removing firearms from those at current risk to self and others (through extreme risk-protection orders) can reduce firearm violence (Webster & Wintemute, 2015). Mortality-reduction effects of these policies operate partly through psychological and biobehavioral processes. As noted, firearm possession can decrease response inhibition, a process that may underlie the association of concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws with increased violence and homicide. Response disinhibition, in turn, reinforces exaggerated threat perceptions (Grupe & Nitschke, 2013), implicating a possible biobehavioral feedback loop. Improved understanding of these processes could lead to new public education and messaging efforts that may be able to change cultural norms and beliefs surrounding firearm access.

Conclusion

More than 45,000 firearm-related deaths occur each year in the United States; a much higher number of individuals experience firearm-related injuries (Kegler et al., 2022). Research on firearm-related injury and mortality has historically adopted an epidemiological frame, revealing valuable information about general risk factors for firearm-related violence. Much less research has sought to leverage extant research on biobehavioral processes, individual-level determinants, and contextual motivators of firearm carrying and use as they are maintained by firearm cultural norms in the United States. As a result, understanding of the conditions under which firearm violence emerges remain limited, hindering efforts to develop and implement novel strategies to prevent these outcomes. Psychological and biobehavioral studies hold considerable promise for filling these gaps and developing technologies to predict and prevent violence.

Footnotes

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.

References

Adolphs

(2013). The biology of fear. Current Biology, 23(2), R79–R93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.055

Arnsten

A. F.

(1998). The biology of being frazzled. Science, 280(5370), 1711–1712. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5370.1711

Azrael

Hepburn

Hemenway

Miller

(2017). The stock and flow of US firearms: Results from the 2015 national firearms survey. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(5), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2017.3.5.02

Berkowitz

LePage

(1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(2p1), 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025008

Bhatt

M. P.

Heller

S. B.

Kapustin

Bertrand

Blattman

(2023). Predicting and preventing gun violence: An experimental evaluation of READI Chicago (No. w30852). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Black

Hausman

(2008). Adolescents’ views of guns in a high-violence community. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(5), 592–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408322142

Boeck

M. A.

Strong

Campbell

(2020). Disparities in firearm injury: Consequences of structural violence. Current Trauma Reports, 6(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40719-020-00188-5

Boine

Siegel

Ross

Fleegler

E. W.

Alcorn

(2020). What is gun culture? Cultural variations and trends across the United States. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0520-6

Botdorf

Rosenbaum

G. M.

Patrianakos

Steinberg

Chein

J. M.

(2017). Adolescent risk-taking is predicted by individual differences in cognitive control over emotional, but not non-emotional, response conflict. Cognition and Emotion, 31(5), 972–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1168285

10.

Botvinick

M. M.

Braver

T. S.

Barch

D. M.

Carter

C. S.

Cohen

J. D.

(2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624

11.

Bozzay

M. L.

Verona

(2023). Linking sleep and aggression: Examining the role of response inhibition and emotional processing. Clinical Psychological Science, 11(2), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026221100235

12.

Bresin

Mekawi

McDonald

J. B.

Bozzay

M. L.

Heller

Verona

(2023). Threat effects on attention networks in individuals with a history of externalizing behaviors. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 183, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.11.002

13.

Bronsard

Bartolomei

(2013). Rhythms, rhythmicity and aggression. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 107(4), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2013.03.002

14.

Bryan

C. J.

Butner

J. E.

May

A. M.

Rugo

K. F.

Harris

J. A.

Oakey

D. N.

Bryan

A. O.

(2020). Nonlinear change processes and the emergence of suicidal behavior: A conceptual model based on the fluid vulnerability theory of suicide. New Ideas in Psychology, 57, 100758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2019.100758

15.

Butner

J. E.

Bryan

C. J.

Munion

A. K.

Tabares

J. V.

(2021). A dynamical systems approach to examining the efficacy of suicide-focused interventions. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 51(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12675

16.

Buttrick

(2020). Protective gun ownership as a coping mechanism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619898847

17.

Carter

P. M.

Mouch

C. A.

Goldstick

J. E.

Walton

M. A.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Resnicow

Cunningham

R. M.

(2020). Rates and correlates of risky firearm behaviors among adolescents and young adults treated in an urban emergency department. Preventive Medicine, 130, 105891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105891

18.

Carter

P. M.

Walton

M. A.

Goldstick

Epstein-Ngo

Q. M.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Mercado

M. C.

Cunningham

R. M.

(2017). Violent firearm-related conflicts among high-risk youth: An event-level and daily calendar analysis. Preventive Medicine, 102, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.011

19.

Conner

Azrael

Miller

(2019). Suicide case-fatality rates in the United States, 2007 to 2014: A nationwide population-based study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 171(12), 885–895. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-1324

20.

Davidson

R. J.

Putnam

K. M.

Larson

C. L.

(2000). Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of emotion regulation–a possible prelude to violence. Science, 289(5479), 591–594. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5479.591

21.

Franklin

J. C.

Ribeiro

J. D.

Fox

K. R.

Bentley

K. H.

Kleiman

E. M.

Huang

Nock

M. K.

(2017). Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 187–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000084

22.

Gaylord-Harden

Alli

Davis-Stober

C. P.

Henderson

(2022). A trauma-informed approach to understanding firearm decision-making among Black adolescents: implications for prevention. Preventive Medicine, 165, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107305

23.

Goldstick

J. E.

Cunningham

R. M.

Carter

P. M.

(2022). Current causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 386(20), 1955–1956. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

24.

Grupe

D. W.

Nitschke

J. B.

(2013). Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: An integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(7), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3524

25.

Hasler

B. P.

Smith

L. J.

Cousins

J. C.

Bootzin

R. R.

(2012). Circadian rhythms, sleep, and substance abuse. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 16(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2011.03.004

26.

Hermans

E. J.

Henckens

M. J.

Joëls

Fernández

(2014). Dynamic adaptation of large-scale brain networks in response to acute stressors. Trends in Neurosciences, 37(6), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2014.03.006

27.

Hicks

B. M.

Vitro

Johnson

Sherman

Heitzeg

M. M.

Durbin

Verona

(2023). Who bought a gun during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States?: Associations with QAnon beliefs, right-wing political attitudes, intimate partner violence, antisocial behavior, suicidality, and mental health and substance use problems. https://osf.io/x7vsb/.

28.

Hopwood

T. L.

Schutte

N. S.

(2017). Psychological outcomes in reaction to media exposure to disasters and large-scale violence: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000056

29.

Ito

T. A.

Friedman

N. P.

Bartholow

B. D.

Correll

Loersch

Altamirano

L. J.

Miyake

(2015). Toward a comprehensive understanding of executive cognitive function in implicit racial bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 187–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038557

30.

Joëls

Baram

T. Z.

(2009). The neuro-symphony of stress. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2632

31.

Kegler

S. R.

Simon

T. R.

Zwald

M. L.

Chen

M. S.

Mercy

J. A.

Jones

C. M.

Mercado-Crespo

M. C.

Blair

J. M.

Stone

D. M.

Ottley

P. G.

Dills

(2022). Vital signs: Changes in firearm homicide and suicide rates — United States, 2019–2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 71(19), 656–663. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7119e1

32.

Kircanski

Joormann

Gotlib

I. H.

(2012). Cognitive aspects of depression. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(3), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1177

33.

Loeber

Menting

Lynam

D. R.

Moffitt

T. E.

Stouthamer-Loeber

Stallings

Pardini

(2012). Findings from the Pittsburgh youth study: Cognitive impulsivity and intelligence as predictors of the age–crime curve. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(11), 1136–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.08.019

34.

Luna

(2009). Developmental changes in cognitive control through adolescence. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 37, 233–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(09)03706-9

35.

Mahon

M. J.

Tobin

J. P.

Cusack

D. A.

Kelleher

Malone

K. M.

(2005). Suicide among regular-duty military personnel: A retrospective case-control study of occupation-specific risk factors for workplace suicide. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(9), 1688–1696. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.9.1688

36.

Martinez-Martin

Insel

T. R.

Dagum

Greely

H. T.

Cho

M. K.

(2018). Data mining for health: Staking out the ethical territory of digital phenotyping. NPJ Digital Medicine, 1(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-018-0075-8

37.

Menon

(2011). Large-scale brain networks and psychopathology: A unifying triple network model. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.08.003

38.

Menon

(2015). Salience network. In Toga

A. W.

(Eds.), Brain mapping: An encyclopedic reference (pp. 597–611). Academic Press: Elsevier.

39.

Miller

E. K.

Cohen

J. D.

(2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 167–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167

40.

Miller

Zhang

Azrael

(2022). Firearm purchasing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the 2021 national firearms survey. Annals of Internal Medicine, 175(2), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-3423

41.

Miyake

Friedman

N. P.

(2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429458

42.

Paschall

M. J.

Fishbein

D. H.

(2002). Executive cognitive functioning and aggression: A public health perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00044-6

43.

Pierre

J. M.

(2019). The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning. Palgrave Communications, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z

44.

Rumble

M. E.

Dickson

McCall

W. V.

Krystal

A. D.

Case

Rosenquist

P. B.

Benca

R. M.

(2018). The relationship of person-specific eveningness chronotype, greater seasonality, and less rhythmicity to suicidal behavior: A literature review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 227, 721–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.078

45.

Schimmelpfennig

Topczewski

Zajkowski

Jankowiak-Siuda

(2023). The role of the salience network in cognitive and affective deficits. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17, 1133367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1133367

46.

Sisti

Rocchi

M. B.

Macciò

Preti

(2012). The epidemiology of homicide in Italy by season, day of the week and time of day. Medicine, Science and the Law, 52(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1258/msl.2011.010147

47.

Smart

Morral

A. R.

Ramchand

Charbonneau

Williams

Smucker

Cherney

Xenakis

(2023). The science of gun policy: A critical synthesis of research evidence on the effects of gun policies in the United States (Third Edition). RAND Corporation. Also available in print form: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-4.html.

48.

Spicer

R. S.

Miller

T. R.

(2000). Suicide acts in 8 states: Incidence and case fatality rates by demographics and method. American Journal of Public Health, 90(12), 1885–1891. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.90.12.1885

49.

Steinberg

(2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005

50.

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(8), 1071–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217703952

51.

Stroud

(2012). Good guys with guns: Hegemonic masculinity and concealed handguns. Gender & Society, 26(2), 216–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211434612

52.

Taylor

J. E. T.

Witt

J. K.

(2014). Altered attention for stimuli on the hands. Cognition, 133(1), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.019

53.

Taylor

J. E. T.

Witt

J. K.

Pratt

(2017). A different kind of weapon focus: Simulated training with ballistic weapons reduces change blindness. Cogn Res Princ Implic, 2, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0037-0

54.

Thompson

R. R.

Jones

N. M.

Holman

E. A.

Silver

R. C.

(2019). Media exposure to mass violence events can fuel a cycle of distress. Science Advances, 5(4), eaav3502. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3502

55.

Vasterman

Yzermans

C. J.

Dirkzwager

A. J.

(2005). The role of the media and media hypes in the aftermath of disasters. Epidemiologic Reviews, 27(1), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxi002

56.

Verona

Bozzay

M. L.

(2017). Biobehavioral approaches to aggression implicate perceived threat and insufficient sleep: Clinical relevance and policy implications. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(2), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217719910

57.

Verona

McDonald

J. B.

Bozzay

M. L.

(in press). Threat effects on cognitive systems: Testing links to aggression proneness. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001178

58.

Violanti

J. M.

Robinson

C. F.

Shen

(2013). Law enforcement suicide: A national analysis. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health and Human Resilience, 15(4), 289–298.

59.

Webster

D. W.

Wintemute

G. J.

(2015). Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from high-risk individuals. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122516

60.

Witt

J. K.

Brockmole

J. R.

(2012). Action alters object identification: Wielding a gun increases the bias to see guns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1159–1167. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027881

61.

Yang

Jimmy

Jones

E. E.

Kreutzer

K. A.

Bryan

C. J.

Gorka

S. M.

(2023). Neural reactivity to threat impacts the association between bullying victimization and suicide risk in youth. Journal of Psychiatric Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.05.064

Contributions of Biobehavioral Sciences to the Study and Prevention of Firearm Violence: Perceived Threat,Cognitive Control,and Firearm Culture

Abstract

Keywords

Tweet

Key Points

Introduction

Anticipatory Threat and Firearm Acquisition in the United States

Applications of Biobehavioral Research in the Context of Firearm Culture

Applications of Biobehavioral Research to Real-Time Risk Tracking

Public Policy and Firearm Violence Prevention

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References