Exposure to preincident behavior and reporting in college students.

Abstract

Campus targeted violence is preceded by noticeable, alarming behavior, and reporting improvement efforts have been suggested to increase students' willingness to inform campus authorities of forewarning actions. Reporting improvement techniques have been most successful with material appealing to the perceptions of high-risk students (i.e., those likely to observe and not report). The current study examined the characteristics of students that view threatening behavior and lack willingness to report with a large, Midwestern, undergraduate sample (n ϭ 450). Approximately 35% of the sample (i.e., n ϭ 157) indicated observing preincident behavior on campus, and 65% of these individuals (i.e., n ϭ 101) described unwillingness to inform police in the majority of hypothetical threatening situations. Males and students with self-reported delinquency exhibited greater unwillingness to report. Negative feelings toward campus police and high feelings of safety on campus corresponded with unwillingness to report. Students observing preincident behavior had more campus connectedness, negative views of campus police, and fewer feelings of safety on campus. Thus, reporting improvement efforts appears highly important to advancing the violence prevention abilities of campus threat assessment teams. Peer education could generate lasting attitudinal and behavioral change for high-risk students. These strategies could involve highly connected student leaders respected by males and students endorsing delinquency and material formatted in a nonconfrontational manner.

Broadening campus threat assessment beyond mass shootings

“…However, despite the impacts of pre-incident reporting on the threat assessment approach (e.g., nearly all media reports of averted United States primary/secondary school shootings mentioning plots being uncovered following reporting from students, staff, and/or citizens; Daniels et al, 2007), campus pre-incident reporting improvement efforts have not received similar application (Hollister, Scalora, & Hoff, 2014a, Hollister et al, 2014bSulkowski, 2011). Only one discoverable review of a pre-incident reporting intervention has occurred, which included a poster and advertisement campaign on police department websites, frequented campus areas, and newsletters at a large, Midwestern United States university (Bartling, Yardley, & Evans, 2010).…”

“…Large variability was seen in willingness to inform authorities across situations (i.e., 9%-91% for students; 39%-100% for faculty/staff), as students, faculty, and staff were more willing to report in vignettes with multiple behaviors, direct threats, and/or weapons. Thus, pre-incident reporting from collegiate stakeholders has been identified as a vital piece of targeted violence prevention (Hollister et al, 2012;Hollister et al, 2014b;Sulkowski, 2011), but has mostly been reviewed through vignettes that can include participants' unawareness of impactful situational influences and overestimation of helpfulness (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007;Shaffer, Peller, Laplante, Nelson, & Labrie, 2010).…”

“…Within this threat assessment framework, the reporting of pre-incident behavior from collegiate students, faculty, and staff has been reviewed (Hollister, Scalora, Bockoven, & Hoff, submitted for publication;Hollister et al, 2014b;Sulkowski, 2011). Exploration of pre-incident reporting was prompted by examinations of pre-incident observer responses in averted and completed United States primary/ secondary school shootings (Daniels et al, 2007;Pollack, Modzeleski, & Rooney, 2008).…”

“…The impact of threat assessment procedures on general campus violence have not been explored, which corresponds with potentially unwarranted resource competitions between campus targeted violence, sexual assault (Paul & Gray, 2011), stalking (Buhi, Clayton, & Surrency, 2009), and general crime (Selwyn, 2008) prevention efforts. The reporting decisions of pre-incident observers have received limited review (Hollister, Scalora, Hoff, & Marquez, 2014b;Sulkowski, 2011), despite several campus attacks occurring partly due to bystanders failing to extend pre-incident concerns to authorities (Drysdale et al, 2010;Scalora et al, 2010). Thus, further examination of the predictiveness and reporting of pre-incident behavior could enhance the support and the effectiveness of campus threat assessment techniques.…”

Training College Police Officers on PTSD using the DSM-5 as part of an Antiterrorism and Threat Assessment Strategy

“…Their role as firstresponders means that they are actively involved in threat assessments as the incident unfolds. (Hollister, Scalora, Hoff, & Marquez, 2014). As established members of the campus, the institution where they serve allows campus police to remain highly attuned to diverse public safety needs-which can involve mental health, medical, and social services-with access to other critical support systems.…”