Summary: Researchers examine the so‑called “red flags” people associate with those who commit mass killings and consider how realistically we can identify problematic behaviors before someone carries out an attack that harms multiple victims.
Source: The Conversation
After mass shootings, people naturally search for answers. We also want to find the root cause.
When a mass shooting happens, public debate often focuses on mental illness, warning signs and whether intervention could have prevented the violence. Psychiatrist Arash Javanbakht addresses common questions about mental illness, mass murder and possibilities for prevention.
1. Is a person who commits mass murder mentally ill?
Not necessarily. Psychiatry does not have a diagnostic category called “mass murderer,” “terrorist” or “violent person.” Some psychiatric disorders include symptoms such as anger, impulsivity, aggression or lack of empathy that can be associated with violent acts, but there is no single mental illness that is found in all people who commit mass murder.
Conditions that are more commonly linked with violent behavior include substance use disorders and certain personality disorders, especially antisocial personality disorder. In public discussion this is sometimes called “psychopathy.” Characteristics can include disregard for social norms and laws, deceitfulness, impulsivity, aggression, irresponsibility and lack of remorse. This condition is relatively common among incarcerated populations and is less frequently seen or treated in outpatient psychiatric settings, in part because people rarely seek help for traits like lack of conscientiousness.
Another rare but relevant situation is psychosis with paranoid or persecutory delusions, when a person sincerely believes others intend to harm them. Such psychotic conditions are uncommon, but when present they can be associated with violent acts in a small subset of cases.
Most common psychiatric disorders—depression, anxiety disorders, phobias, obsessive‑compulsive disorder, post‑traumatic stress disorder and similar conditions—do not meaningfully increase the risk of violence toward others. Research shows that only a small proportion of violent acts are committed by people with mental illness, and violence itself can arise from many nonpsychiatric factors.
Labeling someone with a diagnosis is only useful when it leads to effective treatment or when it affects legal responsibility. Otherwise, a diagnosis alone does not explain or predict violent behavior. Sometimes an offender may have a mental health condition that is coincidental rather than causative—having depression or eczema alongside violent actions does not mean one caused the other.
2. What is the difference between extremism and mental illness?
Mental illnesses are diagnosable conditions that significantly alter a person’s thoughts, emotions or behavior and cause dysfunction or distress. Psychiatry’s diagnostic manuals list many such disorders, but they do not include categories for extremism, terrorism or violent ideology. Being attracted to extremist beliefs is not, by itself, a psychiatric diagnosis.
People who are isolated, intensely angry, suggestible, or experiencing difficult social or economic circumstances may be vulnerable to recruitment by violent ideologies, criminal groups or cults. Social influences, group dynamics and manipulation by charismatic leaders can overwhelm normal moral restraints, leading otherwise ordinary people to commit reprehensible acts. This process is social and psychological, not automatically a sign of mental illness.
3. Are there ‘red flag’ behaviors that can indicate risk?
Yes. Past behavior is one of the best predictors of future behavior: a history of violence or abusive behavior raises the probability of later violence. Retrospective reports after a mass killing often reveal that some people recognized troubling signs in the offender’s past, while others were surprised. Hindsight makes pattern recognition easier than the forward task of predicting rare events.
Key warning signs that are associated with higher risk include a documented history of violence or abuse, substance misuse, prior self‑harm or suicide attempts, and in some cases history of paranoid or persecutory beliefs. These factors do not guarantee future violent acts, but they help identify individuals who warrant attention, support and, when necessary, restriction of access to lethal means.
Importantly, limiting access to firearms and other lethal tools does not require a formal psychiatric diagnosis. A demonstrated history of unreasonable violence or credible threats is sufficient grounds for interventions that can reduce the risk of homicide and suicide. While such measures will not prevent every mass shooting, they are likely to reduce many deaths and injuries when implemented alongside broader prevention strategies.
About this crime and psychology research news
Author: Arash Javanbakht
Source: The Conversation
Contact: Arash Javanbakht – The Conversation
Image: The image is in the public domain