About this Research Topic
Mass shootings are a global occurrence (e.g., in many European nations, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand), however, the United States has witnessed a significantly higher number of mass shootings than any other nation worldwide, exceeding the expected quota concerning population size. The apparent senselessness of these crimes has challenged scholars. Whilst one of the most popular monocausal explanations is firearms availability, the other is the influence of severe mental illness.
Assessing the role of severe mental illness in mass shootings presents at least two obstacles. One primary obstacle is the low base rate problem; existing studies often concentrate on a limited number of high-profile cases that may or may not be representative of all mass shooters. Second, defining what constitutes a severe mental illness proves to be a complex task due to evolving diagnostic categories, the multitude of mental disorders, and the base rate of mental illness in the population (approximately half of the U.S. population will meet the criteria for one such disorder at some point in their lives; in Europe, one in four of the respondents reported a lifetime presence of any mental disorder; in any given year in Australia, one in three men reported a lifetime history of any psychiatric disorder; 1 in 5 Canadians experiences a mental illness; in New Zealand almost one in two of people aged 16 and over meeting criteria for a disorder).
While researchers generally agree that mass shootings are not primarily caused by diagnosable psychopathology in shooters, there is a need for further investigation into the role of mental illness in these crimes. Examinations of mass shooters indicate that a nontrivial number of them showed clinical signs such as depression, delusions, and paranoia at various times in their lives. Moreover, to date, there has been limited systematic research exploring the extent to which mental health symptoms serve as a motivating factor for individuals who commit mass shootings.
There is a need to further investigate the role of mental illness in mass shootings and explore what psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians can do to foster evidence-based solutions for preventing mass shootings. This should also be done while avoiding the burden of stigma and social rejection that people recovering from mental illnesses may experience when others assume they are dangerous.
The goal of this research theme is to gather a comprehensive body of research to clarify the current state of knowledge on the role of mental illness and other factors that cause mass shootings.
Articles of interest will address the following questions:
• What are the etiological factors of mass shooting?
• Given the rarity of the phenomenon and the paucity of subjects to examine should we abandon the idea that we can predict mass shootings?
• Is there a link between mental illness and mass shootings?
• Can mental health services be an important sentinel to intercept shooters before they commit a crime?
Specific themes include:
• Theories and concepts to explain mass shooting
• The challenge of predicting mass shooting
• Mental illness and mass shooting
• Evidence-based approaches to preventing mass shooting
Assessing the role of severe mental illness in mass shootings presents at least two obstacles. One primary obstacle is the low base rate problem; existing studies often concentrate on a limited number of high-profile cases that may or may not be representative of all mass shooters. Second, defining what constitutes a severe mental illness proves to be a complex task due to evolving diagnostic categories, the multitude of mental disorders, and the base rate of mental illness in the population (approximately half of the U.S. population will meet the criteria for one such disorder at some point in their lives; in Europe, one in four of the respondents reported a lifetime presence of any mental disorder; in any given year in Australia, one in three men reported a lifetime history of any psychiatric disorder; 1 in 5 Canadians experiences a mental illness; in New Zealand almost one in two of people aged 16 and over meeting criteria for a disorder).
While researchers generally agree that mass shootings are not primarily caused by diagnosable psychopathology in shooters, there is a need for further investigation into the role of mental illness in these crimes. Examinations of mass shooters indicate that a nontrivial number of them showed clinical signs such as depression, delusions, and paranoia at various times in their lives. Moreover, to date, there has been limited systematic research exploring the extent to which mental health symptoms serve as a motivating factor for individuals who commit mass shootings.
There is a need to further investigate the role of mental illness in mass shootings and explore what psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians can do to foster evidence-based solutions for preventing mass shootings. This should also be done while avoiding the burden of stigma and social rejection that people recovering from mental illnesses may experience when others assume they are dangerous.
The goal of this research theme is to gather a comprehensive body of research to clarify the current state of knowledge on the role of mental illness and other factors that cause mass shootings.
Articles of interest will address the following questions:
• What are the etiological factors of mass shooting?
• Given the rarity of the phenomenon and the paucity of subjects to examine should we abandon the idea that we can predict mass shootings?
• Is there a link between mental illness and mass shootings?
• Can mental health services be an important sentinel to intercept shooters before they commit a crime?
Specific themes include:
• Theories and concepts to explain mass shooting
• The challenge of predicting mass shooting
• Mental illness and mass shooting
• Evidence-based approaches to preventing mass shooting
Keywords: mass shootings, mental illness, mental health services, forensic psychiatry
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
