Examining the reasons for student responses to threatening behaviors on a college campus.

Heath J. Hodges,Elizabeth C. Low,M. Rosa Viñas-Racionero,Brandon A. Hollister,Mario J. Scalora
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000063
2016-09-01
Journal of Threat Assessment and Management
Abstract:Underreporting criminal activity to authorities can pose significant challenges, particularly within college campuses. Crime prevention teams have recognized the importance of reporting potentially concerning behaviors that may precede violent acts. However, reasons for reporting preincident behaviors have been understudied among college samples and failed to account for informal responses, such as talking to third parties or changing personal security features. The present study surveyed 1,075 students from a midwestern state university and evaluated their awareness of threatening or concerning behaviors on campus, response behaviors, and reasons for either acting on or failing to report preincident behaviors. Findings reflected reporting rates (12.3%) consistent with the scientific literature but revealed informal responding as the most common reaction to preincident behaviors (44.6%). Reasons for not taking action included a desire to be uninvolved and perceiving the situation as unlikely to be immediately dangerous. By contrast, those who reported preincident behaviors appraised the situation as immediately dangerous and likely to result in harm. Their most influential reason for notifying police or university authorities involved an awareness of campus resources. Informal responders perceived situations as less dangerous and demonstrated less awareness of campus resources. Compared with those who took no action, informal responders were more influenced by their relationship to the potentially dangerous individual and beliefs that police involvement was either unnecessary or might escalate the situation. These findings identify informal responding as the most prevalent reaction to threatening or concerning preincident behaviors and suggest that different interventions may be appropriate for various bystanders.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?