Contemporary Responses to Violent Attacks on College Campuses

Sulkowski, Michael L.; Lazarus, Philip

doi:10.1080/15388220.2011.602601

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Increased physical security seemed unlikely to thwart targeted violence, as a range of targets and venues had been impacted and perpetrators often extensively planned for avoidance of authority detection (Calhoun & Weston, 2003, 2012. Thus, in reviews of media, police, and government agency records, general crime prevention efforts did not appear to effectively impede targeted violence impacting college campuses (Randazzo & Cameron, 2012;Reddy et al, 2001;Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2011).…”

Section: The Development Of Campus Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…These reviews of public figure, school, and workplace threats and attacks were mostly media, police, or government agency record examinations that suggested existing crime prevention strategies were not sufficient in addressing targeted violence (Calhoun & Weston, 2003;Fein & Vossekuil, 1999;Randazzo & Cameron, 2012;Reddy et al, 2001;Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2011). Targeted attacks were shown to be infrequent with 43 assassinations or attempted assassinations of prominent individuals in the United States (e.g., politicians, celebrities; Fein & Vossekuil, 1999) between 1949and 1996, 23 attacks on British Royalty between 1778and 1994(Mullen et al, 2008, 3 United States federal judges killings between 1979 and 2001 (Calhoun, 2001), and 37 United States primary/secondary school shootings between 1974 and 2000 (Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002).…”

Section: The Development Of Campus Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, the campus threat assessment approach was developed due to consistent findings within investigations of public figure assassinations, threatening contacts to political officials, primary/secondary school shootings, and planned workplace violence (Drysdale et al, 2010;Randazzo & Cameron, 2012). General criminological and crime prevention findings were considered not applicable to these areas of study (Fein et al, 1995;Reddy et al, 2001;Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2011).…”

Section: The Development Of Campus Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Campus administrators have often opted to combat targeted violence risk through expensive physical security measures (e.g., metal detectors, emergency phones) and zero-tolerance policies with suspensions or expulsions of many non-problematic students (Muschert, 2007;Reddy et al, 2001;Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2011). These strategies do not sufficiently address the infrequent, goal-directed behavior of targeted violence Randazzo & Cameron, 2012;Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2011), as these attacks involve various individuals, locations, and weapons (Drysdale, Modzeleski, & Simons, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…These strategies do not sufficiently address the infrequent, goal-directed behavior of targeted violence Randazzo & Cameron, 2012;Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2011), as these attacks involve various individuals, locations, and weapons (Drysdale, Modzeleski, & Simons, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Broadening campus threat assessment beyond mass shootings

Hollister

Scalora²

2015

Aggression and Violent Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tRecord reviews of public figure, primary/secondary school, and workplace threateners and attackers displayed the importance of noticing pre-incident behaviors and intervening to prevent violence. General crime prevention strategies did not appear applicable. Similarly, campus threat assessment research has considered targeted violence as distinctive and unable to be reviewed within general collegiate samples, which has related to questions about the prevalence, predictiveness, applicability, and reporting of pre-incident behaviors. This article applies general criminological and crime prevention findings to these questions and presents campus threat assessment methodologies informed by these fields. With college student surveys, pre-incident behaviors have appeared predictive of general physical assault, which promotes investigation of the generalizability of campus threat assessment across collegiate bullying, intimate partner, stalking, and workplace violence concerns. In college student surveys, the majority of observed pre-incident behavior has not been reported to campus authorities and has been impacted by students' personal victimization, assessment of dangerousness, and relationship with the perpetrator. Efforts to enhance reporting in general criminological and crime prevention fields could be applied to improving pre-incident authority notification. Thus, viewing campus threat assessment within the broader violence prevention framework can advance the efficiency, effectiveness, and applicability of the approach.

show abstract

Section: The Development Of Campus Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: The Development Of Campus Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Development Of Campus Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Broadening campus threat assessment beyond mass shootings

Hollister

Scalora²

2015

Aggression and Violent Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Town Halls, Campaigns, and Safe Spaces

McKinnon‐Crowley¹,

Voyles²,

Salcedo³

2020

The Wiley Handbook of Gender Equity in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

School psychology goes to college: The emerging role of school psychology in college communities

Sulkowski

Joyce

2012

Psychology in the Schools

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many college students display academic and social‐emotional needs that are not being addressed by extant university supports. School psychologists who work in postsecondary settings and have expertise in providing psychoeducational services may be uniquely positioned to help many of these students. However, few school psychologists currently work with or serve college students. To address unmet student needs and illustrate the fruitful role of school psychology in college communities, this article discusses ways university‐based or ‐affiliated school psychologists can expand their current roles. Additionally, a multitiered framework is included that encourages the provision of interventions at universal, selective, and targeted service delivery levels. Although many of the interventions and ideas discussed in this article are not yet widely implemented, they warrant consideration and further elaboration because of their potential to impact college students and the practice of school psychology. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Contemporary Responses to Violent Attacks on College Campuses

Cited by 29 publications

References 31 publications

Broadening campus threat assessment beyond mass shootings

Broadening campus threat assessment beyond mass shootings

Town Halls, Campaigns, and Safe Spaces

School psychology goes to college: The emerging role of school psychology in college communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About