Response and Self-Efficacy during an Active Shooter Crisis

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis:  In most emergency situations, adequate preparedness relies heavily on availability and accessibility to supplies (i.e. food, shelter, medical facilities, equipment, or currency). In situations involving violence--which encompass physical and social, psychological, and symbolic dimensions-- preparedness hinges on one’s reliance. Active shooter events, for example, are devastating episodes that create chaos and anxiety as well as result in communities filled with despair, loss, and insecurity. The unpredictable nature of active shooter events means that anyone can be at risk but, in many cases, school campuses are becoming more vulnerable. Violence on college campuses is taking a staggering upward turn. The latest reports by the U.S. Department of Education (2013) show between 2007 and 2009, there were 11,112 aggravated assaults and 149 murders on public and private 4-year college campuses. As Witte (1992) explains in the Extended Parallel Processing Model (EPPM), people are motivated to perform protective behaviors when they fear a significant threat andwhen they perceive a response that would avert the threat (self and response efficacy).  That is to say, individuals respond to threat by engaging in appraisals of action (response efficacy) and reliance to perform the action (self-efficacy). The study seeks to confirm the role of threat messages as the antecedent for danger control processes and employs the EPPM to investigate threat control (susceptibility and severity) as well as danger control processes (response and self-efficacy) during an active shooter scenario on school campuses. The study aims to answer the following questions: RQ1: Do campus communities believe the threat of an active shooter exists? RQ2: Are individuals prepared to perform protection motivation techniques?

Methods:  Participants (N = 180) were undergraduate students, faculty, and staff at a large urban university in which 75% (N = 126) were female and 25% (N = 43) were male. Using an online training video and a priming message to elicit threat susceptibility and severity, participants responded to an online efficacy measure. The instructional video was developed by the City of Houston and funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is titled: Run. Hide. Fight.

Results:  Mean scores and SD were calculated for three response efficacy behaviors. Data is still be analyzed using t-tests to support whether differences exists among the behaviors.

Conclusions:  First, findings suggest the threat of an active shooter event is real. Although perceptions of one’s susceptibility to an event were moderately elevated, the perceived severity of an active shooter event was strong. Second, there is a gap in individuals’ perceptions of response and self-efficacy. A comparison of means suggests that people are aware of the role-specific responsibilities, appreciate the impact of the actions, and agree there is a need for pre-event training; however, their willingness as well as psychological preparedness was not as strong.

Implications for research and/or practice:  This study, in conjunction with future research, should examine ways to bolster efficacy during active shooter events by exploring multiple treatments and exploring main and interaction effects.