City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works
Student Theses John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Spring 6-2020
Remembering School Shootings: An Examination of Intergenerational Differences
Kelly Huie CUNY John Jay College, [email protected]
How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know!
More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_etds/163 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu
This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Running head: SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 1
Remembering School Shootings: An Examination of Intergenerational Differences
A Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Psychology
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
______
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
______
by Kelly Huie
June, 2020
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 2
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... 4
Introduction ...... 5
School Shootings ...... 6
Long-term Memories for Traumatic, Public Events ...... 8
Recalling public events: Generational differences ...... 10
Present Study ...... 12
Methods...... 12
Participants ...... 12
Research Design...... 13
Material and Procedures ...... 14
Consent form/information section ...... 15
Mnemonic accessibility of school shootings ...... 15
Factual recollection ...... 16
Presentation of shootings ...... 16
Media influence ...... 17
Political opinions ...... 17
Demographics ...... 17
Optional information ...... 18
Results ...... 18 SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 3
Remembering School Shootings ...... 19
Generational differences ...... 20
Discussion ...... 22
Remembering School Shootings ...... 22
Generational Differences ...... 23
Limitations/Future Research ...... 24
Concluding Thoughts ...... 27
References ...... 28
Table 1 ...... 37
Table 2 ...... 38
Table 3 ...... 39
Table 4 ...... 40
Table 5 ...... 41
Table 6 ...... 42
Appendix ...... 43
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 4
Abstract
In recent years, school shootings have evolved from rare occurrences to a full-blown epidemic, causing generations of students to have a realistic fear of attending school (Henry, 2009). When negative or traumatic events occur, such as 9/11 or the Parkland school shooting, people often form long lasting recollections of where they were, when learning about the traumatic, public event (Hirst et al., 2009; 2015). The aim of this study is to understand if certain school shootings are more memorable for Americans, and whether differences exist across generations, as certain school shootings that occur during the reminiscence bump period (i.e., between the ages 10 – 30) may influence which shooting is more memorable. This study involves an online survey which was conducted using Qualtrics, whereby participants were recruited via the SONA system and
Mechanical Turk. Participants completed a number of questions asking them about their knowledge of school shootings throughout US history. The data analyzed and compared consisted of the age of the participants, and the specific school shootings that occurred. The results of this study suggest that, regardless of generation or age, certain school shootings, specifically the Columbine shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting, were more memorable, however, generational differences do exist, which supports the original hypotheses that there would be differences across generations.
Keywords: intergeneration, long-term memory, public events, school shootings
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 5
Remembering School Shootings: An Examination of Intergenerational Differences
Over the last 21 years, ever since the infamous Columbine shooting, school shootings have become a growing US concern, and have increased in frequency ever since (Lawrence &
Birkland, 2004; Willingham & Levenson, 2018). While personally experiencing a school shooting may shape the way the victimized individuals come to remember the event itself (e.g.,
McNally, 2005), the present research will focus on how Americans, more generally, remember such events. Indeed, such traumatic, public events tend to forge long-term memories (Hirst et al.,
2009; Tekcan et al., 2003). However, most research along these lines tend to focus on what are known as flashbulb memories (FBMs, e.g., Brown & Kulik, 1977, but see Liu & Hilton, 2006).
That is, an individual’s recollection of their circumstances when learning about, more often than not, negative, public events (e.g., 9/11, Hirst et al., 2009; 2015; but see Stone & Jay, 2018; for a review of positive, FBM events). The present study deviates from the traditional line of FBM research in two, interrelated ways: 1.) unlike most FBM research, school shootings repeatedly occur (but see Mahmood et al., 2004) and, 2.) as a result, the present study is interested in, not individuals’ memories of where they were when they learned about school shootings. Rather, which school shootings are the most memorable, and whether there are differences in memorability across generations (Holmes & Conway, 1999)
To this end, the present study recruited younger, early middle aged, middle-aged, and older populations and asked them a number of questions surrounding their memories for school shootings. In what follows, the relevant research examining school shootings will be first detailed, followed by a discussion of the relevant psychological research examining how individuals remember tramautic, public events. This will then be followed by how the SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 6
recollection of said public events may differ across generations, and then followed by a discussion of the present study.
School Shootings
Since the late 1990s, school shootings, such as Columbine, one of the most recognizable
(whether memorable, though, remains unknown) and infamous school shootings of all time
(Larkin, 2009; Lawrence & Birkland, 2004), have become a widespread epidemic in the US
(Daniels et al., 2007). The United States has seen a general uptick in frequency and deadliness of school shootings, which has now become an issue for the general population, and not just a specific group of people (Willingham & Levenson, 2018).
However, regardless of specific location, the Columbine shooting became a dangerous precedent by providing an example of how a school shooter(s) should behave, speak, act, and most importantly, coordinate an attack (Raitanen, & Oksanen, 2019). However, what separated the Columbine shooting from prior school shootings (e.g., the Texas Tower Shooting of 1966, see
Silva & Green-Colozzi, 2019), was the fact that the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan
Klebold, turned their shooting into a political act; using the shooting and violence as a way to spite their bullies and stand in defiance to their oppressors (Muschert, 2007). Because of this, the events of the 1999 Columbine shooting became a rallying cry against bullying, social ostracization, humiliation, and intimidation (Larkin, 2009).
The lasting influence of Columbine is vast; it has become a moniker for school shootings, and its legacy, known as “the Columbine effect”, has inspired numerous copycat crimes and attempts, with many of the perpetrators of those copycat crimes drawing inspiration from the
Columbine shooters, viewing them as martyrs to idolize (Cloud, 1999). Notable examples of school shooters who drew inspiration from the Columbine shooters include Adam Lanza, the SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 7
shooter who carried out the Sandy Hook school shooting, and Seung-Hui Cho, who carried out the Virginia Tech shooting (Bonanno & Levenson, 2014). Both Lanza and Cho idolized Harris and Klebold, and more importantly, Lanza and Cho committed the two deadliest school shootings in American history (Steinkoler, 2018). Cho’s rampage in Virginia Tech had the highest casualties and fatalities of any school shooting in American history, with 32 dead and 17 wounded (Fox & Savage, 2009). Despite being less deadly, Lanza’s rampage in Newtown,
Connecticut at the Sandy Hook Elementary School was the deadliest elementary school shooting in American history, and the second deadliest behind the Virginia Tech shooting with 28 dead and 2 wounded (Bonanno & Levenson, 2014). Even Nikolas Cruz, the shooter from the highly publicized Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, drew inspiration and researched the Columbine shooting prior to committing his own rampage which left 17 dead and
17 wounded (Smiley, 2018).
Mass shootings, and more specifically, school shootings, have since become a greater public concern (Henry, 2009); traumatic enough in some cases to spur protests, political action, and responses from not just victims of shootings, but those that feel that they could be the victims of the same circumstances (Jordan, 2003). However, despite ample reason for each school shooting to be memorable, certain school shootings garner more attention and stand out more than others (Lankford & Madfis, 2018). For example, the Red Lake Indian Reservation school shooting in Red Lake, Minnesota, which had 10 total fatalities, and at the time, was the deadliest school shooting since Columbine, remains mostly unknown by the average American
(Leavy & Maloney, 2009). Other school shootings, like the infamous Sandy Hook shooting, may have stood out amongst other school shootings, because of several factors such as the large number of fatalities, or the young age of the majority of the victims (Shultz et al., 2013). SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 8
However, media exposure may also be a factor that affects the memorability of a school shooting. For example, the Columbine shooting was the seventh highest rated media event of the
1990s, with 68% of Americans closely following the story (Muschert, 2019). According to records at the time, Columbine was, as of 2002, in relation to any other school shooting, the school shooting that had significantly greater media coverage than any other school shooting up to that point (Hammack, 2016; Maguire et al., 2002). However, given the frequency in which school shootings occur, it remains unclear whether any particular school shooting is more memorable than others as most research that examines how individuals remember traumatic, public events tend to focus on singular events (e.g., 9/11, see Hirst et al., 2009).
Long-term Memories for Traumatic, Public Events
In examining long-term memories for traumatic, public events, researchers have often focused on individuals’ recollections of where they were when learning about the traumatic, public event, which are known as flashbulb memories (FMBs; Brown & Kulik, 1977; Gandolphe
& El Haj, 2017). In fact, people do not even need to be directly involved with the event in question, either physically or psychologically, to forge flashbulb memories surrounding the event
(Tekcan et al., 2003). For example, Hirst and colleagues examined the trajectory of FBMs of
Americans surrounding 9/11 (Hirst et al., 2009; 2015). Notably, not all of their participants were directly or indirectly involved in the events surrounding 9/11. Regardless, they found that most
Americans could list FBMs (e.g., where they were when 9/11 occurred), even if they may not have been accurate (e.g., Talarico & Rubin, 2017).
In examining the FBM literature a couple of unique characteristics begin to emerge that set FBMs a part from other memories: a.) they tend to be forged by surprising and consequential events as well as through conversations as a result of the emotionality of the event (Finkenauer et SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 9
al., 1998); b) while the accuracy of such memories decline over time, an individuals’ confidence in them does not (Talarico & Rubin, 2017) and c.) there is an in-group/out-group boundary condition (Berntsen, 2009). That is, FBMs tend to form only for individuals who identify with the population impacted by the event. For example, while French citizens exhibited FBMs for the death of President Mitterand, French-speaking Belgians did not (Luminet et al., 2001).
Despite this focus on FBMs, some of these studies have focused on memories for the event itself, what are often referred to as event memories (e.g., Hirst et al., 2009; 2015). For example, in the studies by Hirst and colleagues, they examined how well individuals also recalled, for example, where President Bush was when learning about the terrorist attack, how many planes were involved, where did they crash, etc. (Hirst et al., 2009; 2015). Notably, research examining event memories tend to find that they are correlated with media coverage
(i.e., more media coverage, more accurate memories; see, e.g., Hirst et al.).
Extrapolating the extant FBM research to recollections of school shootings is not straight forward. That is, while the role the media plays in maintaining event memories surrounding public, traumatic events, it is not clear that the media may similarly play this role for school shootings due to their frequency and, in turn, competition for news coverage. However, age and/or generational differences may play an important role. Indeed, recent research has shown that the period in one’s life when an event occurs can have important implications for the likelihood individuals will subsequently remember said event. That is, generally speaking, events
(personal or public) that occur in early late adolescence and early adulthood tend to be longer lasting and more memorable (but see Koppel, 2013, for a more nuanced analysis), a phenomenon commonly referred to as the reminiscence bump (Koppel & Berntsen, 2016). SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 10
Recalling public events: Generational differences
Researchers examining the recollection of autobiographical memory commonly find a phenomenon known as the reminiscence bump; that is, the tendency for middle aged and elderly individuals to have a higher recall of important events if the event in question occurred when they were between the ages of 10 and 30 years of age (Munawar et al., 2018; Janssen, et al.,
2008; Rubin et al., 1998). However, the reminiscence bump can only be observed in adults over the age of 40, otherwise the recall could end up being confounded with the recency effect
(Tekcan et al., 2017).
There are several theories as to why researchers believe this phenomenon occurs, such as the cognitive, biological, and identity accounts (Rubin et al., 1998). The cognitive account suggests that memories that occur within this time frame are remembered, because it follows the stage of childhood and adolescence, which involves quick growth and change, and that early adulthood as a stage, is a more stable period which causes more and greater encoding (Rubin et al., 1998). The biological account maintains that brain development and capacity is at peak performance between the age of 10-30 years of age, causing greater encoding only during these specific years as after 30, the reminiscence bump begins to taper off (Rubin et al., 1998). Finally, the identity account suggests that beginning at early adolescence, about the age of 10 years old, people begin to form a firmer self-identity, which draws a foundation from experiences and memories of events that have occurred thus far, which are then engrained more into a person’s identity and, in turn, remembered better (Rubin et al., 1998). The reminiscence bump is a critical age in personal and generational identity formation, as this is the time when a person recognizes that they are a part of a specific cultural generation as well (Holmes & Conway, 1999). SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 11
When it comes to a specific, public event that occurred within the reminiscence bump period, namely a singular, public event that occurred only on a specific day such as a school shooting, there should be a generally higher chance for recall (Koppel, 2013). Moreover, prior literature suggests that the reminiscence bump differs for public event versus personal/private event recall (Holmes & Conway, 1999; Koppel & Berntsen, 2016; Koppel & Rubin, 2016;
Munawar et al., 2018). When allowed to free recall events, there is a tendency for people to have a peak recall of public events that occurred when they were aged 10-19, but a tendency to have a peak recall of personal/private events if the event in question occurred between the ages of 20-29
(Holmes & Conway, 1999). According to Mannheim (1952), people of a similar age, who have lived through similar experiences and notable historical events within a specific time period, can be defined as a generation, or a cohort. Hence, public events that occur during the reminiscence bump period for a generation or cohort, are likely to recall those public events later in life, rather than those public events that occur before or after the reminiscence bump period (Janssen et al.,
2008). For instance, in a study conducted in the Netherlands, it was found that people were more likely to correctly recall public events if the event occurred when the participants were between the ages of 10-25 years old. They were less likely to do so if the event occurred before they turned 10 or after they turned 25 (Janssen, et. al 2008). Similar to researchers examining recall for autobiographical memories and the reminiscence bump, the researchers argued that public events occurring during this are better encoded: the memory system is more efficient and effective at consolidating memories during adolescence and early adulthood.
Given the existing literature, there is an expectation that school shootings would be more memorable if they occurred during the reminiscence bump for the participant. The present study will this examine this possibility. SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 12
Present Study
Based on prior literature, there is no question that school shootings have affected how people think about safety in schools (e.g., Columbine; Muschert, 2019). However, it remains unclear which school shootings are most memorable and/or whether this differs across generations. Answers to such question may have important implications for whether/how individuals support, for example, gun control. The present study, which is exploratory, aims to fill this gap in the literature.
It was hypothesized that generational differences between younger, early middle aged, middle-aged, and older populations will be observed when participants are tasked with recalling school shootings. More specifically, it was hypothesized that the Parkland shooting will be recalled the most by those aged 18-22, Sandy Hook by those aged 23-27, Virginia Tech by those between 28-32, and Columbine by those above the age of 32. These age brackets were determined based on the fact that in recent years, there has been an uptick in school shootings, with the frequency of school shootings trending upward (North & King, 2009). With regards to such, these age breakdowns allow for a more nuanced analysis of what is particularly memorable to different age groups. However, if a participant was too old, and not school aged themselves when any of those shootings occurred, they may instead recall a recent shooting as opposed to a shooting that occurred when they were students (Tekcan et al., 2017).
Methods
Participants
In order to examine statistical difference, an a priori power analysis with a medium effect size suggested a total of 163 participants (Faul et al., 2007). Seventy-five of these participants were recruited from the SONA platform at a Northeast Urban college, and seventy-two from SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 13
Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants were recruited from both SONA and Mechanical Turk to ensure that participants of diverse racial, gender, age and localities were recruited. However, of the 163 entries, 19 participants did not complete the survey and 1 provided inappropriate answers and were therefore excluded from the present analyses. In addition, of the 143 that were left, 46 participants gave thematic responses which meant that the data could not be analyzed as a part of the larger dataset. Thematic responses consisted of answers such as “guns” or “fear of going to school”, in response to a question such as “When you think of school shootings, which shooting
FIRST COMES TO MIND?”), which was the result of participants not understanding the questions and were hence removed from the analyses.
All participants recruited via SONA were compensated with one (1) course credit. Those recruited via Mechanical Turk were paid $0.50 cents for their time. The inclusion criteria of the survey delineated that the participants must be over the age of 18 and American citizens. By gathering a sample of people with varied age ranges, it was hoped that generational differences, if any, would emerge.
Research Design
This study is an exploratory study where participants are prompted with a series of open- ended response, Likert scales, and multiple-choice questions. Prior research has shown that the reminiscence bump was more pronounced in responses to open-ended questions than to multiple- choice questions, therefore open-ended responses were employed more often in the present study
(Janssen et al., 2008). To examine the results, chi-square and frequency analyses will be conducted examining differences across generations in terms of their recollections of school shootings. This is a quasi-experimental design as it will examine differences across age groups, but does not randomly assign participants to different conditions. As this study will be comparing SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 14
the recall between older and younger populations, this experiment was therefore a between- subjects design.
Material and Procedures
Upon clicking on the link to the study, participants were prompted with a section where they verified that they were of legal age (18 years of age or older), an American citizen, had read the terms and conditions, that their participation was completely voluntary, and delineated their rights as a participant. Each participant was sent and completed the survey individually. All participants completed the study in one session.
To voluntarily agree to participate, the participants had to click “next.” After clicking next, participants then completed a series of questions over the course of eight sections: Consent form/information section, Mnemonic accessibility of school shootings, Confidence of recollection, Presentation of shootings, Media influence, Political opinions, Demographics, and
Optional information. The Optional information section was included in the event that a participant wanted to inform the researchers of additional information that they felt was not possible to express in the survey. For example, if a participant wanted to inform the researchers that they were personally affected by an event described in the survey, the Optional information section would have been where that was to be expressed. The order of questions was not randomized, whereby open-ended questions were presented first, before the multiple-choice questions in order to avoid priming. In addition, certain questions will only display if certain criteria are met. For example, the question “If a loved one was present in a shooting, please state your relationship to said person. If you were the person present in the shooting please type ‘I was the person present,’” will only display if a participant selects the option “I or loved one(s) was present during the shooting” in the previous question. SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 15
Consent form/information section. The first section consisted of the terms and conditions that participants had to agree to, whereby participants voluntarily agreed to participate, with an “attention-check” question included to ensure that participants were attentive. The first question in the survey (see Appendix) is an explicit question where the participant needed to select the third answer which was the specific instruction if they read the paragraph. Upon successful completion of answering the question in this section, participants then had to click “next”, which signified that they agreed with the terms and conditions, understood their rights as participants, and voluntarily consented, and then moved on to the next section.
Mnemonic accessibility of school shootings. The second section consisted of 4 open- ended response questions1, asking participants to recall school shootings (2 questions), and the rationale behind their recollection (2 questions). For example, in this section, participants were prompted with questions such as “When you think of school shootings, which shooting FIRST
COMES TO MIND?” and “When you think of school shootings, which school shooting, in your opinion, was the most TRAUMATIC?” where people then could respond with an answer such as
“Columbine.” Following each of these two questions, participants were prompted with the
1 After reviewing the literature and reports, there is no general consensus as what constitutes/defines a school shooting, as most lists of school shootings either a) only start with the Columbine shooting, and do not include school shootings before, b) include shootings that are not school shootings, so much as “shootings that happened at a school” (e.g., a student who had a gun in their car, accidently fired it on school grounds and hit themselves in the leg could constitute a “school shooting” based on the definition by some lists), c) only include shootings that occurred in the K-12 setting, and not include college school shootings, or d) are just complied lists of all shootings that involved the shooting deaths of more than 4 people, not just in a school. Hence, it was imperative that the questions in this survey were open ended, which allowed individuals to provide the school shootings most accessible to them.
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 16
question “Why do you think that is?” whereby participants could respond with an answer such as
“Because it was the first school shooting.” Upon successfully answering the questions in this section, participants then had to click “next” and moved on to the next section.
Factual recollection. The third section consisted of a total of 8 questions, 4 open-ended response questions and 4 rating scales beneath to gauge confidence of their answers. For example, in this section, participants were prompted with questions such as “Which mass school shooting had the MOST FATALITIES?” followed by a scale, where participants were to rate how confident they were in their recollection. The rating scale was set on a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 being “Not confident” and 100 being “very confident.” Upon successfully answering the questions in this section, participants then had to click “next” and moved on to the next section.
Presentation of shootings. The fourth section consisted of multiple-choice questions, which had the addition of opened ended response area beneath, which was included so participants could elaborate on their answer from the multiple-choice question. For example, in this section, participants were prompted with questions such as “Of the following school shootings, which do you think is the most memorable school shooting?” followed by a list of school shooting names such as “Columbine” and “Sandy Hook,” etc. This was followed up with an open-ended response area for a person to explain why a specific shooting was most memorable to them. Two fake shootings were included as well--the “Bowling Green Massacre” the famously fake shooting created by Kellyanne Conway (Coscarelli, 2017) and the
“Benningworth school shooting,” which was a conglomeration of the last names of two unrelated individuals, and is not a real place, nor a real school shooting. These were included to understand if participants were a) paying attention and/or taking the study seriously, and b) particularly susceptible to influence of “misinformation” provided by politicians. Upon successfully SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 17
answering the questions in this section, participants then had to click “next” and moved on to the next section.
Media influence. The fifth segment consisted of multiple-choice questions, which included an opened ended response area beneath. For example, in this section, participants were prompted with questions such as “From which source of information do you think impacted the public's opinion the most?” and then choices such as “Newspaper” or “TV”, to determine what news source each participant thought affected the general American populations’ views on school shootings the most. Before moving on to the next section, there was a simple math problem for them to solve in order to control for participants who were not paying attention throughout the study. The unprompted math problem was simple, “what is three plus seven?” and was presented in a multiple-choice fashion. Upon successfully answering the questions in this section, participants then had to click “next” and moved on to the next section.
Political opinions. The sixth section consisted of Likert scale questions and asked participants about their political ideologies, such as their views surrounding gun violence, and second amendment rights. For example, in this section, participants were asked to state the extent to which they agree with “I support the second amendment” and responded on a scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Upon successfully answering the questions in this section, participants then had to click “next” and moved on to the next section.
Demographics. The seventh section consisted of open-ended response questions, which asked a number of demographic questions. For example, participants were prompted with questions such as “what is your age?” Additionally, participants were asked to state their gender, political affiliation, whether or not they were a student, and whether or not they are related to a SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 18
student. Upon successful completion of answering the questions in this section, participants then had to click “next” and moved on to the next section.
Optional information. The eighth section consisted of an open-ended response question, which gave participants the opportunity to include any information that they might want the researchers to know and thanked the participants for their time, and completing the survey. This was a specific area designated for any of the participants to share their thoughts, feelings, or to provide feedback to the researchers. Responses on this section were not forced, and a participant was not required to answer if they elected not to. Upon successful completion of answering the optional question or not, participants were debriefed, prompted with a message that informed them that they had reached the end of the survey, and thanked them for their time. In the event that a participant wanted to be contacted for a follow up, or learn more about the study, they were encouraged to reach out to the researchers based on the contact information provided in the debriefing.
Results
To analyze data, the responses from the open-ended questions were coded and quantified.
As per the coding of the open-ended responses, two categories were combined for analysis:
"Don't know/Not Sure/NA” with "Miscellaneous". This was due to the fact that both categories were unusable for analysis, because whether someone didn't know which shooting, or gave a response that wasn't specifically a school shooting, it was the same difference, it could not be analyzed.
To analyze if there were generational differences, all the responses were examined together, and then age group differences were examined by separating participants into age brackets (18-22, 23-27, 28-32, and 32+). Upon separating participants into age brackets, it was SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 19
found that there were only 6 people in the 23-27 age bracket, and 7 people in the 28-32 bracket,
Thus, the analyses focused primarily focused on the 18-22 age bracket and the 32+ age groups.
Additionally, the inclusion of two “lure” school shootings did not appear to influence responses, as the “Benningworth school shooting” was never selected, and the “Bowling Green
Massacre” was selected only twice across all questions. However, due to the fact that the
“Bowling Green Massacre” was only endorsed twice in the multiple choice section, the open- ended responses of these participants were kept in the present analysis. Although there were questions that asked about media influence and political affiliation, the present results will focus on the memory related questions.
Remembering School Shootings
To examine which school shootings received the most endorsements, the percentages of responses for each of the open-ended school shooting questions are presented. Overall, when asked which school shooting first comes to mind (see Table 1), the highest endorsed answer was
Columbine (56.7 percent) followed by Sandy Hook (29.9 percent). Even if all the participants that did not answer Columbine were pooled together (44.3%), it would still not equal the percentage of individuals who listed Columbine as the first shooting that came to mind.
As for which school shooting was the most traumatic (see Table 2), the highest endorsed answer was the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut (60.8 percent) followed by
Columbine (26.8 percent). 46.4% of participants responded that the Sandy Hook shooting that was the most traumatic because “It involved children”/“Innocent lives were lost.”
As for which school shooting had the most fatalities (see Table 3), the highest percentage was Sandy Hook (37.1 percent) followed by Columbine (21.6 percent). Overall, 83.5 percent of SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 20
participants endorsed an incorrect answer, while only 16.5 percent of participants endorsed the correct answer: Virginia Tech.
As for which school shooting had the most casualties (fatalities plus injuries; see Table
4), the highest endorsed answer was Sandy Hook (33 percent), followed by Columbine (22.7 percent). Overall, 86.6 percent of participants endorsed an incorrect answer, while only 13.4 percent of participants endorsed the correct answer: Virginia Tech.
As for which school shooting was believed to be the earliest (see Table 5), the highest endorsed answer was Columbine (45.4 percent). By definition (mass shooting mainly utilizing a firearm(s), committed on school grounds, was a rampage shooting), the Texas Tower Shooting was the “earliest” school shooting, and yet, it was endorsed by only 8.2 percent, or eight participants.
As for which school shooting had the most profound effect on Americans (see Table 6), the highest endorsed answer was Columbine (48.5 percent) followed by Sandy Hook (36.1 percent).
Generational differences
In order to analyze for generational differences, Chi-Square tests were employed. The age brackets were broken down as delineated in the participants section, and analyzed. The sample included 41 respondents who were in the 18-22 bracket, 6 who were in the 23-27 bracket,
7 who reported being in the 28-32 bracket, and 43 who were in the 32+ age bracket.
When prompted about which was the first shooting that came to mind (see Table 1), there was a significant difference, X2 (15, N = 97) = 34.205, p = .003. The 32+ participants were significantly more likely to mention Columbine relative to the 18-22. Additionally, the 18-22 participants were significantly more likely to mention Sandy Hook than the 32+ participants. SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 21
When prompted about which school shooting was the most traumatic (see Table 2), there was a significant difference, X2 (15, N = 97) = 35.503, p = .002. The 32+ participants were significantly more likely to mention Columbine relative to the 18-22. Additionally, the 18-22 participants were significantly more likely to mention Sandy Hook than the 32+ participants.
When prompted about which school shooting had the most fatalities (see Table 3), there was no significant difference, X2 (21, N = 97) = 27.471, p = .156. There were no significant differences between the 18-22 age bracket and the 32+ age bracket. Interestingly, the correct answer was the Virginia Tech shooting, however, it was not a highly endorsed answer of any of the age brackets.
When prompted about which school shooting had the most causalities (fatalities plus injuries) (see Table 4), there was a significant difference, X2 (18, N = 97) = 29.560, p =.042. The
32+ participants were significantly more likely to mention Columbine relative to the 18-22.
Additionally, the 18-22 participants were significantly more likely to mention Sandy Hook than the 32+ participants. Interestingly, the correct answer was the Virginia Tech shooting, however, it was not a highly endorsed answer of any of the age brackets.
When prompted about which school shooting was the earliest mass school shooting in
American history (see Table 5), there was no significant difference, X2 (21, N = 97) = 21.323, p
=.439. There were no significant differences between the 18-22 age bracket and the 32+ age bracket. Interestingly, the correct answer was the University of Texas Tower shooting, however, it was not a highly endorsed answer of any of the age brackets.
When prompted about which school shooting had the most profound affect (see Table 6), there was no significant difference, X2 (21, N = 97) = 20.766, p =.473. There were no significant SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 22
differences between the 18-22 age bracket and the 32+ age bracket. Interestingly, the majority answer was Columbine regardless of age demographic.
Discussion
The primary aim of the present study was to examine which school shooting was the most memorable or, at the very least, accessible and whether these results were moderated across generations. In what follows, there will first be a discussion of the overall findings before turning to differences across generations. Following, will be a provision of the limitations and future research and a concluding thought.
Remembering School Shootings
Based on the present results, it could be inferred that, although Columbine had a tendency to be recalled first, Sandy Hook was more traumatic because, based on results, it is due to the fact that “It involved children”/“Innocent lives were lost”, invoking a sense of emotionality, leading to memorability, which is supported by prior literature (Finkenauer et al.,
1998). Prior studies do speak to the influence of Columbine, in that it is more memorable than other school shootings, which can be observed in the results of this study and supports prior research (Hammack, 2016; Leavy & Maloney, 2009; Maguire et al., 2002). Additionally, prior literature does speak of the traumatic nature and influence of the Sandy Hook shooting as well, with its infamy due to the fact that the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting were so young, and that so many of those very young children had died (Shultz et al., 2013).
When asked about what school shooting had the most fatalities, or what shooting had the most casualties, Sandy Hook again, was endorsed as the highest answer for both categories, despite being incorrect, as the Virginia Tech shooting had both the highest amount of casualties and fatalities of any school shooting in the US (Bonanno & Levenson, 2014). In 2007, when the SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 23
Virginia Tech shooting had occurred, and at that time, anyone who is currently in in the 23-27 and the 28-32 age brackets would have been between 11-19 at that time, which is almost identical to the 10-19 age range for the reminiscence recall of public events (Holmes & Conway,
1999; Janssen et al., 2008). Therefore, anyone in the 18-22 age bracket would have likely been too young back then, and anyone in the 32+ group would have aged out of that age range, which may account for the discrepancy in the factual recall of the amount of casualties or fatalities that occurred for the Virginia Tech shooting.
When asked about what school shooting was the earliest, Columbine was the highest endorsed answer, which was technically incorrect, as the University of Texas Tower shooting occurred 33 years prior (Silva & Green-Colozzi, 2019). Of the participants, only 6 participants (2 participants were 66, 1 participant was 69, 1 participant was 73, and 1 participant was 74), would have fallen in the peak public event age bracket to recall the University of Texas Tower shooting, but that answer was only endorsed once, by only one participant (73 year old), who endorsed the
University of Texas Tower shooting, as the earliest school shooting in American history.
Additionally, the present results suggest that there is a generational difference in some cases but not all; the highest endorsed answers, usually either Columbine or Sandy Hook, were endorsed by people the most, regardless of age. Recency did not seem to play a part in this finding as neither the Sandy Hook or Columbine shooting was particularly recent, nor was it the deadliest, nor was it the earliest, nor did it involve the most amount of injuries (Tekcan et al. 2017).
Generational Differences
Based on the present results, this research does provide support for the prior research examining the reminiscence bump and recalling public events (Holmes & Conway, 1999; Koppel
& Berntsen, 2016; Koppel & Rubin, 2016). Prior literature would suggest that Columbine would SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 24
be the most recalled school shooting for those above the age of 32, which can be observed in the results. Sandy Hook was the school shooting that first comes to mind of those 18-22 years old overall, and hence, this result is supported by prior literature, which suggests that people are highly influenced by events that occurred during their youth (Munawar et al., 2018; Rubin et al.,
1998). When it came to factual recollection of what school shooting had the most casulaties
(fatalities plus injuries) those in the 32+ age bracket recalled Columbine as predicted and those in the 18-22 age bracket recalled Sandy Hook due to the relative age of the participant at the time of the school shooting (Holmes & Conway, 1999; Janssen et al., 2008; Munawar et al., 2018).
However, the results of this study do support prior studies which would have suggested that there would have been generational differences, albeit generational differences are not observed in all cases. (Holmes & Conway, 1999). The present results suggest that when a school shooting occurs while individuals are in the reminiscence bump period, they may be more likely to remember that school shooting, rather than school shootings that occur outside of that period.
Limitations/Future Research
While the present study does add to the extant literature examining the memorability of traumatic, public events and the how generational differences may moderate these effects, there were a number of limitations.
First, the wording of the first question did prove to be confusing for some, as many people misread the question. The actual question “When you think of school shootings, which shooting FIRST COMES TO MIND?”, seemed to be interpreted as “When you think of school shootings, what FIRST COMES TO MIND?” and as a result, people did provide more thematic responses, such as “gun rights.” This led to the removal of many entries from the dataset as the responses were unusable, leading to a reduced sample size for the analyses and less statistical SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 25
power. The misinterpretation of the wording of the question framed the rest of the survey differently, as the question immediately following, asked “Why do you think that is?” to which people would respond based on their thematic responses. Future research should run pilot studies to ensure the wording of all questions do not lead to confusion.
Second, and relatedly, there were lower numbers of participants within the 23-27 and 28-
32 age groups. As this is a study that examines generation effects, it was to the study’s detriment to not have enough participants to examine those between the age of 23-27 and 28-32 as separate age brackets. The deficiency of participants between the age of 23-27 and 28-32, who at this time in 2020, would have been in the reminiscence bump period for the Virginia Tech school shooting may explain the overall lower amount of endorsements of the Virginia Tech shooting (Holmes &
Conway, 1999). For future reseach, it would be paramount to ascertain that there were more participants in these age brackets, in order to do a more thorough analysis of possible age differences.
There still remains the possibility that other factors other than age may have influenced the present results. For example, although there were questions that pertained to media, political affiliation, gun rights, demographics, and relationships to a student, racial demographics were not collected, and could be an implication. However, none of the collected demographics proved influential in shaping results. Additionally, one potential confound is that, the reminiscence bump also aligns with a period for many individuals in which they may identify as a student. In doing so, such identification may make such school shootings more memorable and make identity relevant (Berntsen, 2009). Future research should examine/control for such possibilities.
The present study did measure media attention, but not as detailed or perhaps adequate as it could have been. This study explored how participants remembered events, and where they SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 26
heard it from, but not the specific media outlets or how often. For example, if a participant provided the answer that they heard of a school shooting through a nationwide broadcasting network, the specific broadcasting network was not examined in depth. Additionally, it was noted that certain types of media did not exist when the shooting occurred. For instance, during the
Texas Tower shooting of 1966, social media did not exist yet, but for the Parkland shooting of
2018, it did, and had a heavy social media presence. This discrepancy means that although media exposure can be examined in both cases, there is no medium for this discrepancy except for news articles. Additionally, a study by the New York Times found that 68% of articles written about school shootings focused only on 15 specific instances, with the Columbine shooting having the most coverage at 503 articles, followed by Sandy Hook with 248 articles (Silva & Capellan,
2018). In the present study, these two shootings happened to be the most memorable shootings, which can be an important implication for future research, as prior literature suggests media coverage may prove critical in how individuals remember public events (Hirst et al., 2009). For future research, a content analysis or survey of the number of news articles published surrounding all the school shootings would be encouraged.
Additionally, other than for the Columbine shooting, there was relatively little research concerning news coverage of a specific school shooting. Despite how many school shootings have occurred in the last 50 years, 78% of shootings from 2000 to 2016 had less than 5 news articles written about them (Silva & Capellan, 2018; Schildkraut et al., 2017). If media coverage was examined, much of the research compares media coverage of a school shooting, compared to
Columbine (e.g. Leavy & Maloney, 2009). Therefore, examining school shootings other than the
Columbine shooting, in particular, would be encouraged for future research. SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 27
In addition, during some of the shootings, more pressing stories about larger events were occurring, but during other shootings there was relatively no larger events going on. For example, during the Columbine shooting, the US was not involved in a war, but for the Texas
Tower Shooting, the US was in the midst of the Vietnam War, which means that news would have had to have been diverted from the war efforts to focus on the shooting. Due to all these media differences, the availability of (and kinds of) media may prove critical in understanding which school shooting remains more memorable over time and across generations.
Concluding Thoughts
There are many factors that might affect the recall of a public event like a school shooting, such as a person’s relative age or the details of the event in question such as the fatalities. The present study focused on whether some school shootings may be more memorable if they occurred within the reminiscence bump period, across generations. The results of this study suggest that generational differences can be observed in certain recollections based on the age of the participant at the time of the school shooting in question, but not always. However, regardless of generation or demographic, Columbine stood out to people as the shooting that affected American history the most, and the most recalled school shooting, whereas Sandy Hook stood out as the most traumatic school shooting, which based on endorsements, was due to the fact that it involved many fatalities of young children. While future research is needed and encouraged, overall, the present results provide a better understanding of the memorability of school shootings, long term public event memory, and how age/generations may remember each. SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 28
References
Berntsen, D. (2009). Flashbulb memory and social identity. In O. Luminet & A. Curci (Eds.),
Flashbulb memories: New issues and new perspectives (pp. 187– 205). New York:
Psychology Press.
Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. C. (2006). The centrality of event scale: A measure of integrating a
trauma into one's identity and its relation to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(2), 219-231. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.01.009
Berntsen, D., Willert, M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Splintered memories or vivid landmarks?
Qualities and organization of traumatic memories with and without PTSD. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 17(6), 675-693. doi:10.1002/acp.894
Bohn, A., & Berntsen, D. (2007). Pleasantness bias in flashbulb memories: Positive and negative
flashbulb memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall among East and West Germans. Memory
& Cognition, 35(3), 565-577. doi:10.3758/bf03193295
Bonanno, C. M., & Levenson, R. L. (2014). School Shooters: History, Current Theoretical and
Empirical Findings, and Strategies for Prevention. SAGE Open.
doi:10.1177/2158244014525425.
Bowen, H. J., Kark, S. M., & Kensinger, E. A. (2017). NEVER forget: negative emotional
valence enhances recapitulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 870-891.
doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1313-9
Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5(1), 73-99.
doi:10.1016/0010-0277(77)90018-x
Brown, N. R., Schweickart, O., & Svob, C. (2016). The Effect of Collective Transitions on the
Organization and Contents of Autobiographical Memory: A Transition Theory SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 29
Perspective. The American Journal of Psychology, 129(3), 259. doi:
10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.3.0259
Brown, N. R., Svob, C. (2016). The Effect of Collective Transitions on the Organization
and Contents of Autobiographical Memory: A Transition-Theory Perspective. American
Journal of Psychology, 129(3), 259-282. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.3.0259
Chermak, S., Bailey, F. Y. (2007). Crimes and trials of the century (2 Vols.). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Cloud, J. (1999). The Columbine effect. Time Magazine,154 (23), p. 12ff.
Corning, A., & Schuman, H. (2015). Generations and Collective Memory. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Coscarelli, J. (2017, February 3). Kellyanne Conway Admits 'Bowling Green massacre' Error.
New York Times.
Coughlan, S. (2018, December 12). 2018 'worst year for US school shootings'. Retrieved from
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46507514
Daniels, J. A., Buck, I., Croxall, S., Gruber, J., Kime, P., & Govert, H. (2007). A content analysis
of news reports of averted school rampages. Journal of School Violence, 6(1), 83-99.
doi:10.1300/j202v06n01_06
Durkheim, É. (2001). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, USA.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 39(2), 175-191. doi:10.3758/bf03193146
Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Gisle, L., El-Ahmadi, A., Van Der Linden, M., & Philippot, P. SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 30
(1998). Flashbulb memories and the underlying mechanisms of their formation: Toward
an emotional-integrative model. Memory & Cognition, 26(3), 516-531.
doi:10.3758/bf03201160
Ford, J. H., Gaesser, B., DiBiase, H., Berro, T., Young, L., & Kensinger, E. (2018). Heroic
memory: Remembering the details of others' heroism in the aftermath of a traumatic
public event can foster our own prosocial response. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(1),
47–54. doi:10.1002/acp.3377
Fox, J. A., & Savage, J. (2009). Mass Murder Goes to College: An Examination of Changes on
College Campuses Following Virginia Tech. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10),
1465–1485. doi:10.1177/0002764209332558.
Gandolphe, M., & El Haj, M. (2017). Flashbulb memories of the Paris attacks. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 58(3), 199-204. doi:10.1111/sjop.12364
Garland, D. (2000). The culture of high crime societies. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 347-
375. doi:10.1093/bjc/40.3.347
Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Goldfarb, D., Gonzalves, L., & Gonzalez, A. (2018). Trauma and
Long-Term Memory for Childhood Events: Impact Matters. Child Development
Perspectives, 13(1), 3-9. doi:10.1111/cdep.12307
Hammack, M. E. (2016). A Brief History of Mass Shootings – Behind the Tower. Retrieved from
http://behindthetower.org/a-brief-history-of-mass-shootings
Hirst, W., Phelps, E. A., Buckner, R. L., Budson, A. E., Cuc, A., Gabrieli, J. D., … Vaidya, C. J.
(2009). Long-term memory for the terrorist attack of September 11: Flashbulb memories,
event memories, and the factors that influence their retention. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 138(2), 161-176. doi:10.1037/a0015527 SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 31
Henry, S. (2009). School violence beyond Columbine: A complex problem in need of an
interdisciplinary analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1246-1265.
doi:10.1177/0002764209332544
Holmes, A. & Conway, M. A. (1999). Generation Identity and the Reminiscence Bump: Memory
for Public and Private Events. Journal of Adult Development 6, 21–34
doi:10.1023/A:1021620224085
Janssen, S., Murre, J. M., Meeter, M., & Martijn M,. (2008). Reminiscence bump in memory
for public events. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 20(4). 738-764.
doi:10.1080/09541440701554409
Jetter, M., & Walker. J. K. (2018, October). The Effect of Media Coverage on Mass Shootings. ‘
IZA Institute of Labor Economics. IZA DP No. 11900
Jordan, K. (2003). A trauma and recovery model for victims and their families after a
catastrophic school shooting: Focusing on behavioral, cognitive, and psychological
effects and needs. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 3(4), 397-411.
doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhg031
Kleber, R. J. (2019). Trauma and Public Mental Health: A Focused Review. Frontiers in
Psychiatry, 10. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00451
Koppel, J (2013) The Reminiscence Bump for Public Events: A Review of Its Prevalence and
Taxonomy of Alternative Age Distributions. Applied Cognitive Psychology 27(1) 12–32.
doi:10.1002/acp.2865
Koppel, J., & Berntsen, D. (2016) The reminiscence bump in autobiographical memory and for
public events: A comparison across different cueing methods. Memory, 24(1), 44-62, doi:
10.1080/09658211.2014.985233 SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 32
Koppel, J., & Rubin, D. C. (2016). Recent Advances in Understanding the Reminiscence Bump:
The Importance of Cues in Guiding Recall from Autobiographical Memory. Current
directions in psychological science, 25(2), 135–149. doi:10.1177/0963721416631955
Lankford, A., Madfis, E. (2018). Don’t name them, don’t show them, but report everything else:
A pragmatic proposal for denying mass killers the attention they seek and deterring future
offenders. American Behavioral Scientist, 62, 260-279. doi:10.1177/0002764217730854
Larkin, R. W. (2009). The Columbine Legacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1309-1326.
doi:10.1177/0002764209332548
Larsen, S. (1992). Potential flashbulbs: Memories of ordinary news as the baseline. In E.
Winograd & U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and Accuracy in Recall: Studies of 'Flashbulb'
Memories (Emory Symposia in Cognition, pp. 32-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511664069.004
Lawrence, R. G., & Birkland, T. A. (2004). Guns, Hollywood, and School Safety: Defining the
School-Shooting Problem Across Public Arenas*. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1193–
1207. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00271.x
Leavy, P., & Maloney, K. P. (2009). American Reporting of School Violence and `People Like
Us': A Comparison of Newspaper Coverage of the Columbine and Red Lake School
Shootings. Critical Sociology, 35(2), 273-292. doi:10.1177/0896920508099195
Liu, J. & Hilton, D. (2006). How the Past Weighs on the Present: Social Representations
of History and their Role in Identity Politics. The British Journal of Social Psychology,
44. 537-56. doi:10.1348/014466605x27162
Luminet, O., Curci, A., Finkenauer, C., & Gisle, L. (2001). Flashbulb memories in social groups: SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 33
A comparative test–retest study of the memory of French President Mitterrand's death in
a French and a Belgian group. Memory, 9(2), 81-101. doi:10.1080/09658210042000120
Luscombe, R. (2019, April 19). Generation Columbine: How mass shootings changed America's
schools. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/19/columbine-
parkland-how-mass-shootings-changed-us-schools
Mabee, B. (2007). Re-imagining the Borders of US Security after 9/11: Securitisation, Risk, and
the Creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Globalizations, 4(3), 385-397.
doi:10.1080/14747730701532567
Maguire, B., Weatherby, G. A., & Mathers, R. A. (2002). Network news coverage of school
shootings. The Social Science Journal, 39(3), 465-470. doi:10.1016/s0362-
3319(02)00201-x
Mahmood, D., Manier, D., & Hirst, W. (2004). Memory for how one learned of multiple deaths
from AIDS: Repeated exposure and distinctiveness. Memory & Cognition, 32(1), 125-
134. doi:10.3758/bf03195825
Mannheim, K. (1952). The Problem of Generations. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge:
Collected Works, 5, 276–322. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-24984-8_9
McNally, R. J. (2005). Debunking myths about trauma and memory. The Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 50(13), 817-822. doi:10.1177/070674370505001302
Munawar, K., Kuhn, S. K., & Haque, S. (2018). Understanding the reminiscence bump: A
systematic review. PloS one, 13(12), e0208595. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208595
Muschert, G. W. (2007). The columbine victims and the myth of the juvenile Superpredator.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(4), 351-366. doi:10.1177/1541204006296173
Muschert, G. W. (2019). Afterword: The Columbine Effect on Culture, Policy, and Me. Journal SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 34
of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 35(3), 357–372. doi: 10.1177/1043986219840238
Muschert, G. W., & Peguero, A. A. (2010). The columbine effect and school antiviolence policy.
New Approaches to Social Problems Treatment, 117-148. doi:10.1108/s0196-
1152(2010)0000017007
Neisser, U. (1982). Snapshots or benchmarks. In Memory observed: Remembering in natural
contexts (pp. 43-48). San Francisco: Macmillan.
North, C. S., & King, R. V. (2009). Eyewitness to mass murder: Findings from studies of four
multiple shooting episodes. In Mental Health and Disasters (pp. 497-507). Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511730030.029
Olick, J. K., & Robbins, J. (1998). Social memory studies: From “Collective memory” to the
historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 105-140.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.105
Peace, K. A., & Porter, S. (2004). A longitudinal investigation of the reliability of memories for
trauma and other emotional experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(9), 1143-
1159. doi:10.1002/acp.1046
Porter, S. & Birt, A. R. (2001). Is Traumatic Memory Special? A Comparison of Traumatic
Memory Characteristics with Memory for other Emotional Life Experiences. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 15(7), 101-117. doi:10.1002/acp.766
Raitanen, J., & Oksanen, A. (2019). Deep interest in school shootings and online radicalization.
Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 6(3-4), 159-172.
doi:10.1037/tam0000127
Rubin, D. C., Rahhal, T. A., & Poon, L. W. (1998). Things learned in early adulthood are
remembered best. Memory & Cognition, 26, 3–19. doi:10.3758/BF03211366 SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 35
Schaefer, E. G., Halldorson, M., & Dizon-Reynante, C. (2011). TV or not TV? Does the
immediacy of viewing images of a momentous news event affect the quality and stability
of flashbulb memories. Memory,19 (3): 251–266. doi:10.1080/09658211.2011.558512
Schildkraut, J., Elsass, H. J., & Meredith, K. (2017). Mass shootings and the media: why all
events are not created equal. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(3), 223-243.
doi:10.1080/0735648x.2017.1284689
School Shootings. (2018, December 4). Retrieved from
https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-
youth/school-shootings#.XYkuPkZKiUk
Schuman, H. & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories. American Sociological
Review, 54, 359-381. doi:10.2307/2095611
Shultz, J. M., Cohen, A. M., Muschert, G. W., & Flores de Apodaca, R. (2013). Fatal school
shootings and the epidemiological context of firearm mortality in the United States.
Disaster Health, 1(2), 84–101. doi:10.4161/dish.26897
Silva, J. R., & Capellan, J. A. (2018). The media’s coverage of mass public shootings in
America: Fifty years of newsworthiness. International Journal of Comparative and
Applied Criminal Justice, 43(1), 77-97. doi:10.1080/01924036.2018.1437458
Silva, J. R., & Greene-Colozzi, E. A. (2019). Fame-seeking mass shooters in America: Severity,
characteristics, and media coverage. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48, 24-35.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2019.07.005
Smiley, D. (2018, April 24). Parkland shooter researched Columbine as he planned attack, state
commission reveals. Miami Herald [Miami].
Steinkoler, M. (2018). Lone wolf terrorists: Howling in the eye of the wind – The case of SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 36
Adam Lanza. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 26(4), 1-9.
doi:10.1080/0803706X.2017.1333142.
Stone, C. B. & Jay, A.C.V. (2018). Are negative events more likely to elicit flashbulb memories
than positive events? A functional examination of the role valence plays in the formation
of flashbulb memories. In O. Luminet & A. Curci (eds.), Flashbulb memories: Updated
issues and perspective (pp. 161-181). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2017). Ordinary memory processes shape Flashbulb memories
of extraordinary events. Flashbulb Memories, 73-95. doi:10.4324/9781315623481-5
Tekcan, A. I., Boduroglu, A., Mutlutürk, A., & Erciyes, A. A. (2017). Life-span retrieval of
public events: Reminiscence bump for high-impact events, recency for others. Memory &
Cognition, 45(7), 1095–1112. doi:10.3758/s13421-017-0724-1
Tekcan, A.İ., Ece, B., Gülgöz, S. and Er, N. (2003), Autobiographical and event memory for
9/11: changes across one year. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17: 1057-1066.
doi:10.1002/acp.985
Willingham, A., & Levenson, E. (2018, April 20). 19 years ago, Columbine shook America to its
core. Now, it's not even among the 10 deadliest shootings in modern US history.
Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/health/deadliest-mass-shootings-
columbine-in-modern-us-history-trnd/index.html
Zaromb, F., Butler, A. C., Agarwal, P. K., & Roediger, H. L. (2013, October 5). Collective
memories of three wars in United States history in younger and older adults. Memory &
Cognition, 42(3):383-99. doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0369-7
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 37
Table 1: Percentages and frequencies of school shootings that first comes to mind by age group/generation
18-22 23-27 28-32 32+ Percentage Columbine 17* 3 3 32* 56.7 Parkland 4 2 0 3 9.3
Sandy Hook 18* 1 2 8* 29.9
University Texas 1 0 0 0 1 Virginia Tech 0 0 1 0 1 Miscellaneous School Shooting 1 0 1 0 2.1 Note: * Denotes a significant difference at the .05 level between the 18-22 age group and the 32+ age group.
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 38
Table 2: Percentages and frequencies School shootings that were deemed “most traumatic” by age group/generation
18-22 23-27 28-32 32+ Percentage Columbine 7* 2 0 17* 26.8 Parkland 1 2 0 3 6.2
Sandy Hook 29* 2 5 23* 60.8
University of Texas Tower 1 0 0 0 1 Virginia Tech 0 0 1 0 1 Miscellaneous School Shooting 3 0 1 0 4.1 Note: * Denotes a significant difference at the .05 level between the 18-22 age group and the 32+ age group
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 39
Table 3: Percentages and frequencies School shootings that were thought to have the most fatalities by age group/generation
18-22 23-27 28-32 32+ Percentage Columbine 3 2 1 15 21.6 Parkland 6 0 0 4 10.3
Sandy Hook 16 2 2 16 37.1
Santa Fe High 1 0 0 0 1 Virginia Tech 7 2 4 3 16.5 Miscellaneous School Shooting 1 0 0 0 1 Don’t know/Not 7 0 0 4 12.3 Sure/NA/Miscellaneous Note: * Denotes a significant difference at the .05 level between the 18-22 age group and the 32+ age group
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 40
Table 4: Percentages and frequencies School shootings that were thought to have the most casualties (fatalities and injuries) by age group/generation
18-22 23-27 28-32 32+ Percentage Columbine 2* 2 1 17* 22.7 Parkland 5 1 0 4 10.3
Sandy Hook 15 0 3 14 33
Virginia Tech 6 2 2 3 13.4 Miscellaneous School Shooting 1 0 0 0 1 Don’t know/Not 12 1 1 5 19.6 Sure/NA/Miscellaneous
Note: * Denotes a significant difference at the .05 level between the 18-22 age group and the 32+ age group
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 41
Table 5: Percentages and frequencies School shootings that were thought to have the earliest school shooting by age group/generation
18-22 23-27 28-32 32+ Percentage Columbine 15 2 4 23 45.4 Parkland 0 0 0 1 1
Sandy Hook 3 1 0 0 4.1
University of Texas 2 0 1 5 8.2 Virginia Tech 1 0 0 0 1 Miscellaneous School Shooting 7 2 0 4 13.4 Don’t know/Not 13 1 2 10 26.8 Sure/NA/Miscellaneous
Note: * Denotes a significant difference at the .05 level between the 18-22 age group and the 32+ age group
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 42
Table 6: Percentages and frequencies School shootings that were thought to have the most profound effect on American history by age group/generation
18-22 23-27 28-32 32+ Percentage Columbine 13 2 4 28 48.5 Parkland 1 1 0 1 3.1
Sandy Hook 20 2 2 11 36.1
University of Texas 1 0 0 0 1 Virginia Tech 1 0 0 0 1 Miscellaneous School Shooting 2 0 0 0 2.1 Don’t know/Not 3 1 1 3 8.2 Sure/NA/Miscellaneous
Note: * Denotes a significant difference at the .05 level between the 18-22 age group and the 32+ age group SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 43
Appendix
Consent form/information
The following survey was created to understand the opinion of the general public on
school shootings. Please answer truthfully and honestly. Although it would likely be
tempting, if you do not know an answer, DO NOT search for the answer online. Please
just select the answer that you think it is, do not try searching the answer to get it
"correct". This is not a graded assessment. No matter the answer that you choose, know
that there is no correct answer, except for this question. To prove that you have read this
paragraph, please choose the third option. Read each question carefully.
o I have read the above paragraph
o I have not read the above paragraph
o Third option
o Correct
Mnemonic accessibility of School Shootings
When you think of school shootings, which shooting FIRST COMES TO MIND?
______
Why do you think that is?
______
When you think of school shootings, which school shooting, in your opinion, was the
most TRAUMATIC?
______
Why do you think that is? SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 44
______
Confidence of Recollection
Which mass school shooting had the most fatalities?
______
How confident is your recollection? (0 meaning very little, and 10
meaning extremely confident)
Confidence Level
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Which school shooting the most casualties (fatalities plus
injuries)?
______
How confident is your recollection?
Confidence Level
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
What was the earliest mass school shooting in American history?
______
How confident is your recollection?
Confidence Level
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Which school shooting had the most profound effect on
American history?
______
How confident is your recollection? SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 45
Confidence Level
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Presentation of Shootings
Of the following school shootings, which do you think is the most
memorable school shooting? If you feel there is another
shooting that is more memorable that is not listed here, please
input that in "other".
o Benningworth School Shooting
o Bowling Green Massacre
o Columbine Shooting
o Oikos University Shooting
o Parkland (Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School) Shooting
o Red Lake Shooting
o Sandy Hook Shooting
o Santa Fe High School Shooting
o University of Texas Tower Shooting
o Umpqua Community College Shooting
o Virginia Tech Shooting
o Other
Please elaborate on your answer above, why was it the most memorable? Please answer
in as much detail as possible. Try to provide at least a sentence or two.
______
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 46
From which source did you FIRST hear about this specific event?
o Newspaper
o Television (Tv show, documentary, movie)
o Social Media
o Word of Mouth
o I or loved one(s) was present during the shooting
o Public Demonstrations/Protest
o Personal Testimony
o Learned about it from school
o Other
(In the advent that "I or loved one(s) was present during the shooting" is selected, the
following message and two questions are displayed)
Please make sure that you selected "I or loved one(s) was present during the shooting" on
purpose. If you did so in error, please go back and correct your response.
Media Influence
(In the advent that Newspaper, Television (Tv show, documentary, movie), or Social
Media is selected, the following two questions are displayed)
If you chose newspaper, television, or social media, please state which platform you
heard it from if you know. (If you selected "television" and remembered hearing about SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 47
the shooting from Fox News, please type that below. Or if you heard about an event from
Twitter, type that). If you did not choose Newspaper,
Television, or Social Media, just type N/A in the box below.
______
How closely did you follow the news coverage of that particular shooting? (0 meaning
very little, and 100 meaning extremely closely)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Which of the following shootings do you think is most memorable for Americans
generally? If you feel there is another shooting that is more memorable that is not listed
here, please input that in "other".
o Benningworth School Shooting
o Bowling Green Massacre
o Columbine Shooting
o Oikos University Shooting
o Parkland (Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School) Shooting
o Red Lake Shooting
o Sandy Hook Shooting
o Santa Fe High School Shooting
o University of Texas Tower Shooting
o Umpqua Community College Shooting
o Virginia Tech Shooting
o Other SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 48
Please elaborate on your answer above, why was it the most memorable in the eyes of the
American public? Please answer in as much detail as possible. Try to provide at least a
sentence or two.
______
From which source of information do you think impacted the public's opinion the most?
o Newspaper
o Television (Tv show, documentary, movie)
o Social Media
o Word of Mouth
o I or loved one(s) was present during the shooting
o Public Demonstrations/Protest
o Personal Testimony
o Learned about it from school
o Other
(Question displayed to ascertain that participants are taking this seriously)
What is three plus seven?
o Agree
o Disagree
o Neither Agree or Disagree
o Unknown
o Ten
SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 49
Political Opinions
Please state how much you agree with the following statements.
I am in support of the 2nd amendment
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
I am pro-gun rights / anti- gun control
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
I sympathize with gun owners
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 50
I sympathize with gun activists
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
I sympathize with the NRA
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
Do you belong to any gun activist groups?
o Yes
o No
o Formerly
o Plan to join in the future
Do you belong to the NRA?
o Yes
o No
o Formerly SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 51
o Plan to join in the future
Demographics
Gender
o Male
o Female
o Other ______
Age
______
Political Affiliation
o Republican
o Democratic
o Independent
o Other
On a scale of 1 (1 = Liberal) to 10 (10 = Conservative), what do you consider as your
political ideology
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Are you currently a student?
o Yes
o No
If yes, please indicate the level in which you are at.
o High school
o Undergraduate
o Graduate SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 52
Are you the parent of a student?
o Yes
o No
If yes, please indicate the level in which they are at.
o Elementary
o Junior
o HS
o Undergraduate
o Graduate
Is there a student in your family?
o Yes
o No
If yes, please indicate the level in which they are at.
o Elementary
o Junior
o HS
o Undergraduate
o Graduate
Where did you hear about this study?
o Mechanical Turk
o SONA
o Other
What is your Mechanical Turk ID? SCHOOL SHOOTING MEMORABILITY 53
______
What is your name as displayed in the SONA system?
______
Optional Information
Optional: Is there any information that you would like to add, or is there any information
that you would like the researchers to know, or would you like to be contacted for follow
up information?
______