School Shootings and Local Communities:

JAMES HAWDON, ATTE OKSANEN, PEKKA RÄSÄNEN, AND JOHN RYAN

School Shootings and Local Communities: An International Comparison between the United States and Finland

University of Turku / Department of Social Research Turku 2012 ISBN 978-951-29-5220-5 ISSN 1799-2370 Painosalama Oy, 2012

PREFACE A number of organizations and individuals made our projects possible. We acknowledge the generous support of the U.S.’s National Science Foundation for their support on the Campus Violence: Exploring a Community’s Response to Tragedy (grant number SES 0735471) and the Social Relations and Community Solidarity: An International Comparative Analysis projects (grant number SES 0825662). In addition, we would like to acknowledge Emil Aaltonen Foundation for supporting the project Everyday Life and Insecurity: Social Relations after Jokela and Kauhajoki School Shootings (research grant 2009–2012). We also wish to express our gratitude for the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and Turku University Foundation for sponsoring the project symposium in Turku, Finland in June 2011. We also thank the numerous research assistants who contributed to our projects. These individuals include Laura Agnich in Blacksburg, US; the Finnish project researchers Johanna Nurmi, Miika Vuori, Kauri Lindström and research assistant Liisa Panula in Turku, Finland. October 30, 2012 in Blacksburg, Helsinki and Turku. James Hawdon Atte Oksanen Pekka Räsänen John Ryan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 7

2

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................. 10

3

DATA .................................................................................................. 13

4

MAIN RESULTS .................................................................................... 17

5

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 31

6

FULL LIST OF PUBLICATIONS THE CONSORTIUM HAS PRODUCED ....... 35

7

REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 42

7

1

INTRODUCTION

On April 20, 1999, students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 of their Columbine High School classmates. Since that fateful event captured the world’s attention, mass school shootings have occurred with greater frequency. Since 2000, there have been over 50 fatal school shootings in the United States, and the once “American phenomenon” has become international. In addition, there have been school shootings in Canada, Germany, France, Australia, Argentina, Israel, Azerbaijan, Brazil, and Finland. Mass killings have also spread beyond the classroom. The United States averages 20 mass killings a year, most recently on a busy Manhattan street, in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, a movie theater in Colorado, and a day spa in Wisconsin. Mass shootings have also occurred recently in Finland, Slovakia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway where Anders Breivik murdered 77 people in Oslo and Utøya. As these tragedies occur with greater frequency, researchers have increased their efforts to understand them. Our collective projects extend these efforts. Many researchers studying mass killings adopt a psychological approach and analyse the perpetrators hoping to decipher their motives. Others take a security studies approach and attempt to understand how our security systems were avoided and how they can be improved to prevent future acts of mass violence. Media researchers study how journalists reported the event and try to provide guidelines for future journalists to follow. Crisis counselors try to estimate the extent that victims and those in the afflicted communities experience trauma-related mental-health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and figure out ways to help those who do. Our approach is different: we take a sociological approach. Our sociological approach focuses not on the perpetrators or primary victims; instead, we focus on the communities that experienced the tragedy. How does a community respond to these mass tragedies? Does the community’s response vary depending on pre-tragedy community characteristics? Does the nature of the community’s response promote or deter recovery from the trauma? Rooted in classical sociological theory and using the methods of survey research and intensive interviews, we investigate the responses of four communities traumatized by mass shootings. Two of these communities are in the United States (Blacksburg/Virginia Tech and Omaha) and two are in Finland (Jokela and

8 Kauhajoki). Three of these communities experienced horrific school shootings, and one, Omaha, experienced a mass shooting in a shopping mall. What follows is a summary of our collective studies.

The Incidents and contexts The incidents we consider are particularly distressing. Not only were they acts of extreme violence, they all occurred in settings where violence, any violence, is relatively rare. Moreover, they occurred in institutions—schools and a shopping mall—that are expected to be safe. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, or Virginia Tech (VT), is a comprehensive research university located in Southwest Virginia. With approximately 24,000 undergraduate and 4,000 graduate students, VT is the largest university in Virginia. VT is approximately 77 kilometers from Roanoke, Virginia and is located in the Town of Blacksburg, a small town with approximately 42,000 residents. The town and university are highly integrated, as a sizable percentage of the town’s residents either go to or work for VT. The rural setting and small-town atmosphere of the university provide a quiet, and typically safe, environment. In 2011, BusinessWeek rated Blacksburg as the best place to raise children in the United States. The Finnish school shootings took place in Jokela and Kauhajoki. Jokela is a small town of approximately 5.600 residents in the northern region of the Tuusula municipality and approximately 50 kilometers from Helsinki. It is one of three administrative centers and second largest city in Tuusula. Kauhajoki is situated in the Ostrobothnia region in Western Finland, approximately 350 kilometers from Helsinki. With its population of over 14,000 inhabitants, Kauhajoki is a larger community than Jokela, both geographically and population-wise. With a population of approximately 410,000 people, Omaha is the largest city in Nebraska and the 42 nd largest in the United States. The greater metropolitan area of Omaha has approximately 1.2 million residents. Economically and ethnically diverse, Omaha is comprised of numerous neighborhoods. The Westside neighborhood, the site of the Westroads Mall where the shooting occurred, has a population of approximately 36,000. It is a relatively affluent neighborhood, with the median household income being approximately 1.3 times that of the median household income for the city of Omaha. All of these relatively safe communities were shattered in a matter of minutes. On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, a Virginia Tech senior, attacked the campus in Blacksburg. Cho first killed two students in a dormitory shortly

9 after 7:00 a.m. and calmly left campus. Approximately two hours later, he returned to campus, chained the doors to a classroom building, and at 9:41, began shooting faculty members and students in four classrooms. After approximately 11 minutes, he had killed an additional 30 people and wounded 17 others. He then committed suicide as police entered the building (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). The massacre is one of the deadliest shooting incidents by a single gunman in U.S. history, and it is the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. The Jokela shooting occurred less than seven months after the VT tragedy. On November 7, 2007, 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen entered his school shortly before noon and fatally shot a student in the hallway. After killing three additional students, Auvinen shot and killed the school nurse and a fifth student. He then walked through the hallway firing over 50 shots and screaming threats. The gunman then went to the second floor, fatally shot another student, and unsuccessfully attempted to ignite two-stroke petrol that he had poured on the walls. He then exited the school and shot the school’s head teacher. He re-entered the building screaming threats and encouraging students to join his “revolution.” Auvinen then fired two shots at the police who were approaching the building, walked to the lavatory and shot himself. (Investigation Commission of the Jokela school shooting, 2009 National Bureau of Investigation, 2008). One month after the Jokela shooting on December 6, 2007, Robert Hawkins, a 19-year-old high school dropout, entered the the Von Muar department store in the Westroads shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska. He left and then returned with a semi-automatic rifle hidden under his sweatshirt. At 1:43 p.m., he stepped out of the elevator on the store’s third floor, pulled his rifle, fired over 30 rounds, and killed six mall employees and two customers. In addition, he wounded three others before committing suicide. On September 23, 2008, 22-year-old Matti Juhani Saari entered Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences in Kauhajoki and committed Finland’s deadliest school shooting in history. Shortly before 11:00 a.m., Saari, a student at the university, shot into a group of approximately 20 students who were taking an exam, killing eight female students, a male student, and a faculty member. The gunman then spilled flammable liquid into the room and set it ablaze. Saari then shot at but missed two students who had come to investigate the noises. He ran down the hallway, shooting out the windows and tossing firebombs into various rooms and starting several fires. He then called a friend, calmly confessed his crime, and said goodbye before shooting himself. (Investigation Commission of the Kauhajoki school shooting 2010; National Bureau of Investigation, 2009).

10

2

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Our theoretical approach is rooted in classical sociology, specifically the work of Emile Durkheim. According to Durkheim ([1893] 1964), crimes, especially heinous crimes such as those we study, elicit negative sanctions by arousing collective sentiments against the infringement of strongly held norms. Since such crimes disturb collectively held sentiments, it produces a collective response. This response has the unanticipated consequence of strengthening normative consensus and promoting social solidarity. Durkheim ([1893] 1964, 102) states, “Crime brings together upright consciences and concentrates them. We have only to notice what happens . . . when some moral scandal has just been committed. They stop each other on the street, they visit each other, they seek to come together to talk of the event and to wax indignant in common. From all the similar impressions which are exchanged, from all the temper that gets itself expressed, there emerges a unique temper . . . which is everybody’s without being anybody’s in particular. That is the public temper.” The collective response to crime is due to the collective nature of the sentiments crime offends. The community, in turn, resists this weakening by acting collectively. Through this collective action, solidarity is promoted and the group’s unity is enhanced. Building on Durkheim’s insight, we then turn to a large body of work that demonstrates the benefits of social solidarity and the highly related concepts of social capital and collective efficacy. In criminology, for example, it is well documented that solidified communities have lower rates of crime (e.g. Hemenway et al., 2001; Hawdon & Ryan, 2009). Neighborhoods with high levels of solidarity are able to exercise social control over group-level processes, such as unsupervised youth, because residents of solidified communities are likely to intervene in situations that can lead to serious crime (see Sampson, 2001; Sampson et al., 1999). Social solidarity and related concepts offer other benefits to the community as well, including economic prosperity (e.g. Fukuyama, 1995; Putnam, 1993; 2000), community development (Gittell & Thompson, 2001), lower neighborhood mortality rates, and improved community health (James et al., 2001; Kawachi et al., 1997; Veenstra, 2002).

11 Given the communal benefits of solidarity in normal situations, we theorized that social solidarity would also help communities that had been shocked by traumatic events. In normal times, those embedded in strong networks of support are likely to develop attachments that promote a sense of wellbeing (Berkman et al., 2000; Granello, 2001; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001; Savage & Russell, 2005; Smith & Christakis, 2008), and social solidarity may play an even more important role after tragedies. A stressful event such as a mass shooting can adversely affect victims’ mental health by promoting maladaptive coping strategies or activating distressful physiological responses. The social networks found in solidified communities can be activated during times of crises, and these networks can counteract the deleterious effects of stressors by providing emotional resources and encouraging effective coping strategies (see Cohen, 2004). In addition, social support can counteract the feelings of insecurity, helplessness, and meaninglessness that those victimized by a traumatic event often experience (Walsh, 2007). It is therefore unsurprising that researchers have found that a supportive social environment decreases the likelihood of PTSD and other mental health problems after traumatic events (Galea et al., 2002; Galea & Vlahov, 2005; Johnson et al., 2002; Ruzek et al., 2007; Walsh, 2007). Finally, heightened solidarity likely has another benefit for traumatized communities. It is reasonable to expect that residents of communities traumatized by mass shootings could suffer from an elevated level of fear of future crimes. Yet, resident who are socially integrated into a cohesive, solidified community report lower levels of fear than do residents of unsolidified and disorderly communities (Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; Mesch, 2000; DeLone, 2008). Again, if solidarity reduces fear in “normal times,” it is likely even more important after a crises. Believing your neighbor will be there for you makes you feel safer than if you believe you are all alone. Using these theoretical insights, we address three interrelated research questions: 1. To determine how a tragedy affects community solidarity, 2. To determine which social relationships have the greatest influence on community solidarity, and 3. To determine the role of community solidarity in recovering from a tragedy, specifically by determining if solidarity promotes emotional wellbeing and reduces fear of crime. While we begin with the hypotheses that the tragedies will result in heightened levels of solidarity and that this solidarity will aid in the residents’ recovery process, we also recognize that solidarity can have a “dark side.”

12 There are at least three negative consequences of social solidarity: exclusion of outsiders, excessive claims on group members, and restrictions on individual freedoms. The very social control created by heightened solidarity that leads to beneficial outcomes for some can have the opposite effect for others. Our research is sensitive to this possibility, and we specifically address it in several of our papers.

13

3

DATA

US data The data sources for the Virginia Tech case include four web-based surveys of VT students. We administered the first survey in connection with another project in April 2006. After the 2007 tragedy, three waves of panel data were collected from VT students. Three waves of panel data were also collected from VT faculty and staff. Students enrolled during the 2006 spring semester were asked to complete a web-based survey as part of an evaluation project concerning experiences with crime on campus. The survey was administered in April 2006. All students were invited to participate, and 2,205 students responded to the survey (a response rate of 14.2%). Despite the relatively low response rate, the sample adequately represents the VT community for all ethnic categories and the distribution of students across the university’s eight colleges. As is common in surveys, females were over-represented in the data. Whereas 58.4 percent of undergraduate students are male, only 52.0 percent of the sample is male. For the post-tragedy survey, we randomly selected 2,000 students from those enrolled in the fall of 2007. This survey was fielded approximately five months after the tragedy. In total, 626 completed student surveys were obtained (a response rate of 31.3%). We also randomly selected 600 VT faculty and staff members. Of those selected to participate, 70.5 percent (423) completed the survey. Both the student and faculty samples are within the expected margin of errors for all ethnic categories and academic disciplines. The student sample, however, over sampled females. To correct for any possible effect that oversampling females may have on the analyses, all of the analyses were conducted using both weighted data to correct for the over-sampling of females and unweighted data. The analyses did not differ in any substantively important ways. We therefore report the unweighted results. The second survey was fielded approximately nine months after the tragedy. For this wave, only those completing the first-wave survey were invited to participate, and 478 students (76.4%) completed the second wave. This response rate was adversely affected by the approximately 26 percent of sampled students who graduated from the university between the two waves

14 of the survey. Of the 423 completed first-wave faculty surveys, 351 faculty and staff members (83%) responded to the second survey. The third wave of the survey was fielded 13 months after the tragedy, and 267 students and 214 faculty/staff members completed the survey. In total, 194 students and 171 faculty members have complete data for all three waves of the survey. We used two telephone surveys to collect the data from Omaha. The first wave of data was collected approximately nine months after the shooting, and the second wave was collected from the same respondents approximately 13 months after the shooting. We used RDD sampling and the sampling frame was all phone numbers available to Omaha residents, including both listed and unlisted numbers. We limited our respondents to adult residents of the city of Omaha. In the first wave, 405 residents completed surveys. The cooperation rate was 52.0 percent, and the minimum response rate was 26.7 percent. In the second wave, we surveyed the same respondents, and 203 completed wave-two surveys. Therefore, the minimum response rate for wave two was 53.7 percent; however, the cooperation rate for wave two was 87.1 percent. The response rates for the Omaha surveys are relatively low; however, they are similar to those reported in recent studies of general interest surveys. To test the adequacy of the sample, we compared sample statistics to census data. Based on these comparisons, the sample represented the Omaha population accurately in terms of ethnicity, age, and income. Females were slightly overrepresented, but using weighted data to correct for this bias did not alter the research findings; therefore, we only report unweighted analyses. For the media analyses, we collected all stories related to the Virginia Tech shootings published in the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and Roanoke Times between April16, 2007 and June 16, 2007. In total, 854 articles were collected and coded.

Finnish data For the Finnish data, we collected both mail surveys and thematic interviews over a period of two years. We fielded a mail survey in Jokela between May 15 and June 15, 2009, approximately six months after the school shooting. The sampling frame for the Finish survey was Jokela residents between the ages of 18 and 74 selected from the Population Register Database. The minimum response rate was 47 percent (n=330).

15 Data to compare the Jokela sample to its population is limited because Jokela is a small town; however, comparing the age structure of the data to that of the Tuusula municipality indicates the sample represents the area well. Based on 2008 estimates, 48.5 percent of the Tuusula households are comprised of married or cohabitating parents (Statistics Finland, 2008); similarly, 52.4 percent of the sample is comprised of married or cohabitating parents. In addition, of Tuusula population between the ages of 18 and 74, 45.6 percent are age 31 to 50. In the sample, 40.6 percent are between the ages of 31 and 50. These figures are within the expected margin of error for the sample. Moreover, the gender distribution (51.7% male) indicates the sample is representative on this dimension as well. While these numbers are encouraging, we emphasize that they are for the larger Tuusula municipality and not directly applicable to Jokela. Unfortunately, these are the most comparable data available for research purposes. We collected the second wave of Jokela data using the same procedures used to collect the first-wave data. These data were collected 18 months after the shooting in May and June 2009. For the second wave, 276 respondents returned completed surveys, and the minimum response rate was 40 percent (n=278). Kauhajoki data were collected using identical techniques. The first wave of Kauhajoki data were collected March–April 2009 and the second in March– April 2010, approximately 6 months and 18 months after the tragedy. The response rates were 46 percent and 48 percent for the first and second wave, respectively. Based on the 2009 estimates, there were no considerable differences between the sample and population (Statistics Finland, 2009). The most notable differences were in terms of gender distributions. In Kauhajoki, 51.8 percent of the population was male, whereas 44.7 percent were male in the first wave and 44.9 in the second wave. In addition, under 30-year-old respondents were slightly underrepresented in both waves. Again, we would like to stress that official statistics can offer comparisons for the broader municipality areas that Kauhajoki town and are therefore not directly applicable for our sample. In addition to survey data, we conducted three types of interviews. The first type of interviews was with individuals who participated in crisis work or aftercare after the incidents. Six interviewees were from Jokela and five were from Kauhajoki. These interviews were conducted in January–March 2009 in Jokela and in September–November 2009 in Kauhajoki. The second type of interviews involved local residents of Jokela and Kauhajoki. A total of 43 people participated in the interviews, 21 in Jokela and 22 in Kauhajoki. The interview themes covered social relations in the local communities, descriptions of the local communities, the participant’s personal experience

16 of the school shootings, and the consequences of the shootings for personal and community life. In Jokela, the parents of Pekka-Eric Auvinen were interviewed twice, in January 2010 and in June 2011. The interview themes were the same as in the other interviews with local people. We also looked for the responses to the school shootings in the media. Media data were collected after both incidents from the Helsingin Sanomat. The Jokela media data includes 249 articles published in November 8, 2007 and December 31, 2007 and the Kauhajoki media data includes 390 articles published in September 24, 2008 and November 30, 2008.

Table 1: Data overview Virginia Tech

Pre-survey (one year prior the tragedy) Survey 1 (5 months after the tragedy) Survey 2 (9 months after the tragedy) Survey 3 (13 months after tragedy) Articles related to the VT shooting from eight newspapers

(n=2,205) (n=1,029) (n=901) (n=481)

Survey 1 (6 months after the tragedy) Survey 2 (18 months after the tragedy) Expert Interviews Local people interviews with 21 people Interviews with the parents of the shooter Media articles discussing school shootings, published in Helsingin Sanomat in 8.11.2007–31.12.2007

(n=330) (n=278) (n=6) (n=17) (n=2)

Omaha

Survey 1 (9 months after tragedy) Survey 2 (13 months after tragedy)

(n=405) (n=203)

Kauhajoki

Survey 1 (6 months after the tragedy) Survey 2 (18 months after the tragedy) Expert Interviews Local people interviews with 22 people Media articles discussing school shootings, published in Helsingin Sanomat in 24.9.2008– 30.11.2008

(n=319) (n=339) (n=5) (n=18)

Jokela

(n=854)

(n=249)

(n=390)

17

4

MAIN RESULTS

Virginia Tech Ryan, J. & Hawdon, J. (2008). From Individual to Community: The “Framing” of 4-16 and the Display of Social Solidarity. Traumatology, 14(1), 43–52. For a tragedy to lead to solidarity, it must be properly “framed.” A number of frames will be available, as they are for any situation, and these frames can range from “blaming the victims” to apathy to empathy to solidarity. Since Durkheim, we understand how tragedy can promote solidarity; however, not all tragedies do this. We argue that solidarity is most likely to emerge when individuals frame the event in a way that allows them to show “strong character” and when this individual-level frame is transferred to the collective. Four conditions increase the likelihood of this transference occurring: the tragedy is defined by members as affecting the collective, the tragedy is a “fateful event” that disrupts the routine of everyday life, the collective is seen as an unwilling participant in the tragedy, and the collective is seen as a “moral collective.” VT met these conditions. The tragedy could have splintered the community, led it to blame itself, or caused residents to respond with anger; it did nothing of this sort. The community, instead, responded with dramatic displays of solidarity.

Hawdon, J., Ryan, J. & Agnich, L. (2010). Crime as a Source of Solidarity: A Research Note Testing Durkheim’s Assertion. Deviant Behavior, 31(8), 679– 703. Data collected from 2,163 undergraduates as part of an earlier project are used as pre-tragedy data. Data randomly selected from 2000 students after the tragedy form a panel for three post-tragedy surveys. The main findings from this research were: Solidarity increased by approximately 18 percent after the tragedy as compared to prior to the tragedy;

18 Solidarity remained elevated for approximately six months prior to the tragedy; After six months, solidarity began to return to pre-tragedy levels The pattern of increased solidarity followed by a return toward pretragedy levels was similar for all socio-demographic groups. Thus, White and minority students, women and men, and older and younger students expressed the same pattern of increased solidarity followed by decreased solidarity.

Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J. (2012). Space, Sentiment, and Social Structure after Critical Incidents: Toward a Theory of Recovery. In R. Schwester (Ed.), Handbook of Critical Incident Analysis (pp. 70–90). New York: M. E. Sharp. Based on Hunter’s (1985) work, a community consists of networks in the private, parochial, and public spheres. The private sphere includes family and friendship networks. The parochial includes local community institutions (businesses, schools, religious institutions, clubs, etc.). The public sphere includes the bureaucratic agencies of the state and the media. We argue each sphere excels in different areas of community life and derive theoretical propositions at the individual and community level. Participating in private-realm relations will promote individual wellbeing after a tragedy but will be inversely related to levels of community solidarity. Public-realm activities are needed after a tragedy to restore the community’s damaged “space,” but these activities will be inversely related to levels of community solidarity. Participating in parochial-realm activities after a tragedy will amplify community solidarity. The greater the percentage of residents who participate in parochialrealm activities, the higher the levels of community solidarity; and, The higher the levels of community solidarity, the lower levels of community conflict after a critical incident. By promoting solidarity, parochial-realm activities are beneficial to traumatized individuals and communities.

19 Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J. (2011). Social Relations that Generate and Sustain Solidarity after a Mass Tragedy. Social Forces, 89(4), 1363–1384. We specify the social relationships that generate and sustain solidarity. We argue that event-specific parochial and public activities generate solidarity; however, general parochial activities sustain solidarity. Using longitudinal data collected after the VT shootings, a repeated measures analysis predicting levels of solidarity five, nine, and thirteen months after the tragedy support our hypotheses. The main findings included: At five and nine months following the tragedy, participating in eventspecific public activities and general parochial relations in the week following the tragedy promotes solidarity. Seeing a professional counselor following the tragedy reduces solidarity. Emotional wellbeing is positively related to solidarity, females express higher levels of solidarity than do males, and students have higher levels of solidarity than do faculty. Participating in general parochial relations immediately after the tragedy significantly increases solidarity even one year after the tragedy. Thus, solidarity emerges from the intense, collective rituals performed in the public and parochial realms that are specific to the tragedy. Yet, general parochial relations, such as participating in neighborhood and religious organizations, or eating at local restaurants, both promote and sustain solidarity over the long recovery period.

Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J. (2008). Final Report: SES 0735471 Campus Violence: Exploring a Community’s Response to Tragedy. Washington, D.C.: The National Science Foundation. In an analysis of VT students, faculty members, and staff members, social solidarity appeared to provide a source of “recovery” from the tragedy. In another analysis of residents of the town of Blacksburg, similar findings were obtained. The main findings were: Even when initial levels of wellbeing are controlled for, social solidarity is significantly related to emotional and behavioral wellbeing after a tragedy. The effect of solidarity on wellbeing is consistently positive and is observable in the short term (five months post-tragedy) and the long term (eight and thirteen months post-tragedy).

20 Solidarity was inversely related to fear of criminal victimization five months after the tragedy. The protective influence of solidarity on fear of criminal victimization was still apparent one year after the tragedy. Therefore, solidarity provides a source of collective healing and recovery.

Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J. (2012). Wellbeing after the Virginia Tech Mass Murder: The Relative Effectiveness of Face-to-Face and Virtual Interactions in Providing Support for Survivors. Traumatology, 18. Mass violence such as school shootings victimize more than those directly involved. Members of the attacked community are also at risk for increased levels of PTSD and other forms of mental distress. Research has established that being imbedded in a strong network of friends and family provides the emotional support survivors need to cope with tragedies. Given the increased use of e-mail, text messaging, and social networking sites, it is likely that survivors of mass violence now use technology to communicate with their private networks. However, it is unclear if this “virtual interaction” is as effective as face-to-face interaction in providing support. We address this question using data collected from 543 VT students after the 2007 tragedy. We predict levels of emotional wellbeing five months after the shootings. Our independent variables include measures of how frequently respondents communicated with friends and families in the week following the tragedy and if these communications were in person or “virtual.” Our main findings included the following: Stress-buffering support is best received through face-to-face interaction. Virtual interactions, while beneficial, are not sufficient. Virtual interactions promote wellbeing, but only if they occur in combination with face-to-face interactions. Texting, e-mail, and social networking sites can supplement, not replace, human contact.

Jokela and Kauhajoki In Finland, community responses to school shootings have been examined from an ex-post-facto perspective because the Finnish team does not have data prior to the shootings. Additional theoretical frameworks were also used

21 in some the Finnish studies. In particular, some of these studies focused on questions such as whether the shootings were considered isolated tragedies or not, and whether they could have been prevented.

Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P., Nurmi, J. & Lindström, K. (2010). “This Can’t Happen Here!” Community Reactions to School Shootings in Finland. Research on Finnish Society, 3, 19–27. Oksanen et al. (2010) examine the local residents’ reactions to school shootings in Finland. In 2008 and 2009, we collected comparable survey data from the local communities of Jokela (N=330) and Kauhajoki (N=319). In addition to the surveys, we have interview data from 11 professional experts who worked in Jokela and Kauhajoki during the crises. The interviews were used as additional data enabling us to understand the local communities more profoundly. In general, the article asked what implications the shooting incidents may have for Finland as a Nordic welfare society. It is important to know how the people who were near the tragedy, but perhaps not personally involved, reacted to the shootings. Since Jokela and Kauhajoki are relatively small communities, it is likely that many of the inhabitants knew at least one of the victims or the perpetrator, or at least their family members. The main findings were: As many as one-third (34%) of the respondents in Jokela said they knew someone who died in the shootings. On the other hand, less than one-fifth (18%) of Kauhajoki respondents knew someone who died in the tragedy. The proportion of respondents who considered the incident as an isolated tragedy is considerably higher (60%) in Jokela compared to Kauhajoki (29%). Nearly 44 percent of the Jokela respondents believed that the incident could have been prevented. In Kauhajoki, 41 percent of respondents believed this. The shootings were experienced differently depending on the respondents’ gender, age, residential history, and depressive mood. The experiences also varied between the communities. The authors discuss their results in the light of the fact that the Jokela case represented in many ways the first school shooting in Finland. The results suggest that the majority of the local residents do not believe that the school shootings could have been prevented. In other words, trust towards the prevention of school shootings is generally rather low. This interpretation

22 contradicts many of the basic beliefs regarding the general trust towards the Nordic welfare state institutions. Traditionally the Nordic welfare states have been active in finding solutions for social problems.

Lindström, K., Nurmi, J., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2010). Jokelan ja Kauhajoen asukkaiden arviot koulusurmien yhteiskunnallisista syistä [Perceptions of the Causes behind the Jokela and Kauhajoki School Shootings]. Sosiologia, 47(4), 270–285. The article examined local residents’ perceptions of the causes which led to the shooting tragedies in Jokela and Kauhajoki. The analysis was based on comparable survey data from the two communities Jokela (n=278) and Kauhajoki (n=319). Six factors that have been speculated in public discourses as possible explanations for the shootings were measured. The results suggest that the shootings were understood as an international phenomenon, rather than a national one. The main findings were: The respondents rated high such items as the increase in the use of the Internet, deterioration of traditional communality, and cuts in health care services as the primary causes for the shootings Some variation, too, was found between the Jokela and Kauhajoki data as well as between socio-demographic groups. The article also discussed how media framing influences the public debate on school shootings. It seems that even though the school shootings are a complex phenomenon, only a few explanations of the incidents dominate the public debate.

Oksanen, A., Nurmi, J. & Räsänen, P. (2011). Pahuus ja väkivallan käsittelemisen ongelma Jokelan ja Kauhajoen koulusurmien jälkeen [Violence, Cruelty and Evil: Problems of Coping after the Jokela and Kauhajoki School Shootings in Finland]. Janus, 19(2), 104–121. Nurmi, J. & Oksanen, A. (under review) Representations and Projections of Evil: Coping after a Violent Tragedy. Incidents of mass violence that cannot be fully explained bring the notion of evil into public discussion. The question of why people commit such crimes is, without exception, asked after violent events like terrorist attacks or school shootings. One of the reasons often given is that the perpetrators of

23 these acts are “evil.” The concept of evil is thus evoked to explain mass violence. Even the possible psychopathology of the perpetrator was not enough to explain the acts. For example, after the attacks in Oslo, Norway, in July 2011, the Norwegian domestic intelligence chief called the perpetrator “Total evil” (BBC, 2011). These two articles analyse how the concept of evil was used after the Jokela and Kauhajoki tragedies. The first article uses expert interviews collected from Jokela and Kauhajoki (n=11) and articles considering school shootings that were published in the Helsingin Sanomat during the first months after both cases (n=639). The second article analyses the interviews with the local people of Jokela and Kauhajoki (n=43). The main findings were: The image of evil is especially compelling in the cases of school shootings. The notion of inexplicable evil is used to describe and understand school shootings and their perpetrators. The chaotic and destructive nature of school shootings provoked people to consider them as evil acts without any specific explanation. The use of the notion of evil was associated with the fact that the shootings were exceptionally difficult to process in the targeted communities. In addition to horrific nature of the acts, feelings of guilt and a desire to find reasons for the incident (in Jokela) and the repression and reluctance to talk about the event (in Kauhajoki) complicated the processing of the shootings and led to the use of evil as an explanation for the acts. Evil was processed by projecting and externalizing it. Evil experienced in relation to school shootings was placed outside the local communities by projecting it onto the perpetrators and then by excluding them and even their families from the communities. The fear of evil was present in the communities at the time of the interviews; it was even assigned to individuals that vaguely corresponded to some aspects of the image of evil. Evil as an explanation seems to be used mostly when there are many possible explanations for providing an understanding of what has happened, and none of them feel plausible enough. Also, evil is often presented as an explanation when there is a reluctance to deal with other possible factors behind the violence. Labeling something or someone as evil can also be seen as a way to “get it over it” and not feel or deal with the terrible emotions that might otherwise be evoked. In both Jokela and Kauhajoki, people wanted to make sense of the seemingly senseless shootings. Labeling the acts as evil seems to be a way of processing the disturbing emotions provoked by the shootings.

24 Nurmi, J., Räsänen, P. & Oksanen, A. (2012). The Norm of Solidarity: Experiencing Negative Aspects of Community Life after a School Shooting Tragedy. Journal of Social Work, 12(3), 300–319. The study analysed how negative aspects of social solidarity evolved in Jokela after the tragedy. We ask what kinds of behavioral expectations towards grieving emerge as the community tries to recover from the disaster. The sociological literature on disasters suggests that increased social solidarity after crises helps both individuals and communities as a whole recover from tragic events; however, increased solidarity may also have restrictive effects on individuals. With our data, we examine different components contributing to the community’s sense of social solidarity after the crisis. The data consist of a mail survey of local adult residents (n=330) and interview data from six professionals who were working in Jokela during the crisis. The main findings were: The survey measures suggest that Jokela was a community in which residents like to live. At the same time, however, respondents also felt that cooperation and social participation in community activities were not common. All interviewed professionals described Jokela as a safe, tightly-knit village with a high sense of community and a strong local identity. Despite this, however, negative aspects of solidarity, such as collective guilt and stigmatization are also present, when the collective identity is being revised. The article concludes with a discussion on the long-term consequences that tragic incidents may have for small communities. The authors argue that the intensive repetition of cultural traumas can hinder socio-psychological recovery. The trauma process started by the crisis can further open a conflict between individuals and groups, some orienting towards playing down the trauma and others keeping it alive. However, the crucial question is whether the community as a whole can convert a negative experience into a positive one. Thus, professionals working in different fields such as social work and youth work need to understand that there are many restrictive and enabling components that contribute to a community’s level of social solidarity.

25 Nurmi, J. (2012). Making Sense of School Shootings: Comparing Local Narratives of Social Solidarity and Conflict in Finland. Traumatology, 18(3), 16–28. The community-level consequences of the two shooting incidents were compared in this article by examining the local interpretation processes of the local inhabitants’ narratives of the experience. In the analysis, the particular interest was in how solidarity and conflict are reflected in the narratives, because these are the two main community-level consequences identified in the research on disasters. On the basis of this assumption, collective interpretations of the incidents and their consequences are identified in both communities. The main results can be summarized as follows: In Jokela, the community as a whole was constructed as a victim, and expressions of solidarity were encouraged. In Kauhajoki, the community was portrayed as a site of mass violence, and not as a victim. Therefore, expressions of solidarity were seen as unnecessary. Different residential histories of the perpetrators and the victims, as well as the media accounts of the incidents, led to different interpretations of the shootings. Two conclusions about the community-level consequences of mass violence may be drawn from the comparative analysis. Firstly, solidarity and conflict may occur simultaneously in the aftermath of a crisis. Secondly, in violence-related incidents, symbolic and emotional solidarity seem to play a more important role than that of solidaristic helping behavior, which is usually emphasized in the study of disasters. However, in order to draw broad theoretical conclusions about local solidarity and conflicts after mass violence, several other incidents of various types of violent crises in different countries should be compared in future analyses.

Vuori, M., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2012). Puoli vuotta koulusurmien jälkeen – Väkivallan pelko Jokelan ja Kauhajoen aikuisväestön keskuudessa [Six Months after the School Shootings: Fear of Violence among the Jokela and Kauhajoki Local Communities]. Oikeus, 21(1), 46–64. The objective of this study is to examine the fear of crime among adults in Jokela and Kauhajoki six months after the school shootings. We assume that dramatic incidents may particularly afflict vulnerable groups such as people suffering from depression or having experienced severe personal losses.

26 Additionally, the study examines the effects of the sense of community, of trust towards institutions and of media perceptions on the fear of violence. The main results can be summarized as follows: In Kauhajoki, the fear of the recurrence of incidents such as school shootings or Myyrmanni-type bomb explosions was more intense than in Jokela. Gender and educational background were the most powerful explanatory factors of fear of crime in Jokela. Women and those having completed only compulsory education express more fear of crime than men and the better educated. Also contextual issues matter: in Jokela, the respondents who expressed weaker sense of community expressed stronger fear of crime. Also, dissatisfaction toward media action during the crisis was associated with fear of crime in Jokela. In Kauhajoki, fear of crime was associated with low trust in municipal authorities.

Hawdon, J., Vuori, M., Räsänen, P. & Oksanen, A. (under review). Social Responses to Collective Crime: Assessing the Relationship between Crime Related Fears and Collective Sentiments. The literature on the effects of fear of crime has investigated a number of the nuances of this phenomenon; however, how the fear of different types of crime influences social solidarity has yet to be investigated. We hypothesize that the fear-decline model, which argues fear leads to a decrease in social solidarity, applies to “routine” street crimes; however, fearing crimes that attack the collective, such as school shootings, will increase community solidarity. Our results indicate the following: The fear-decline model receives strong support but the fear-solidarity model does not. The fear of collective-targeted crime significantly predicted solidarity in Jokela but not in Kauhajoki. The effects of basic socio-demographic characteristics differ between the communities. In Jokela, we find that marital status is significant, whereas age and gender are not. In Kauhajoki, there is a weak, negative effect of age, but other demographic factors are unrelated to solidarity. Depression and interacting with neighbours are good predictors of solidarity, and these operate similarly across the samples.

27 Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P. & Hawdon, J. (under review). Psychological Wellbeing after School Shootings in Local Communities: Examining the Role of Social Support and Sense of Community. This study focuses on the role of social support and sense of community in promoting psychological wellbeing. Empirical research has systematically confirmed the association between social support and psychological wellbeing. After traumatic or stressful life events emotionally supportive interaction becomes crucial, as the coping of such events is closely connected to the availability of social support, which buffers (or protects) the harmful effects of stressful events. Our objective was to further examine the role of social support and sense of community and consider the possible effects of fear of crime in psychological wellbeing after mass tragedies. The main results of this study were: 15.5 percent of the inhabitants in Jokela and 16.3 percent in Kauhajoki showed at least mild symptoms of depression. Weak social support, weak sense of community, and fear of school shootings were associated with depressive mood in both local communities. Also, age was found to be partly significant predictor of depressive mood. The findings suggest certain practical implications. First, the results reveal the relevance of perceived emotional social support. Having good, reliable social ties with other people is clearly a source of psychological wellbeing even after unexpected and unordinary life trauma. Secondly, our results highlight the relevance of sense of community. People express their need to belong to their communities, which might have remarkable benefits for their wellbeing both in everyday life and after stressful life events. The positive effect of such belonging to one’s community should be recognized, especially in post-trauma interventions and treatment. Those assisting communities after tragedies should be mindful of the beneficial effects that community solidarity can have for victims and be careful not to impede the emergence of that solidarity.

28

International comparisons Hawdon, J., Räsänen, P., Oksanen, A. & Ryan, J. (2012). Social Solidarity and Wellbeing after Critical Incidents: Three Cases of Mass Shootings. Forthcoming in Journal of Critical Incident Analysis. Social solidarity may decrease mental health problems after tragedies. However, little research investigates if solidarity influences wellbeing independent from the support associated with private networks. We analyse emotional wellbeing and depressive symptoms after the Jokela, Kauhajoki, and Omaha tragedies. Our central predictor variable is social solidarity. We also include measures of the strength of the respondents’ private networks, participation in local activities, how often they watched the news, and sociodemographic factors. The major findings include: In all three communities, solidarity was positively correlated with wellbeing. In Omaha, longitudinal analyses revealed that solidarity promoted wellbeing in both the short and long term. Nine months after the shooting, residents with high levels of solidarity had better mental health outcomes than those with lower levels. They were also less distressed one year after the tragedy, even when controlling for their initial levels of wellbeing. In Jokela and Kauhajoki, the protective nature of solidarity was evident using two cross-sectional analyses. Residents with higher levels of solidarity were less depressed in samples selected 6 months and 18 months after the tragedies. Therefore, solidarity promotes recover after a tragedy. The relationship between solidarity and wellbeing is not context specific: it holds over time, across types of tragedies, and cross-culturally.

Hawdon, J., Ryan, J., Räsänen, P. & Oksanen, A. (2009). Final Report: SES 0825662 Social Relations and Community Solidarity: An International Comparison. Washington, D.C.: The National Science Foundation. This research project extends the initial VT research and the research reported above. While the project addresses the broad questions of if the relationship between tragic events and community solidarity depends on the type of community that suffers the tragedy, we focus here only on the fear of crime since the other results are reported elsewhere. With respect to the

29 influence of solidarity on the fear of crime, the results indicated the following: In Omaha, those with high levels of solidarity feared criminal victimization less than did those with low levels of solidarity. More impressively, using longitudinal data, those with high levels of solidarity nine months after the tragedy were less fearful of criminal victimization one year after the tragedy. This relationship held even when controlling for the respondents’ initial levels of emotional wellbeing. Although longitudinal data were not available in Jokela, the protective nature of solidarity was evident using two cross-sectional analyses. Jokela residents with higher levels of solidarity were less fearful of criminal victimization. These relationships were found in samples selected approximately 6 months after the tragedy and approximately 18 months after the tragedy. While solidarity did not account for as much of the variation in fear in Jokela as it did in Omaha, we nevertheless see its positive influence on both of our indicators of recovery.

Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2012). Media Coverage and Solidarity after Tragedies: Reporting School Shootings in Two Nations. Forthcoming in Comparative Sociology, 11. Cross-national studies of the media coverage of school shootings are rare. We analyse the reporting of the VT, Jokela, and Kauhajoki tragedies using 491 articles from the New York Times and Helsingin Sanomat published within a month of each shooting. We investigate how reports vary cross-nationally and among the tragedies and if the reporting contributed to differences in community solidarity. The major findings of this research are: The reporting of the VT tragedy was the most victim-focused, relied on local informants the most, and was the most likely to discuss the community as a subject rather than an object receiving assistance. Within the Finnish cases, the reporting after Jokela was more like that of VT than Kauhajoki. We argue that partially due to these differences, a “tragic frame” was most evident after the VT murders and least evident after the Kauhajoki murders. Solidarity was also most intense after the VT and Jokela cases, and it was the least divisive for the community after the VT case.

30 The solidarity that emerged in Jokela had long-term negative consequences for some residents. After Kauhajoki, solidarity was at times discouraged. Thus, our analysis demonstrates how a tragedy’s framing relates to solidarity and how “tragic frames” alleviate the social guilt associated with a tragedy.

31

5

CONCLUSION

The incidents we investigated were tragic. In total, 62 people died, including the four shooters. After each of these incidents, the afflicted community responded with displays of solidarity. Mass gatherings, communal vigils, spontaneously erected monuments to the victims all demonstrated that the community was in shock yet united. The residents gathered to express their collective grief, and the intense rituals focused their attention on their collective loss and on each other. These rituals, as Durkheim explained over a century ago, promoted a feeling of togetherness, a feeling of solidarity. And, this solidarity, for the most part, acted as a protective factor for residents by providing a collective source of emotional support. In the only incident where pre-tragedy data are available (VT), solidarity increased by 18 percent after the tragedy relative to before the tragedy. Since we lack pre-tragedy data in the other communities, we assume that the anecdotal and reflective evidence provided by community members is accurate. According to this evidence, there was an increase in solidarity after the tragedy that was observable and substantial. While we cannot say this conclusively, we believe it to be true. While there are obvious similarities among these cases, there are also important differences. First, while we cannot make direct statistical comparisons, it appears that solidarity was most pronounced after the VT and Jokela tragedies. It also appears to have been the least divisive after the VT case. Conversely, it was the least apparent and most divisive after the Kauhajoki incident. While we lack the data to conclusive explain why this occurred, we believe it relates to the framing of the tragedies. All four tragedies fit the criteria required for a frame to generate solidarity; however, at least based on our analyses, these were most applicable to VT and Jokela and the least applicable to Kauhajoki. All four tragedies were “fateful events” that disrupted the routine of everyday life, all four communities were unwilling participants and “moral,” and most community members in all four cases defined the event as affecting the entire collective. Yet, in Kauhajoki, a significant number of community members considered the incident as not affecting Kauhajoki, per se. Instead, they saw it as affecting the nation and the communities of the victims. In that case, the shooter and most victims were not defined as community members; rather, they were defined as outsiders who came to Kauhajoki simply to continue their education. This

32 difference, we believe, is one reason why the solidarity that emerged there was of a different nature. A second difference among these events is in how the media reported them. After the VT case, reporters adopted a victim-focused approach. They discussed the victims frequently, and they divulged details of the victims’ lives. They also relied on local informants more than external experts, and they discussed the community frequently and in terms that depicted it as being proactive. By comparison, after the Kauhajoki incident, reporters discussed the victims infrequently and, when they did, discussed them more abstractly and less personally. They relied more on outside experts than did the VT reporters, and when they discussed the community, they talked about it as a passive entity waiting to be helped. The reporting in Jokela was more similar to that of VT than it was to the reporting of the Kauhajoki tragedy. This difference, we argue, also helped frame the VT and Jokela tragedies in a manner conducive to generating solidarity more than how the Kauhajoki tragedy was framed. While solidarity increased after these tragedies, does it matter? Numerous researchers have noted that tragedies can lead to solidarity, but does this solidarity help those who suffered or help their communities recover? Our data indicates that is does. Those who expressed high levels of solidarity were less likely to suffer from depressive symptoms both in the short and long term. In all four cases we studied, solidarity was inversely related to depressive symptoms. In the case of VT, where longitudinal data were available, those with higher levels of solidarity showed better mental health outcomes than those with lower levels. This relationship held for over one year after the tragedy, and the relationship held even when controlling for initial levels of emotional wellbeing. A similar finding was evident using longitudinal data in Omaha. It is important to emphasize that the protective nature of solidarity is observable independent of the influence of being imbedded in a strong network of support. While having access to a private network of supportive individuals also promotes wellbeing, being part of a solidified community does too. In fact, there is evidence that the effect of private networks begins to weaken after a short time. Solidarity, on the other hand, has positive effects on wellbeing in both the short and long term. We are therefore confident that solidarity promotes recovery after tragedies. Moreover, it appears the relationship between solidarity and wellbeing is not context specific: it holds over time, across types of tragedies, and cross-culturally. While the solidarity that emerges after tragedies has beneficial effects for the community and its members, it must be noted that solidarity also has a “dark side.” There are at least three negative consequences of social

33 solidarity (exclusion of outsiders, excess claims on group members, and restrictions on individual freedoms), and these were evident after these tragedies. In Jokela, for example, outsiders were excluded. The town’s youth formed tight networks that excluded others, including their own parents. Students at VT who began their studies after the tragedy also expressed feeling excluded by those who were there when the shootings occurred. There is also evidence that the solidarity felt in Jokela fostered a sense of collective guilt and stigmatization among some residents. In Kauhajoki, the solidarity that emerged became a point of contention as some residents discouraged it and believed it prolonged the tragedy instead of helping recover from it. Some residents felt they were excluded if they showed too much grief; others felt those who were openly displaying their grief were being too dramatic. In this case, the solidarity did not bind the community together; it acted as a wedge between two groups of residents. There is also evidence that solidarity can become a burden for some of those most directly involved in the tragedy. In the VT case, for example, surviving members of the victims’ families’ spoke of community members they did not know following them to express their condolences. They also said the number of visitors who came to their homes to express their sympathies overwhelmed them. The intense solidarity that emerged after the tragedies undoubtedly elevated these excessive claims on the victims. While recognizing the dark side of solidarity, the evidence available to us still indicates that, in total, solidarity’s benefits likely outweigh its drawbacks. Assuming this is indeed the case, our research also addresses how to sustain the solidarity that initially emerges. Similar to what Collins (2004) found after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, solidarity was amplified after the VT tragedy for approximately six months before it began to return to pre-tragedy levels. Our research shows that while the intensive event-specific activities of the public and parochial sector led to the initial upsurge in solidarity, it was general parochial activities, such as attending local organizations and frequenting local businesses the week after the tragedy that sustained solidarity. In contrast to the above finding, we also found that seeing a professional counselor after the tragedy had virtually no effect on the respondents’ wellbeing. However, it did adversely affect solidarity. Those who saw a counselor expressed significantly lower levels of solidarity than those who did not, even after controlling for initial levels of emotional wellbeing. The typical approach of grief counseling likely focuses attention toward the individual and away from the community. It is therefore likely to repress the sense that the individual is part of something larger, part of a collective, part of a community.

34 These findings have implications for efforts to help tragedy-stricken communities. Those trying to help communities after tragedies should remember that tragedies not only produce grieving individuals, they also produce grieving communities. The failure to distinguish individual trauma from communal grief may lead to misplaced attempts at healing those not directly affected by the tragedy. The dominant psychological paradigm of grief assumes that if a community was harmed all individual members were harmed as well. This approach may be problematic because individualfocused interventions fail to recognize the healing power of solidarity. While individualistic approaches may be effective for people suffering personal grief, they may not be the best approach for dealing with communal grief. To view grief solely through a psychological paradigm ignores the healing power of community solidarity. This is not to argue that grief counseling is misplaced. We recognize that the therapeutic community plays an important role for those individuals directly affected by the tragedy or those who lack the social networks that help individuals process their grief. We in no way mean to downplay the intense personal grief felt by some community members. Yet, not everyone affected by the tragedy experienced personal grief, and communal grief does not need to be treated solely using a therapeutic approach. If counselors are not careful when they enter a grieving community, they may strip the community of its ability to heal itself. While individuals certainly felt grief after these tragedies, the solidarity that emerged was a source of healing for many people. In addition, while those individuals who lack social support networks may need intense counseling, the efforts to provide that counseling should not interfere with the community’s offering of parochial-realm activities. Canceling community events after tragedies may not be the most beneficial approach. While one may find it difficult to continue with everyday activities, these activities bring people together, promote solidarity, and enhance recovery. Local businesses, restaurants, religious establishments, voluntary organizations, and social clubs should be encouraged to continue having their members meet, even if these meetings are only to talk. In sum, our research indicates that solidarity works similarly across different contexts and cultural conditions. Given the unfortunate recent trend of acts of mass violence striking our schools, shopping malls, places of worship, movie theaters, and city streets, it is likely that more communities will experience the tremendous sense of collective loss and collective grief that the communities we studied did. Obviously, we hope we are wrong about that speculation, but, if we are not, we hope our work offers insights into the power of a solidified community.

35

6

FULL LIST OF PUBLICATIONS THE CONSORTIUM HAS PRODUCED

A) Journal articles Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J. (2011). Social Relations that Generate and Sustain Solidarity after a Mass Tragedy. Social Forces, 89(4), 1363–1384, doi 10.1093/sf/89.4.1363 Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J. (2012). Wellbeing after the Virginia Tech Mass Murder: The Relative Effectiveness of Face-to-Face and Virtual Interactions in Providing Support for Survivors. Traumatology, Online First, doi: 10.1177/1534765612441096 Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2012). Media Coverage and Solidarity after Tragedies: Reporting School Shootings in Two Nations. Comparative Sociology, 11, (accepted, in press), doi: 10.1163/15691330-12341248 Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P. & Ryan, J. (2012). Social Solidarity and Wellbeing after Critical Incidents: Three Cases of Mass Shootings. Journal of Critical Incident Analysis, (accepted, in press). Hawdon, J., Ryan, J. & Agnich, L. (2010). Crime as a Source of Solidarity: A Research Note Testing Durkheim’s Assertion. Deviant Behavior, 31(8), 679–703, doi: 10.1080/01639620903415901. Hawdon, J., Vuori, M., Räsänen, P. & Oksanen, A. (under review). Social Responses to Collective Crime: Assessing the Relationship between Crime Related Fears and Collective Sentiments. Kiilakoski, T. & Oksanen, A. (2011). Cultural and Peer Influences on Homicidal Violence: A Finnish Perspective. New Directions for Youth Development, 33(129), 31–42, doi: 10.1002/yd.385

36 Kiilakoski, T. & Oksanen, A. (2011). Soundtrack of the School Shootings: Cultural Script, Music and Male Rage. Young, 19(3), 247–269, doi: 10.1177/110330881101900301 Kiilakoski, T., Nurmi, J. & Oksanen, A. (under review). Coping with Tragedy, Reacting to an Event: The Case of Jokela School Shooting in Finland. Lindberg, N., Oksanen, A., Sailas, E. & Kaltiala-Heino, R. (under review). Adolescents Expressing School Massacre Threats Online: Something to be Extremely Worried about? Lindström, K., Nurmi, J., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen P. (2010). Jokelan ja Kauhajoen asukkaiden arvio koulusurmien yhteiskunnallisista syistä [Perceptions of the Causes behind the Jokela and Kauhajoki School Shootings]. Sosiologia, 47(4), 270–285. Nurmi, J. (2012). Making Sense of School Shootings: Comparing Local Narratives of Social Solidarity and Conflict in Finland. Traumatology, 18(3), 16–28, doi: 10.1177/1534765611426787 Nurmi, J. & Oksanen, A. (under review). Representations and Projections of Evil: Coping after a Violent Tragedy. Nurmi, J., Räsänen, P. & Oksanen, A. (2012). The Norm of Solidarity: Experiencing Negative Aspects of Community Life after a School Shooting Tragedy. Journal of Social Work, 12(3), 300–319, doi: 10.1177/1468017310386426 Oksanen, A. (2008). Jokela Connection. Shattering Social Ties and the Risk of Violent Virtual Identities. Drama: Nordisk Dramapedagogisk Tidsskrift, 45(2), 20–25. Oksanen, A. (2009). Pelkoa ja inhoa Pohjolassa: Taiteesta ja tuhoavuudesta koulusurmien jälkeen [Fear and Loathing in Finland: On Art and Destructivity after School Shootings]. Stylus, 103(2), 12–14. Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2008). Yhteisöllisyys ja väkivalta: Koulusurmien kokeminen paikallistasolla [Social Relations and Community Solidarity after Jokela High-School Shooting]. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 73(6), 652–658.

37

Oksanen, A., Nurmi, J. & Räsänen, P. (2011). Pahuus ja väkivallan käsittelemisen ongelma Jokelan ja Kauhajoen koulusurmien jälkeen [Violence, Cruelty and Evil: Problems of Coping after the Jokela and Kauhajoki School Shootings in Finland]. Janus, 19(2), 104–121. Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P. & Hawdon, J. (under review). Psychological Wellbeing after School Shootings in Local Communities: Examining the Role of Social Support and Sense of Community. Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P., Nurmi, J. & Lindström, K. (2010). ”This Can’t Happen Here!” Community Reactions to School Shootings in Finland. Research on Finnish Society, 3, 19–27, http://www.finnresearch.fi/3_oksanen_et_al_2010.pdf Ryan, J. & Hawdon, J. (2008). From Individual to Community: The “Framing” of 4-16 and the Display of Social Solidarity. Traumatology, 14(1), 43–52, doi: 10.1177/1534765607312686. Räsänen, P. & Oksanen, A. (2008). Paikallistason ymmärrys tärkeää kouluammuntatapausten käsittelyssä [School Shootings and Community Level Understanding]. Tieteessä tapahtuu, 25(7), 36– 39. Räsänen,

P. & Oksanen, A. (2009). Sosiaalinen vuorovaikutus, mediavälitteisyys ja massaväkivallan kokeminen paikallistasolla [Social Interaction, Mediality and Experience of Mass Violence in Community Level]. Tiedepolitiikka, 34(2), 35–44.

Räsänen, P., Näsi, M. & Sarpila, O. (2012). Old and New Sources of Risk: A Study of Societal Risk Perception in Finland. Journal of Risk Research, 15(7), 755–769, doi: 10.1080/13669877.2012.657218 Räsänen, P., Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J. (2008). Paikallistason yhteisöllisyys massaväkivallan jälkeen Suomessa ja Yhdysvalloissa [Community Solidarity after Mass Violence in Finland and the US]. Sosiologia, 45(4), 48–54. Vuori, M., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2012). Puoli vuotta koulusurmien jälkeen – Väkivallan pelko Jokelan ja Kauhajoen aikuisväestön

38 keskuudessa [Six Months after the School Shootings: Fear of Violence among the Jokela and Kauhajoki Local Communities]. Oikeus, 21(1), 46–64. Vuori, M., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (under review). Local Responses to Collective and Personal Crime after School Shootings in Finland. Vuori, M., Räsänen, P. & Oksanen, A. (under review). Risk Sensitivity after Collective Crime. Vuori, M., Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (under review). Collective Crime as a Source of Social Solidarity.

B) Book chapters Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J. (2012). Space, Sentiment, and Social Structure after Critical Incidents: Toward a Theory of Recovery. In R. Schwester (Ed.), Handbook of Critical Incident Analysis (pp. 70–90). New York: M. E. Sharp. Lindström, K., Räsänen, P., Oksanen, A. & Nurmi, J. (2011). Politiikkaprosessi ja aselainsäädännön uudistaminen Jokelan ja Kauhajoen koulusurmien jälkeen [Political Process of Gun Law Reform after Jokela and Kauhajoki School Shootings]. In J. Saari & M. Niemelä (Eds.), Politiikan polut ja hyvinvointiyhteiskunnan muutos (pp. 254–271). Helsinki: Kela. Oksanen, A. (2007). Radikaalia huomiotaloutta [Extreme Attention Economy: On Jokela Highschool Shooting]. In T. Hoikkala & L. Suurpää (Eds.), Jokela-ilmiö: Sikermä nuorisotutkijoiden näkökulmia (pp. 37–38). Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Society. Oksanen, A. (2010). Mapping Hate, Rage and Fear in Finland after the School Shootings. In S. Pratt (Ed.), I Don’t Want to Shoot Your Children: The Making of a Dangerous Individual (pp. 73–77). London: SP Publishing. Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2009). Yhteisöllisyydellä on keskeinen merkitys väkivaltatapausten käsittelyssä. [Community Solidarity and

39 Recovery Process after School Shootings]. In T. Hoikkala & L. Suurpää (Eds.), Kauhajoen jälkipaini: Nuorisotutkijoiden ja ammattilaisten puheenvuoroja (pp. 32–33). Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research Society. Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P. & Nurmi, J. (2012). Jokela and Kauhajoki: Experiencing School Shootings in a Nordic Welfare Society. In R. Schwester (Ed.), Handbook of Critical Incident Analysis (pp. 252– 264). New York: M.E. Sharpe. Oksanen, A., Nurmi, J., Vuori, M. & Räsänen, P. (2013). Jokela: Social Roots of a School Shooting Tragedy in Finland. In N. Böckler, T. Seeger, W. Heitmeyer & P. Sitzer (Eds.), School Shootings: International Research, Case Studies and Concepts for Prevention. New York: Springer. Vuori, M., Oksanen, A., Nurmi, J. & Räsänen, P. (2011). Pelon ja turvattomuuden umpikujia Jokelan ja Kauhajoen koulusurmien jälkeen [Fear and Insecurity after School Shootings in Finland]. In A. Oksanen & M. Salonen (Eds.), Toiminnallisia loukkuja: Hyvinvointi ja eriarvoisuus yhteiskunnassa (pp. 175–193). Tampere: Tampere University Press. Vuori, M., Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P. & Nurmi, J. (2012). Social Reaction to Collective Crime – Tentative Assessment of the Relationship between Fear of Crime and Social Solidarity. In P. Räsänen & O. Sarpila (Eds.), Well-being in consumer society? Working Papers in Economic Sociology (III) (pp. 101–116). Turku: Department of Social Research, University of Turku.

C) Newspaper articles Oksanen, A. (2007). Radikaalia julkisuuden tavoittelua. Kaleva, 17.11.2007, p. 2. Oksanen, A. (2011). Sosiaalinen media ja kasvottomien ryhmien voima. Kaleva, 20.8.2011, p. 20.

40 Oksanen, A. (2012). Lasten ja nuorten vertaissuhteisiin on kiinnitettävä huomiota. Rexi, pp. 43–45. Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2008). Paikallisyhteisöjen toipuminen väkivallanteoista vie aikaa. Helsingin Sanomat, 26.7.2008, p. A2. Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2008). Usko viranomaisiin istuu sitkeässä. Aamulehti, 28.7.2008, p. A2. Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2008). Yhteisöllisyys kaipaa vahvistusta. Kaleva, 5.10.2008, p. 2. Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2009). Pienet yhteisöt avainasemassa ennaltaehkäisyssä. Koulusurmia tulisi tarkastella yhteiskunnallisena ongelmana. Turun Sanomat, 20.3.2009, p. A2. Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2009). Väkivallan pitkä varjo. Maaseudun tulevaisuus, 8.7.2009, p. 2. Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2010). Surmien jälkihoitoon rahaa – ennaltaehkäisy unohdetaan. Turun Sanomat, 5.1.2010, p. A2. Oksanen,

A. & Räsänen, P. (2012). Silmitön väkivalta järkyttää hyvinvointiyhteiskunnassa. Turun Sanomat, 29.5.2012, p. A2.

Räsänen, P. (2011). Haastaako sosiaalinen media sananvapauden? Alakerta, Turun Sanomat, 3.5.2011.

D) Theses Aitcheson, L. (2011). Community Solidarity and Wellbeing after the Virginia Tech Shootings. Master’s thesis in Sociology. Blacksburg: Virginia Tech. Strömback, J. (2011). Koulusurmat ja kriisityö. Tutkimus Jokelassa ja Kauhajoella työskennelleiden kriisityöntekijöiden tunnetyöstä [School Shootings and Crisis Work. [A Study on Emotional Dimensions of Crisis Work in Jokela and Kauhajoki]. Master's thesis in Sociology. Turku: University of Turku.

41 Vuori, M. (2010). Naisten ja miesten väkivallan pelot paikallisyhteisön luottamusrakenteen säröinä [Women’s and Men’s Fear of Violence as the Cracks on a Community’s Structure of Trust]. Master’s thesis in Sociology. Tampere: University of Tampere.

42

7

REFERENCES

Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I. & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From Social Integration to Health: Durkheim in the New Millennium. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 843–857. Cohen, S. (2004). Social Relationships and Health. American Psychologist, 59(8), 676–684. Collins, R. (2004). Rituals of Solidarity and Security in the Wake of Terrorist Attack. Sociological Theory, 22(1), 53–87. DeLone, G. J. (2008). Public Housing and the Fear of Crime. Criminal Justice, 36(2), 115–125.

Journal of

Durkheim, E. (1964). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press (published originally in French in 1893, De la division du travail social). Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press. Galea, S., Nandi, A. & Vlahov, D. (2005). The Epidemiology of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder after Disasters. Epidemiological Review, 27(1), 78–91. Galea, S., Ahern, J., Resnick, H., Kilpatrick, D., Bucuvalas, M., Gold, J., & Vlahov, D. (2002). Psychological Sequelae of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in New York City. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(13), 982–987. Gittell, R. & Thompson, J. P. (2001). Making Social Capital Work: Social Capital and Community Economic Development. In S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson & M. R. Warren (Eds.) Social Capital and Poor Communities (pp. 115–135). New York: Russell Sage. Granello, P. F. (2001). A Comparison of Wellness and Social Support Networks in Different Age Groups. Adultspan Journal, 3(1), 12–22.

43

Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J (2009). Social Capital, Social Control, and Crime. Crime and Delinquency, 55(4), 526–549. Hawdon, J. & Ryan, J. (2012). Wellbeing after the Virginia Tech Mass Murder: The Relative Effectiveness of Face-to-Face and Virtual Interactions in Providing Support for Survivors. Traumatology, Online First, doi: 10.1177/1534765612441096 Hemenway, D., Kennedy, B. P., Kawachi, I. & Putnam, R. (2001). Firearm Prevalence and Social Capital. Annals of Epidemiology, 11(4), 484–490. Hunter, A. J. (1985). Private, Parochial, and Public Social Orders: The Problem of Crime and Incivility in Urban Communities. In G. D. Suttles & M. N. Zald (Eds.), The Challenge of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building in Modern Society. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing. James, S. A., Schulz, A.J. & van Olphen, J. (2001). Social Capital, Poverty, and Community Health: An Exploration of Linkages. In S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson & M. R. Warren (Eds.), Social Capital and Poor Communities (pp. 136–164). New York: Russell Sage. Johnson, S. D., North, C. S. & Smith, E. M. (2002). Psychiatric Disorders among Victims of a Courthouse Shooting Spree: A Three-year Follow-up Study. Community Mental Health Journal, 38(1), 181–197. Kanan, J. & Pruitt, M. V. (2002). Modeling Fear of Crime and Perceived Victimization Risk: The (In)significance of Neighborhood Integration. Sociological Inquiry, 72(4), 527–548. Kawachi, I. & Berkman, L. (2001). Social Ties and Mental Health. Journal of Urban Health, 78(3), 458–467. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P, Lochner, K. & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social Capital, Income Inequality, and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87(9), 1491–1498. Mesch, G. (2000). Perceptions of Risk, Lifestyle Activities, and Fear of Crime. Deviant Behavior, 21(1), 47–62.

44

Investigation Commission of the Jokela school shooting (2009). Jokela School Shooting on 7 November 2007: Report of the Investigation Commission. Publication 1/2009. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice, Finland. Investigation Commission of the Kauhajoki school shooting (2010). Kauhajoki School Shooting on 23 September 2008: Report of the Investigation Commission. Reports and guidelines 39/2010. Helsinki, Ministry of Justice, Finland. National Bureau of Investigation, Finland (2008). Esitutkintapöytäkirja 2400/R/488/07 [Pre-trial investigation report of the Jokela school shooting]. Vantaa: The Finnish Police. National Bureau of Investigation, Finland (2009). Esitutkintapöytäkirja 2400/R/350/08 [Pre-trial investigation report of the Kauhajoki school shooting]. Vaasa: The Finnish Police. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, N.Y.: Simon and Schuster. Ruzek, J., Brymer, M., Jacobs, A., Layne, C., Vernberg, E. & Watson, P. (2007). Psychological First Aid. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 29(1), 17–50. Sampson, R. J. (2001). Crime and Public Safety: Insights from CommunityLevel Perspectives on Social Capital. In S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson & M. R. Warren (Eds.), Social Capital and Poor Communities (pp. 89–114). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Sampson, R. J., Morneoff, J. D. & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children. American Sociological Review, 64(3), 633–660. Savage, A. & Russell, L. A. (2005). Tangled in a Web of Affiliation: Social Support Networks of Dually Diagnosed Women who are Trauma

45 Survivors. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 32(2), 199–215. Smith, K. P. & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Social Networks and Health. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1), 405–429 Statistics Finland (2008). Statistics Finland PX-Web Database. Retrieved 8th of September 2011 from http://pxweb2.stat.fi/database/StatFin/vrm/vaerak/vaerak_en.as p Statistics Finland (2009). Statistics Finland PX-Web Database. Retrieved 8th of September 2011 from http://pxweb2.stat.fi/database/StatFin/vrm/vaerak/vaerak_en.as p Walsh, F. (2007). Traumatic Loss and Major Disasters: Strengthening Family and Community Resilience. Family Process, 46(2), 207–227. Veenstra, G. (2002). Social Capital and Health (Plus Wealth, Income Inequality and Regional Health Governance). Social Science & Medicine, 54(6), 849–869. Virginia Tech Review Panel (2007). Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007: Report of the Review Panel. Retrieved 20th of November 2009 from http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelRepor t-docs/FullReport.pdf