Written content indicators of problematic approach behavior toward political officials

Those charged with assessing and managing threatening communications must utilize risk factors that are behavioral, operational, and reasonably attainable during investigations. This project examined 326 written correspondence cases of an inappropriate, disruptive, or threatening nature that targete...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBehavioral sciences & the law Vol. 29; no. 2; pp. 284 - 301
Main Authors Schoeneman, Katherine A., Scalora, Mario J., Darrow, Charles D., McLawsen, Julia E., Chang, Grace H., Zimmerman, William J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.03.2011
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Those charged with assessing and managing threatening communications must utilize risk factors that are behavioral, operational, and reasonably attainable during investigations. This project examined 326 written correspondence cases of an inappropriate, disruptive, or threatening nature that targeted political officials, with the specific goal of identifying written content indicators of problematic approach behavior. Results revealed that subjects who engaged in problematic approach activity toward their targets had more criminal history, past threat assessment activity, familiarity with firearms, past substance use, and indicators of serious mental illness. Approachers were more likely to engage in multiple contact methods, target dispersion, more overall contacts, and prior contact with their target. Numerous content themes were associated with future problematic approach, including longer handwritten correspondence, referencing specific events, making demands, mentioning stressors, focus on personal themes, feeling their rights were violated, and expressing an intention to approach. Harassing, insulting, and threatening language was not related to approach behavior. The implications of these findings are wide‐ranging for the practice of threat assessment. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliography:istex:CC2FBE1F2BB43EE19FF388A49C6D64341C878FB0
This article is based on a doctoral dissertation completed by Katherine A. Schoeneman at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, December 2008. Some of the data contained in this article were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society in Jacksonville, Florida, March 5-8, 2008; a different portion of the data contained in this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society in Vancouver, British Columbia, March 18-20, 2010.
ArticleID:BSL977
ark:/67375/WNG-84ZWQS08-P
Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, NE, U.S.A
Threat Assessment Section, United States Capitol Police, Washington, DC, U.S.A
This article is based on a doctoral dissertation completed by Katherine A. Schoeneman at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, December 2008. Some of the data contained in this article were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology–Law Society in Jacksonville, Florida, March 5–8, 2008; a different portion of the data contained in this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology–Law Society in Vancouver, British Columbia, March 18–20, 2010.
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0735-3936
1099-0798
1099-0798
DOI:10.1002/bsl.977