McCabe, K. A., & Martin, G. M. (2005). School Violence, the Media, and Criminal Justice Responses. Reviewed by Noel A. Card, University of Kansas

McCabe, K. A., & Martin, G. M. (2005). School Violence, the Media, and Criminal Justice Responses. New York: Peter Lang. Pp. x + 122 $19.95   ISBN 0-8204-6757-1 Reviewed by Noel A. Card University of Kansas October 30, 2005 School violence in the forms of bullying, gang violence, weapon carrying, and school shootings now receives prominent attention within the popular media, a prominence that was sparked largely by the school shootings occurring at Columbine High School in April 1999. One opinion of this coverage is that such attention is long overdue; aggression and violence have long been a negative feature of schoolchildren’s lives, and a loud public outcry may be necessary before serious efforts are made to reduce such violence. Another perspective, however, is that media coverage, and especially sensationalized coverage, of such violence inaccurately portrays conditions in schools and may actually fuel further violence. School Violence, the Media, and Criminal Justice Responses, by Kimberly McCabe and Gregory Martin, reviews various aspects of school violence and potential responses to such violence. A unique aspect of this book is that it carefully and critically considers the media’s coverage of such violence and how this coverage may influence public perceptions and future school violence. Below, I briefly summarize the goals and coverage of this book, then describe my opinion of the book’s readability and scholarship. I also highlight alternative perspectives on school violence, and end with conclusions regarding what audience would benefit from reading this book. The book is divided into six chapters contained within just over one-hundred pages of text. Before describing the contents of each chapter, however, it is worth commenting on some general features of the book. It is a slim, nicely designed book with clear headings to help organize the text. There are numerous boxes throughout the book that provide further details about specific court decisions, incidents, and case vignettes, which provide interesting diversions from the narrative of the text. At the end of each chapter are several questions relating to the material in the chapter: one set of specific questions that test the reader’s recollection of specific facts (that are appropriate if this is used as part of an undergraduate course), and another set of more thought-provoking questions (that might be the basis of an in-class discussion for undergraduate or graduate students). Chapter 1, School violence: Definition and history, begins with a narrative timeline of the school shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999. The authors provide details about the shooters that re-emerge throughout the text; indeed, the book consistently connects the material presented to the Columbine and other school shootings. The authors also introduce the functions of the media and critically describe the effects media coverage has in fostering public misperceptions of teens and school violence and in promoting further school violence. The authors cite Department of Justice statistics and correctly point out that school violence has, despite public opinion, decreased in recent years, and that schools are relatively safe environments for children. Finally, the authors provide an informative history of school violence, tracing patterns of violence in U.S. schools from the colonial period to the present. The second chapter (Bullying) describes the characteristics of bullying behavior (e.g., a power differential between the bully and victim), the characteristics and family backgrounds of bullies, and the outcomes for the victims. The authors note that chronic victimization by peers was one of the precipitating factors for the Columbine High School shooters, and they suggest that the failure of schools to respond to bullying may increase the risk of school shootings. The authors also describe the role that the media may play: By portraying violence against bullies as a viable option in reducing victimization (even unintentionally by, for example, giving substantial attention to school shooters), the media’s intense coverage of this violence may actually increase the chances of future violence. In Chapter 3, School shootings: 1974-2000, the authors presents a careful analysis of 37 school shootings that have occurred between 1974 and May 2000. This analysis represents an important scholarly contribution to understanding these acts, though I did find that some important details of the authors’ methodology were lacking. Nevertheless, the authors use these incidents to convincingly establish patterns in prior school shootings, including the regions of the country and timing (month of school year) in which school shootings are more likely to occur, the characteristics of the school shooters and those they targeted, and situations in which school shootings occur along with murder of family and/or suicide. The authors conclude that the shootings at Columbine High School, although greatly influencing public perceptions of school violence, were atypical in several respects (i.e., the month in which the shootings occurred, more than one shooter, the high number of victims, the age of the shooters, and both shooters did well academically). Chapter 4, entitled Gangs, cliques, the goths, anime, and legal responses, focuses on groups or cliques the may facilitate school violence. The authors provide a detailed consideration of antisocial gangs, including the dangers caused by their violent activities, drug dealing, and member recruitment, as well as the risk factors (e.g., minority status, low socioeconomic status) increasing the likelihood of joining a gang. In addition to antisocial gangs, the authors describe the roles of cliques in forming the social culture of schools, noting especially the plight of individuals who are in the low-status cliques or not in cliques at all. Relevant to the media’s coverage of the Columbine shooters, the authors describe the goth culture, which despite the media’s attention, is generally not characterized by violent behavior (at least perpetrated by members of this group, although they are frequently the victims of others abuse). They also describe anime, pointing out that although it has not yet been well studied, it may facilitate violent behavior through it’s graphic portrayal of violence. Finally, the authors describe efforts to prevent or reduce gang violence, including stronger penalties for violence committed as part of a gang, efforts to involve the community, and attempts to help ethnic minority students feel more connected to schools. McCabe and Martin discuss the warning signs of school shootings in Chapter 5 (Warning signs, pre-incident indicators of columbine, and teachers’ perception), summarizing and clarifying much of the material presented earlier. The authors present eight warning signs (poor academic achievement, school disciplinary problems, problems with peers, prior violence, a view that aggression is normative, substance use, access to firearms, and family problems), discussing the mechanisms by which each may lead to school shootings and reviewing the Columbine shootings in terms of the warning signs. They then describe the important role that teachers (and other school personnel) can take in recognizing these warning signs, but they also recognize factors that may preclude teachers’ abilities to do so: being overburdened by too many students and too many responsibilities, fears of mislabeling students’ behaviors (which may have very serious consequences for the students), a perceived unwillingness of administrators to deal with these incidents (including pressure to hide some incidents), and fears for their own personal safety. The last chapter, Chapter 6 (Controlling the school environment: Criminal justice responses), describes efforts to reduce school violence. The authors first describe the necessity of defining school violence broadly (i.e., it is not physical violence, but includes threats and intimidation) and of fostering qualities that reduce motivations to commit violence (e.g., fostering students’ involvement and connectedness to the school and peers). The authors then describe criminal justice responses to school violence, including zero-tolerance for violence and weapon or drug possession in school and greater police presence and training (including metal detectors and searches). They also suggest greater involvement of school counselors and various prevention programs (anti-drug and anti-gang programs, availability of extracurricular activities). Importantly, the authors review evidence of the effectiveness of these programs, thus providing a scientific approach to reducing school violence. School Violence, the Media, and Criminal Justice Responses is clearly written in straightforward, non-technical language. Moreover, it is fairly concise given the breadth of material covered. Together, these features provide readers with a short, highly readable overview of the central considerations in understanding school violence. As mentioned, the narrative is enjoyable to read, and the side-boxes provide interesting tangents to the text. In short, the book is an enjoyable, fairly quick read that provides considerable information to its audience. In terms of scholarship, I think that the authors did a fair job across a wide range of topics. However, readers with specialized expertise in one or more of the areas covered by this book will likely not learn much new from that section, and may even find some of the descriptions overly simplistic. For example, the authors occasionally rely on theoretical perspective that are somewhat outdated (e.g., the description of endomorphic, mesomorphic, and ectomorphic body “types,” pp. 31-32; an outdated portrayal of evolutionary psychology, p. 63) or oversimplified (e.g., using the pop psychology terms of “brick wall,” “jellyfish,” and “backbone” families to describe what appears to be authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles, pp. 28-29; for a description of these parenting styles see Baumrind, 1971). This does not invalidate the authors’ conclusions, but simply makes for a somewhat less scholarly book than might be desired by some readers. I also found that some important aspects of the empirical basis of these areas were sacrificed in order to improve readability (e.g., as mentioned, the authors’ study of 37 school shootings omitted some methodological details that would have been interest to researchers). Despite these limitations, I suspect that nearly every reader will learn something from this book given the wide range of topics the authors cover. Moreover, the authors’ ability to connect such a diverse range of perspective may allow for insights not typically considered by those specializing in one area of research. Thus, while I have critiqued this book in terms of some depth of scholarship, I evaluated the book quite highly in terms of its breadth of scholarship. I found the authors’ consideration of the role of the media (especially the news media) especially novel and informative. The authors clearly illustrate the ways that the news media has misrepresented school violence and shootings, and the impact this has on public perceptions. Such consideration is especially timely given the frequent, highly sensationalized accounts that have been provided since the Columbine school shootings. The authors also point out how portrayals of violence in the news and other media may increase the chances of further school shootings. Although strict experimental studies in naturalistic environments have not (and likely can not ethically) be performed, the converging observational and laboratory experimental evidence leaves no doubt that various forms of media (e.g., television, movies, and video games) can lead to increases in violent behavior (see Bushman & Anderson, 2001). The authors’ extension of this case to the news media is well argued and is an important contribution of this work. No single level of analysis can fully explain phenomena as complex as violence or school shootings. McCabe and Martin focus primarily on the larger social and structural factors that may increase or reduce the risk of violence and school shootings. From another perspective, however, I argue that micro-social (e.g., family, friends) and personal factors are important levels of consideration that were given less attention than is likely warranted. At the micro-social level, for example, there is considerable evidence that certain characteristics of family functioning and parental behavior predict children’s use of aggression and engagement in violence (for a review see Hodges, Card, & Isaacs, 2003). Although the authors briefly reviewed the family backgrounds of aggressive children, I found the description both oversimplified and inadequate in considering the vast body of research on this topic. Greater consideration of the contributions of parental negativity and rejection, aggression, child abuse, low monitoring, and ineffective conflict management to children’s aggression (see Hodges et al., 2003), and the overprotective parenting, enmeshment, demandingness, and rejection that predict their victimization by peers (see Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001), would have been a useful addition to this book Another immediate social factor for violence that I think could have been better developed is the role of friends. The author devote an entire chapter to the topic of gangs and cliques, but I found several weakness in this chapter that will likely limit readers’ understanding of this influence. Terminologically, the use of the words ‘groups’ and ‘gangs’ interchangeably is confusing, and perhaps even misleading. There needs to be a clear distinction made here; not all of adolescents’ groups are the antisocial, formalized gangs that the authors subsequently describe (and what is commonly connoted when one hears the word ‘gang’). In fact, most groups to which adolescents belong are informal and play a positive developmental function (in fairness, the authors provide a small clarification toward this point on pages 70-71, though I wonder if the terms have already been too confused by this point). The authors’ description of cliques, and the specific focus on the Goth cliques and cliques based on an interest in anime, are consistent with media reports and therefore quite interesting. However, as the authors point out, there is little or no evidence linking membership in these cliques with higher rates of violence. This of course begs the question of whether inclusion of these descriptions in the book is merely propagating the media’s reports, or suggesting a potential line of future research. A topic that has a sizable empirical background, yet did not receive attention in this book, is the role of friendships. Friendships are distinct from cliques and peer-group membership. Indeed, many youths, including the Columbine and several other school shooters, are not part of a peer-group yet have a friendship. When these friendships are with other violent youths (which they often are, since many aggressive youths are rejected by mainstream peers as well as actively select aggressive peers as friends), there is considerable evidence that these friends mutually influence one another so as to engage in more frequent violent acts, to engage in more forms of violence, and perhaps even to commit more severe forms of violence (for a review of research on these findings, see Dishion, Patterson, & Griesler, 1994). Finally, one must consider the personal characteristics of violent youths, especially with respect to factors that may serve as points of prevention or intervention. One useful focal point are the social cognitions youths have for aggression and violence. The authors describe social learning theory in Chapter 2, but this perspective could be elaborated to provide a useful integration of much of the material in this book. Briefly, a social learning theory of aggression posits that the self-efficacy that individuals have for their ability to enact aggression, the outcomes that they expect from this aggression, and the value they place on these outcomes gained through aggressive means predicts their level of aggressive behavior. These social cognitions can arise from various sources, including observations and experiences with family and peers, as well as by observing events portrayed by the media. There is ample empirical evidence to support the conclusion that social cognitions (i.e., self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and outcome values) predict aggressive behavior (see Egan, Monson, & Perry, 1997), but less work has considered more violent behaviors. One exception to this is recent work by Isaacs (2004), who showed that social cognitions about in-school weapon carrying--specifically self-efficacy (e.g., for successfully carrying and concealing a weapon), outcome expectations (e.g., for protection), and valuation of these outcomes--are predictive of actual in-school weapon carrying behavior. Although this study did not evaluate actual violence with weapons, this approach represents one useful unifying paradigm for understanding school violence and shootings: Youths’ social cognitions might mediate a range of personal, micro-social (e.g., peer relations), and macro-social (e.g., media exposure, regional attitudes toward weapons) influences. Targeting these social cognitions may also be a viable point of intervention in decreasing school violence. Although I have criticized some aspects of this book and have suggested some alternative perspectives, I generally evaluate this book quite positively. It is a well-written, easy-to-read book that offers an impressive breadth of scholarship. Moreover, the authors’ consideration of the role of the news media both in creating inaccurate public perceptions of school violence and in potentially promoting further school violence, is insightful and eloquently argued. As such, it will make an interesting introduction to the topics of school violence and shootings, as well the role the media plays in both. Given these strengths, I believe that this book will be of interest to a wide audience. Its brevity and readability make it useful in courses for either undergraduate or graduate students, and professionals will likely appreciate these qualities as well. Readers who are unfamiliar with research on school violence will be provided with an broad overview of the topic, and those more familiar with this research may also gain insights from this breadth of coverage. Finally, I suspect that individuals from a variety of disciplines would benefit from reading this book, including education, psychology, sociology, social work, and criminology. References Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1-103. Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477-489. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Griesler, P. C. (1994). Peer adaptations in the development of antisocial behavior: A confluence model. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 61-95). New York: Plenum Press. Egan, S. K., Monson, T. C., Perry, D. G. (1998). Social-cognitive influences on change in aggression over time. Developmental Psychology, 34, 996-1006. Hodges, E. V. E., Card, N. A., & Isaacs, J. (2003). Learning of aggression in the home and the peer group. In W. Heitmeyer & J. Hagan (Eds.), International handbook of research on violence (pp. 495-509). New York: Westview Press. Isaacs, J. (2004). In-school weapon carrying: Associations with aggression, environmental threat, and social cognitions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University. Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic victimization by peers: A review and a new model of family influence. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized(pp. 73-104). New York: Guilford Press. About the Reviewer Noel A. Card received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from St. John’s University. He is now a postdoctoral research fellow at the Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies, University of Kansas. His research interests include child and adolescent social development (especially peer relations and aggression) and quantitative methods. Correspondence regarding this review can be addressed to Noel Card (ncard@ku.edu) at the Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 66045. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.