|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVE: We developed and tested a gun-blame attribution model to explain why mass shootings do not change attitudes toward gun control among gun owners and/or conservatives. For a mass shooting to increase gun control support, individuals must attribute the shooting at least partly to gun availability. Such attributions are unlikely for individuals who believe that there would be less crime if more people had guns.
METHOD: After two mass shootings, we assessed political orientation, gun ownership, the belief that widespread gun ownership reduces crime, causal attributions about the mass shootings, and attitudes toward gun control (Orlando, N = 1756; El Paso, N = 910). Data were analyzed using multiple regression (Study 1) and path analyses (Study 2). Demographic information is reported in the Supplemental Material.
RESULTS: Across both shootings, political conservatism and gun ownership positively predicted a belief that widespread gun ownership reduces crime, which subsequently predicted less blaming of gun availability for mass shootings and less support for stricter gun laws.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings support our gun-blame attribution model. Mass shootings predict people's attitude toward stricter gun laws if they attribute the mass shooting to gun availability. Such attributions are unlikely for U.S. gun owners and/or conservatives, who are more likely to believe that widespread gun ownership reduces crime. To the extent that this belief is ideological, persuasion-based psychological interventions are unlikely to be as effective as political intervention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
Language: en |