In the aftermath of tragic events such as mass shootings, public discourse often turns toward mental illness as an explanation for violence. This tendency to attribute violent acts primarily to mental health conditions has been characterized by experts as "scapegoating" people with mental health issues. This practice not only misrepresents the relationship between mental illness and violence but also contributes significantly to the stigma faced by individuals with mental health conditions. Research indicates that while factors such as depression, psychosis, and substance use may contribute to some instances of gun violence, they constitute only a "small percentage of the overall risk" (Van Brunt & Pescara-Kovach, 2019, p. 61). This article examines the phenomenon of scapegoating people with mental illness, its historical and evolutionary roots, its impact on stigma, and evidence-based approaches to addressing this harmful practice.
The Link Between Mass Shootings and Mental Illness
Following mass shootings, public figures and policymakers frequently suggest that mental illness is the primary cause of such violence. In the aftermath of shootings in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas, President Donald Trump stated that "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger. Not the gun." This sentiment echoed comments from other lawmakers who have similarly blamed shootings on mental illness rather than addressing other potential factors.
Dr. Seth Trueger, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Northwestern University, has characterized this framing as "really just scapegoating people with mental health issues." The tendency to focus on mental health as the primary explanation for violence appears to be a recurring pattern in public discourse following tragic events.
This focus on mental illness as the main cause of mass shootings persists despite evidence suggesting that other factors may be more predictive of violent behavior. As researchers have noted, other countries experience similar rates of mental health conditions, violent video games, and religiosity as the United States, yet have far fewer mass shootings. This discrepancy suggests that factors other than mental illness may be more significant contributors to gun violence in the United States.
Evidence Against the Mental Illness-Violence Connection
Research consistently demonstrates that the link between mental illness and violence toward others is much weaker than commonly perceived. One recent study found that while people with a mental disorder diagnosis who have access to a firearm are at higher risk for suicide, they are not at higher risk for harming others (Baumann & Teasdale, 2019). This finding aligns with previous research indicating that mental illness alone is not a strong predictor of interpersonal violence.
Other studies have concluded that there is "no known profile that allows the early identification of a mass killer" (Ash, 2018, p. 105). This lack of a reliable psychological profile suggests that attempts to identify potential shooters based on mental health status are likely to be ineffective and may result in unnecessary stigma.
Factors that appear to be much better predictors of gun violence include directly or indirectly threatening someone, being fixated on the potential target of a violent act, social isolation, marginalization, feeling persecuted, lack of empathy, holding a hardened point of view, and—critically—access to weapons (Van Brunt & Pescara-Kovach, 2019). Among these factors, access to weapons seems to predict gun violence much better than having a mental disorder diagnosis.
Advocating for policies that focus on mental health as the primary solution to gun violence may inadvertently perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Such policies promulgate the stereotype that people with mental disorder diagnoses are violent and unpredictable. In other words, "gun restriction laws focusing on people with mental illness perpetuate the myth that mental illness leads to violence, as well as the misperception that gun violence and mental illness are strongly linked" (Knoll & Annas, 2016, p. 82).
By repeatedly emphasizing the tenuous link between mental illness and violence toward others, public figures and policymakers unfairly risk further stigmatizing people diagnosed with mental disorders while also falsely suggesting that psychologists can reliably identify who is likely to engage in violent acts.
The Evolutionary Psychology of Scapegoating
The tendency to scapegoat people with mental illness has deep historical and evolutionary roots. French intellectual Rene Girard (1923–2015) claimed that scapegoating, although eschewed by modern ethics, was an important adaptation in human evolution, inducing the unanimity of 'all against one,' and thus strengthening group cohesion and curtailing internecine violence.
From a Girardian anthropological perspective, psychosis may have emerged as an adaptation that provided early human groups with efficacious scapegoat victims, about whom unanimity was more likely. However, features of psychosis alone, as manifested in the 'patient,' would have been insufficient for such a unanimity-inducing adaptation to function, as it would have been equally reliant on a corresponding tendency in the general population to both recognize the individual with psychosis in their midst, and to blame them for whatever adversity was at hand.
This evolutionary perspective suggests that humans may have inherited a tendency to respond to crises by scapegoating, particularly people with mental illness. In other words, our evolutionary origins make us prone to the fallacious conclusion that 'If something is wrong, the madman must be responsible.'
This cognitive bias toward selectively scapegoating people who are mentally ill helps explain why, in times of crisis or uncertainty, there is often a tendency to blame individuals with mental health conditions for societal problems. This pattern appears in various contexts, from mass shootings to economic downturns or other social challenges.
Consequences of Scapegoating for People with Mental Illness
The scapegoating of people with mental health issues has significant negative consequences for those living with mental illness and for society as a whole. When public discourse links mental illness with violence, it reinforces harmful stereotypes that contribute to stigma and discrimination.
Research has shown that stigma can prevent people from seeking help for mental health conditions, as they may fear being labeled as dangerous or unpredictable. This reluctance to seek treatment can lead to worse outcomes for individuals with mental illness and may actually increase the risk of adverse events, including violence in some cases.
Additionally, scapegoating diverts attention from more effective approaches to addressing violence and mental health. By focusing primarily on mental health as the cause of violence, policymakers and the public may overlook other factors that contribute to violent behavior, such as access to weapons, social isolation, marginalization, and feelings of persecution.
The stigma associated with mental illness can also affect public policy decisions. Policies that unfairly restrict the rights of people with mental health conditions based on misconceptions about violence may violate principles of civil liberties while failing to address the root causes of violence.
As one analysis of current US politics suggests, there is a similar fallacy at work: 'Something is wrong, therefore the man responsible must be mad.' This tendency to attribute complex social problems to individual mental health issues prevents a more nuanced understanding of the multiple factors that contribute to violence and other societal challenges.
Addressing Stigma: Organizations and Approaches
Addressing the stigma associated with mental illness requires multifaceted approaches that challenge misconceptions and promote accurate understanding of mental health conditions. A primary way to achieve this goal is to support the activities of groups that exist to combat mental health stigma.
Several organizations have dedicated themselves to improving public understanding of mental illness and reducing stigma. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) is a grassroots, self-help and family advocacy organization solely dedicated to improving the lives of people with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (manic depression), major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and panic disorder.
Similarly, the National Mental Health Association (NMHA) strives to improve attitudes toward mental illness and the mentally ill; to improve services for the mentally ill; to work for the prevention of mental illness and promote mental health. These organizations are active in legislative efforts to ensure that insurance companies provide adequate coverage for mental health services.
Education and awareness represent another critical approach to reducing stigma. As one source notes, "People create stigma out of their own fears and ignorance. Through education and awareness, people can also undo the harmful stigmas they have created and maintained." By providing accurate information about mental health conditions and challenging misconceptions about violence, educational initiatives can help shift public understanding.
For mental health professionals, one duty is to "de-mythologise mental illness, rather than to invite people to succumb to their innate propensity to scapegoat it." This involves actively challenging misconceptions in public discourse and advocating for policies based on evidence rather than stigma.
Conclusion
The scapegoating of people with mental health issues represents a persistent problem in public discourse, particularly following tragic events like mass shootings. This practice misrepresents the relationship between mental illness and violence, contributes significantly to stigma, and diverts attention from more effective approaches to addressing violence and supporting mental health.
Research consistently demonstrates that mental illness is not a strong predictor of violence toward others, and that factors such as access to weapons, social isolation, and feelings of persecution are much better predictors of violent behavior. Despite this evidence, the tendency to blame violence primarily on mental health conditions persists.
Understanding the evolutionary and psychological roots of scapegoating can help explain why this pattern occurs and how it might be addressed. By challenging misconceptions about mental illness and promoting evidence-based approaches to violence prevention, society can reduce stigma and create more supportive environments for people with mental health conditions.
Ultimately, addressing the scapegoating of people with mental health issues requires a commitment to education, advocacy, and evidence-based policy. By recognizing the complex factors that contribute to violence and supporting the well-being of people with mental health conditions, society can work toward solutions that are both effective and equitable.