The Trump Assassination Attempt Caused Psychological Distress and Fueled Polarization
Political violence has a different effect on people today than it did in the past because of social media and extreme partisanship
The attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump during a Pennsylvania campaign rally may have produced a kind of collective trauma, as people attempted to make sense of the event through real-time media coverage and online images.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
The attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump was a massive shock that has jarred society, regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum. The shooting at Trump’s Pennsylvania campaign rally appeared to have nicked the candidate’s ear and bloodied his face, killed one bystander and critically wounded two others. And it came amid profound and increasingly dangerous social divisions in the country. Experts have found that dramatic instances of political violence can have distressing psychological effects, not only on those who witness them in person but also on the millions of people exposed to such events through online images, videos and social media.
From the assassination of then president John F. Kennedy to the shooting of then U.S. representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, violence toward a political leader or public figure often triggers not just an initial sense of shock but also a need to make sense of what has happened—and what it says about the society each us is part of. Yet unlike when these earlier tragedies occurred, people had to process graphic images and nonstop media coverage of the Trump shooting in close to real time.
“What’s different here, of course, is the growth of social media—the fact that we can see pictures and videos of the shooting or the shooting’s aftermath or former president Trump with blood streaming down his face instantaneously,”says Roxane Cohen Silver, a professor of psychological science, medicine and public health at the University of California, Irvine. Exposure to these images and the news coverage surrounding them can lead to a form of collective trauma, she says.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Silver’s research focuses on how people cope with traumatic events, such as the September 11 attacks and the Boston Marathon bombings. When 9/11 happened, most people got their news from television coverage. Today many people get their news online, often via a smartphone they carry with them all the time. “The speed with which we can access graphic images, the speed in which we can transmit graphic images, the overwhelming number of images that can be distributed rapidly without context [are] unprecedented,”Silver says.
Her research on the Boston Marathon bombings found that exposure to bloody, graphic images had a serious effect on people’s psychological functioning. One study that she and her colleagues published found that being exposed to six or more daily hours of media related to the bombings in the week afterward was linked to higher levels of acute stress than direct, in-person exposure to the attacks themselves. While perhaps not quite as graphic, the images and video of the recent Trump shooting showed blood dripping down the side of a former president’s face, and there were videos of the shooter’s body on the roof of a nearby building after he was killed by the Secret Service.
Another key difference from some previous violent events is that the Trump shooting took place in an environment of extreme political polarization—which led individuals to interpret the same event very differently. While some people reacted to the attempted assassination with outrage or distress, others did so with apathy or sarcasm, even making jokes about how the bullet had missed its mark.
And this polarization itself can be severely stressful. Silver and her colleagues have been conducting a study of several thousand people they have been following since the early days of the COVID pandemic. The study has since focused on other events, such as mass shootings, climate disasters and the police murder of George Floyd. Some of the data are still under review for publication, but “we found that political polarization was… one of the most stressful experiences that people reported,” Silver says. Although she doesn’t yet have data on how the Trump shooting affected people’s views, her team plans to collect more survey information before the November 5 presidential election.
Silver also highlights the potential for misinformation and disinformation after events like the attempted Trump assassination. Indeed, conspiracy theories about the shooting arose immediately afterward at both ends of the political spectrum. At times like these, she says, it’s crucial to verify that information is coming from a reputable source.
When we experience a collective trauma like this, “we need to take a step back,” says Robin Gurwitch, a psychologist and a professor at Duke University Medical Center, who works with people who have been exposed to traumatic events such as mass shootings. “When these events happen, one of the things we have to do is take a breath and consider, ‘What do I really know, and how does this fit into my understanding of the world around me?’” Gurwitch says.
Not everyone reacts the same. “You may have some people who use this as a sign that we need to take a step back. We need to consider our actions and our words, how we treat each other and how we talk about each other,” Gurwitch says. “Others’ first response may be wanting to double down and come out louder and stronger.” But she cautions against meeting violence with violence. “Before taking any action, we should decide ‘what is our overall goal, and what will be the most productive and effective way to accomplish this goal?’” she says.
After these kinds of events, experts recommend that people limit their media consumption as needed to protect their mental health. “We do advocate that people monitor their media exposure to graphic images,” Silver says. “There’s likely to be no psychological benefit to seeing graphic images over and over again.” Journalists, in particular, are often exposed to traumatic images or topics through their reporting, and there are resources to help cope with that.
It’s also important for parents to talk to their children about what has happened, Gurwitch says. “First and foremost, you need to make sure, as the adult, that you’ve thought through your emotions, thoughts, ideas, beliefs and values. What’s the message you want to communicate?” she says. If you seem stressed or scared, she adds, your children are going to pick up on that, so you want to be open about discussing it.“When these kinds of events happen, this is also an opportunity for us to communicate to our children: ‘How do we think about it? What are our values about handling disagreements?’” Gurwitch says. It’s not necessary to expose your children to gruesome details, she says, but you should explain the news in a manner that’s appropriate for their age and level of understanding. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network is one organization that offers resources to help parents talk to their children about mass violence.
