Are Vicarious Targets Complicating Your Threat Assessments?
Chances are you have witnessed an altercation, a threatening interaction, or an alarming argument at work. While these incidents can be disturbing to the victim, they can also trigger a psychological response in bystanders, fellow employees, students, or other witnesses.
Sometimes, this response turns those secondary individuals into vicarious targets (VTs), says Diana Concannon, PCI, a certified threat manager and the dean of the California School of Forensic Studies at Alliant International University. Concannon coined the term as part of some forthcoming threat assessment research.
VTs are important for threat assessment and security professionals to consider because these individuals can serve as either protective or risk factors, Concannon explains.
Consider this scenario. A university student who is known to have a temper, argue with other students, and make provocative statements in class, shouts at his professor about his grade on an exam, accusing the professor of discrimination and unfair treatment. The professor perceives the student’s posture, language, and behavior as aggressive with the potential to escalate into physical violence, so he tells the student to leave and requests a security officer to escort the student off campus for the day. The professor believes the situation was serious enough to warrant a report, and he submits the case to the university’s behavioral threat assessment team for further review.
The professor and the student were the primary subjects of the interaction, but they were not the only people affected. Other students and faculty members overheard or witnessed the interaction and—because of their proximity to the incident, the student, his past behavior, or other factors—may feel personally threatened.
It’s normal to feel uneasy after witnessing a tense or aggressive situation. But VTs may then act on those unsettled feelings, which could help or harm an organization’s threat assessment and management approach.
Oftentimes, VTs will distance themselves from the subject of concern, even if that person is considered low risk. This can produce a sense of ostracization or stigma that can humiliate the subject or foster a grievance, potentially elevating the subject’s threat level, Concannon says. This creates the very threat the vicarious target initially feared.
“They engage in ways that would have somebody who was having a reactive or affective response to an isolated incident develop a stronger grievance because of how they are being treated overall,” she explains. “And we know that grievance has been a very potent risk indicator for mobilization to targeted violence.”
VTs can take up valuable time and attention during the assessment, either by injecting themselves into the process or demanding a swift and specific resolution.
“Often, VTs are time-consuming,” Concannon says. “They may volunteer to serve as witnesses and offer narratives that reflect an interpretation of events rather than the events themselves in an effort to achieve a specific goal that they have decided will support their safety—such as the dismissal or expulsion of a low-risk subject from the environment. Their intel is not helpful to an investigation and their response to a standard interview may be frustration; they feel ‘unheard,’ as what they are seeking to convey is not accepted as ‘truth.’”
Because VTs’ actions can undercut the overall goal of de-escalating the threat environment, they are important elements for security and threat assessment teams to monitor and address, she adds.
There are five key types of vicarious target, according to Concannon’s research.
Anxiety-centered. Many VTs’ psychological response works off of preexisting anxieties. These can be fueled by sensationalized news accounts of workplace or school violence situations or an underlying distrust of the organization.
Security and workplace violence awareness training can be a double-edged sword for these individuals, Concannon says. Overall, it’s positive to provide information and training around workplace safety and early warning indicators of violence. But “for people with a baseline of heightened anxieties, some of the trainings can further elevate their levels of anxiety so they’ll be predisposed toward a bias of seeing an actual threat when, in fact, there may not be a verifiable or true threat of violence,” she adds.
Advocate- or issue-centered. In response to a perceived threat, these vicarious targets are likely to demand swift action or a concession related to the event, such as expelling a student or firing an employee, even if the threat assessment isn’t finished or if the individual was assessed to pose a low risk. These VTs may also push the organization to demonstrate a clear and swift dedication to addressing similar issues in the future.
Conformist. Whether they want to be part of the in-group or feel safer as part of a crowd, these vicarious targets will join other VTs to advocate for immediate action, isolate the subject of concern, or otherwise amplify the sense of unease and fear among the group.
Distrusting. This VT does not believe the organization or institution will follow through on an investigation and necessary action appropriately. As a result, he or she will demand information on the assessment every step of the way and demand transparency, regardless of privacy requirements and due process.
Mixed. VTs can be simultaneously anxious and conformist or distrusting and issue centered. These blends will require different approaches from the threat assessment and security teams.
“I think the subtypes are important in managing this because it’s important not to have kind of a one-size-fits-all response for some vicarious targets,” Concannon says. “Behavioral management is important, as well as setting firm boundaries. For example, explain what information can and cannot be shared in a compassionate but direct way.”
Similarly, if the vicarious target is anxious, consider reviewing what resources are available to help them address those feelings and lower the temperature of the situation.
The presence and involvement of vicarious targets signals some underlying cultural opportunities within the organization. Something is missing, in terms of a feeling of psychological safety, and there’s a window to address some of those concerns and produce a safer environment in the long run, Concannon adds.
A lack of psychological or physical safety affects a variety of workplace factors, including productivity and retention, Concannon says. “So, assisting the organization to address those issues provides the opportunity have the workplace be a safer environment, helping to attract and retain the individuals who work within it, and helping them to be more safety literate.”
That safety literacy empowers employees to appropriately identify true positives of threatening behavior and even report false positives that could indicate a different source of disruptive workplace conflict that needs to be addressed.
“We want to identify those factors because they allow for a more tactical understanding of what the culture is,” Concannon says. “Culture is one of those things that is so influential and so incredibly difficult to define. And so, this is just one more tool to help define some of the influences in a culture that may not be productive or aligned with an organization’s or institution’s intended values or concerns.”
Claire Meyer is editor-in-chief of Security Management. Connect with her on LinkedIn or email her directly at [email protected].
