Given that attacks on public figures have a low base rate, studies have tended to use attempts to achieve unwarranted and unwanted proximity as a proxy for violence – and arguably, other adverse outcomes. It is in this context that attention has been given to threats against public figures and those in the public eye.
Studies examining associations between threats and approach have produced contradictory results. In addition, a misunderstanding of their meaning amongst some non-clinicians has left a lingering impression that threats are of little import and has served to turn the overlapping behaviours of making threats and posing threats into something of a false dichotomy.
This paper begins by reviewing the existing literature, which examines threats according to the employment of their recipients (politicians, celebrities, judicial officials etc.) and does so retrospectively using data originally gathered for other purposes. It then presents a detailed, prospective study of threats and approach in a sample of 126 cases, separating them along three lines: underlying motivation; immediate purpose of threat; and consequence threatened.
The study finds that particular types and forms of threat are significantly associated with approach in those motivated by grievance, but not those motivated by relationship-seeking. Furthermore, when the whole sample with a mixture of motivations was analysed together in the manner of previous studies, such associations were no longer apparent. In addition, there were strong associations between approach/non-approach and immediate purpose of threat, using a standardised classification. And differences also emerged with consequence threatened.
The paper suggests that attention to motivation and threat purpose should be incorporated into future studies in this area.
