896415

research-article2019
FCXXXX10.1177/1557085119896415Feminist CriminologyScaptura and Boyle

Article
Feminist Criminology
2020, Vol. 15(3) 278­–298
Masculinity Threat, “Incel” © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Traits, and Violent Fantasies sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1557085119896415
https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085119896415
Among Heterosexual Men in journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

the United States

Maria N. Scaptura1 and Kaitlin M. Boyle2

Abstract
The current study aims to shed light on how masculinity threat and challenges from
women translate into fantasies of mass and gender-based violence. These attitudes are
evident among some self-proclaimed “incels,” who blame social liberalism, feminism,
and sexually active men for their rejection from women. We developed a measure of
“incel” traits, which was administered in an online self-report survey of 18- to 30-year-
old heterosexual men in the United States. As hypothesized, stress in one’s inability to
live up to norms of masculinity and endorsement of “incel” traits are associated with
violent fantasies about rape and using powerful weapons against enemies.

Keywords
masculinity, incel, mass violence, violence against women, rape

Women experience intimate partner violence, stalking, and rape at higher levels than
men. These disparities are particularly pronounced for stalking and rape, for which
women are approximately 74% and 90% of victims (Smith et al., 2018). These statis-
tics reflect a societal issue with gender-based violence that exists in countries across
the world. The United States, however, is unique in that it has the highest mass shoot-
ing incidence rate in the globe, which disproportionately affects women (Christensen,
2017; “Global Firearms Holdings,” 2018). Family and romantic partners are targeted
in 54% of mass shootings, leading to an overrepresentation of women and children
compared with single-victim gun homicides (Everytown for Gun Safety, 2017; United

1Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA

2University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA

Corresponding Author:
Kaitlin M. Boyle, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
Email: KB49@mailbox.sc.edu
Scaptura and Boyle 279

Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2013). Various shooters have an explicit history
of gender-based violence, further suggesting that mass and gender-based violence are
intertwined (e.g., Lopez, 2017; Sakuma, 2019). Despite these patterns, and that men
commit 94.4% of mass shootings, policy and mainstream debate tend to neglect a
gender approach (Ramsey, 2015).
Further exemplifying a connection between mass violence and gender, several U.S.
mass shooters in the past 5 years participated in online communities where men dis-
cuss frustration with sexual/romantic rejection and espouse sexist attitudes against
women (Hines, 2019). Today’s “incel” discourses—short for “involuntary celibate”—
blame feminism for their celibacy, claim that women are genetically inferior, and com-
plain that women prefer more “genetically superior” men (Ging, 2017; Hines, 2019).
Some members adopt more extreme views such as sexual slavery, redistribution of
women, and violence against feminists. In May 2014, a college student killed six and
wounded 14 in Isla Vista, California—his “Day of Retribution” for a lifetime of
romantic and sexual rejection was outlined in a manifesto that embraced radical
“incel” views (“Elliot Rodger: How Misogynist Killer Became ‘Incel Hero,’” 2018).
Reddit, a website that contains thousands of forums where users share and comment
on content, banned the “r/incel” subreddit (community forum)—which had over
40,000 members—for “hosting violent content” (Bell, 2017).
The Isla Vista shooter inherited the title of “incel hero” online, receiving praise
from a community that shares his resentment of women and men who engage in sex
(“Elliot Rodger: How Misogynist Killer Became ‘Incel Hero,’” 2018). One supporter
drove his van into a crowd in Toronto, killing 10 and injuring 15. He stated in a
Facebook post before the attack: “The Incel Rebellion has already begun!” and referred
to the Isla Vista shooter as the “Supreme Gentleman” (Wendling, 2018). About 6
months later, a man shot and killed two women, wounding five others, in a yoga studio
in Tallahassee, Florida. This shooter expressed “incel” sentiments in videos about
women’s lack of understanding about the “societal pressure that’s put on an adolescent
male” and expressed sympathy for the Isla Vista shooter (Chavez & McLaughlin,
2018). It has been estimated that seven mass shootings in the past decade involved a
person who participated in “incel” online communities (Hines, 2019).
These three “incel” shooters—and some members of the online community of
which they are a part—espouse attitudes long studied by gender scholars: hostile sex-
ism, masculinity threat, gender role stress, and toxic masculinity. Decades of research
has linked such attitudes to a host of negative outcomes, such as rape proclivity, inti-
mate partner violence, and substance use among men (Casey et al., 2017; Munsch &
Willer, 2012; Peralta et al., 2010). In particular, studies show that men who feel threat-
ened by the social progress of women, and men who feel threatened by women in their
lives and workplaces, are more likely to hyper-conform to masculine identity traits and
exhibit anger and aggression toward women (Dahl et al., 2015; Eisler et al., 2000;
Munsch & Willer, 2012; Reidy et al., 2014; Willer et al., 2013). In linking the “incel”
phenomenon to the gender attitudes of men, we ask: are men who believe the status of
men is threatened or exhibit gender role stress—as is evident in the “incel” commu-
nity—more likely to fantasize about mass and gender-based violence?
280 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

We investigate these processes among 18- to 30-year-old men in the United States,
the demographic of most mass shooters (Fox & DeLateur, 2014). Rather than directly
studying self-proclaimed “incels,” we consider this group an “extreme” community in
which masculinity threat and fantasy about (mass and gender-based) violence are
heightened and crystallized. Most men are not “incels,” and most “incels” will never
engage in the rare act of mass violence. But by examining traits embedded in this com-
munity, and the degree to which they exist in a broader sample, we test theoretical
mechanisms without categorizing “incels” and non-“incels.” Given a potential link
between “incels” and violence and the dearth of academic scholarship on the topic, we
ask: what are the underlying traits of “incels?” We develop a 20-item scale with two
underlying factors that tap into feelings of defeat and hatefulness reflected in “incel”
discourse. We distribute a self-report online survey to 18- to 30-year-old men, explor-
ing: are men who more strongly endorse “incel” traits more likely to fantasize about
mass and gender-based violence? We propose that mass shootings—more specifically,
one’s fantasies about committing such an act—can be understood through a gender
lens and in relation to violence against women.

Group Position and Threat

Prejudice is rooted in a feeling of entitlement to certain privileges and resources among
the dominant group; fears that the subordinate group is planning to take these resources
results in the perception of threat (Blumer, 1958). Blumer (1958) outlines four feelings
in dominant groups which could lead to prejudice: a feeling of superiority, the belief
that the subordinate group is intrinsically different, a claim to areas of privilege, and a
fear of threat from the subordinate group who desire the dominant group’s advantages.
Group threat can lead to harassment in the workplace (McLaughlin et al., 2012), fur-
ther justification of social inequality (Weaver & Vescio, 2015), and even laws or poli-
cies that aim to exclude specific groups of people (Obaidi et al., 2018).
Although Blumer (1958) mainly uses his framework for racial prejudice, it can be
applied to many group hierarchies. Branscombe et al. (1999) further elaborated on the
types of threat members of dominant groups experience. Acceptance threat is the
sense of rejection and derogation for not truly belonging to the group. Status threat is
the sense that the group’s value is undermined by outside sources. Acceptance threat
involves an internal threat from the group (doubting your standing in the in-group),
while status threat entails an outside threat to the group (men as a whole are threatened
by reduction of the status as men). Both can be used to understand gender hierarchies
and men’s response to women’s progress.

Threats and Masculinity Challenges

When a man’s gender identity is threatened, he is more likely to endorse traditional
gender roles, overcompensating to appear more masculine. This form of acceptance
threat includes displays of toughness, aggression, lack of empathy, devaluation of
women, need for respect, competitiveness, and homophobia (Bird, 1996; Dahl et al.,
Scaptura and Boyle 281

2015; Harris, 2010; Harris et al., 2011; Kupers, 2005). In Munsch and Willer’s
(2012) study, respondents were given false feedback about their gender identities
and then asked their views on date rape and sexual coercion vignettes. Men whose
gender identities were disconfirmed assigned more responsibility to victims and less
to perpetrators than men whose gender identities were confirmed. Conversely, and
consistent with expectations, women whose gender identities were disconfirmed
assigned less blame to victims and more to perpetrators than women whose identi-
ties were confirmed (though the magnitude of difference between confirmed and
disconfirmed respondents was larger among men than women). Munsch and Willer’s
(2012) study is an example of acceptance threat in that those who perceived a threat
to their group membership reacted by supporting their in-group more and blaming or
rejecting the out-group.
When individuals feel their group as a whole is threatened, they may respond by
emphasizing their status as members. Willer et al. (2013) test the masculine overcom-
pensation thesis, which asserts that men who hold the belief that the status or position
of men in society is under threat will react with extreme displays of masculinity. Men
who more strongly agreed that “recent changes in our society often disadvantage men”
were more likely to endorse war, homophobia, and misogyny—women’s attitudes
were not significantly related in this way (p. 1000). By experiencing a status threat to
their in-group identity, men “hyper-conformed” to in-group traits (Branscombe et al.,
1999; Maass et al., 2003). This threat forces men to question their dominant group
privilege; such a challenge to authority may result in attempts to “preserve the integ-
rity and position of the dominant group” (Blumer, 1958, p. 5).
Feminist scholars have utilized notions of masculinity to understand gender-based
violence for decades. There are multiple forms of masculinity, and they are all socially
constructed; however, they are not all valued and treated as hegemonic (Everitt-
Penhale & Ratele, 2015). Masculinity requires “doing gender” by continuously prov-
ing and seeking validation of one’s manhood (Vandello et al., 2008; West &
Zimmerman, 1987). Exhibiting traditionally feminine behaviors, like nurturing, puts
men at risk for being called out as “less of a man” (Glick et al., 2007). Furthermore,
the idea of “not measuring up” to the hegemonic masculine ideal thereby creates a
masculinity challenge for subordinated masculinities.
When one’s masculinity is challenged or threatened, men react to social situa-
tions or interactions that put their gender identity in question. These challenges
motivate behaviors that aim to correct these subordinating assumptions, through
situationally appropriate actions and scripts (Messerschmidt, 2000). Men draw on
what Messerschmidt (2000) terms masculine resources to respond to these threats.
This includes posturing, competitiveness, aggressiveness, abusing alcohol, objec-
tifying women, and pursuing sex to appear more masculine, reduce ridicule, and
command respect in the face of masculinity challenges (Bosson et al., 2009;
Harris, 2010; Harris et al., 2011; Heinrich, 2012; Messerschmidt, 2000, 2018).
Men may distance themselves from the out-group (women and subordinated men)
through derogation as a means to discredit or minimize threat (Maass et al., 2003;
Petriglieri, 2011).
282 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

Strain, Entitlement, and Mass Violence

Mass violence scholars offer a framework for understanding the relationship between
masculinity, entitlement to women, and mass violence. Fox and Levin (1998) provide
typologies of mass murder by examining predisposers, precipitants, and facilitators
that are common among mass killers. “Predisposers” include intropunitive aggression
(aggression turned inward), frustration, and externalizing blame, which contribute to
fantasies of vengeful murder (Fox & DeLateur, 2014; Fox et al., 2018; Fox and Levin,
1998; Kalish & Kimmel, 2010). Using a stress perspective, predisposers can be thought
of as chronic strains: long-term frustrations, like bullying or ostracism, that lead to
social isolation, suspicion, and hostility (Levin & Madfis, 2009).
Fox and Levin (1998) also point to “precipitants,” events such as job loss and inspi-
ration taken from other mass killers (p. 439). Precipitants can be thought of as acute
strains in that they are short-term events that seem catastrophic in nature, such as
“rejection by a girlfriend, a loss of academic standing, [or] an eviction from a com-
munity of peers” (Levin & Madfis, 2009, p. 1235; Madfis & Arford, 2008; Vossekuil
et al., 2004). Levin and Madfis (2009) argue that this “cumulative strain” can lead to
fantasies about mass violence, which is seen as a “masculine solution to regain lost
feelings of control” (p. 1227; Silver et al., 2019).
Although not all individuals who fantasize about violence end up committing
violent crimes (Collins, 2015; Smith et al., 2009), there is still a connection between
aggressive fantasies and suicide, homicide, and mass violence (Murray, 2015, 2017a,
2017b). Those who fantasize about aggression and violence are more likely to inflict
harm on themselves or others (Murray, 2015, 2017a, 2017b; Selby et al., 2007;
Smith et al., 2009). In many cases, mass shooters fantasized about their acts before
committing them as a means of escaping their feelings of worthlessness or self-
doubt (Murray, 2017a). This violence ultimately allows these shooters to demon-
strate themselves as powerful and superior for committing an act of dominance
against others who they viewed as inferior. Fantasizing about these violent acts
allowed men like the 2014 Isla Vista shooter and the 2009 LA Fitness shooter to plan
their attacks beforehand, building confidence and justifying their hatred (Murray,
2017a). This period of planning is crucial to advancing their previously fantasized
acts. While not all people who fantasize about violence will act on it, these fantasies
may predispose one to act out their plans.
Failed relationships with specific women or women in general can operate as pre-
cipitants and predisposers to mass murder, respectively (Fox & DeLateur, 2014; Fox
et al., 2018; Fox & Levin, 1998; Fridel, 2017; Taylor, 2018). For instance, a Washington
teen shot four people in his high school cafeteria, including a girl who reportedly
rejected him and the boy she was dating (Wagner, 2014). Eight of the 12 school shoot-
ers in Klein’s (2005) content analysis targeted girls because of rejection (or perceived
rejection) or jealousy (Klein, 2005; Klein & Chancer, 2000). Entitlement to women
and sex may also predispose men to enact mass violence, as evident by the aforemen-
tioned “incel” attackers in Isla Vista, Toronto, and Tallahassee. Rather than targeting a
former partner, their target became generalized, turning their anger outward (Aggeler,
Scaptura and Boyle 283

2018; Chavez & McLaughlin, 2018; Wendling, 2018). Through externalization of dis-
crete or repeated frustration and access to deadly weapons, these men and boys hyper-
conformed to violent masculinities through acts of mass violence.

The Current Study

The current study aims to understand the roles that masculinity threat, gender role
stress, and “incel” traits play in men’s fantasies about mass and gender-based violence.
Research on masculinity and group position and threat offer an explanation for how
challenges to one’s masculine gender may result in hyperconformity and, thus, mass
or gender-based violence (Blumer, 1958; Branscombe et al., 1999; Eisler et al., 2000;
Ging, 2017; Munsch & Willer, 2012; Willer et al., 2013). More specifically, group
position theory outlines differences between acceptance threat (not measuring up to
hegemonic masculinity) and status threat (the belief that the dominant group is being
threatened by the subordinate group). Patterns of threat can transform into feelings of
hostility toward an out-group. In their school shooter study, Kalish and Kimmel (2010)
demonstrate how the boys exhibited “aggrieved entitlement” in which they feel
wronged by the world—rejected, defeated—and transformed that anger into revenge.
In the current study, we test the idea that feelings of rejection and defeat translate into
violent fantasies.
Such traits are exhibited in the Isla Vista manifesto and claims of “incel” shoot-
ers, who highlight their rejection by women (“Stacy’s”) and failure at being a strong,
attractive man (like “Chads”), led to a “twisted world” in which they sought revenge.
In his mind, the Isla Vista shooter was a victim, which fed his violent fantasies that
were later proliferated through and celebrated by other “incels” (Langman, 2014;
Larkin 2018). Larkin (2018, p. 80) argues “given hegemonic notions of masculinity,
[the Isla Vista shooter] blamed women not only for his own victimization, but for his
own inadequacies” and perceived women as the “enemy.” He acknowledged his
failed masculinity performance (acceptance threat) and saw women, as a group, as a
threat to men (status threat). Given these patterns in theory, masculinities research,
and anecdotal “incel” shooting incidents, we expect that men who exhibit greater
acceptance threat (Hypothesis 1) and greater status threat (Hypothesis 2) will report
more frequent fantasies about mass and gender-based violence. Furthermore, we
expect “incel” traits to mediate this relationship (Hypothesis 3). Although the three
“incel” shooters described engaged in “incel” communities and have been hailed as
heroes by some members of this online community, we do not directly study incels
given issues of access to the population and the rarity of mass shootings. Instead, we
use “incel” ideology to center our study, using this community to link masculinity
threat to violent fantasy.

Method
Our study consisted of two steps. We first created the “incel” trait scale and then
administered this scale in an online self-report survey to 18- to 30-year-old men in the
284 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

United States, the demographic of most mass shooters (Fox & DeLateur, 2014). We
outline these processes below.

“Incel” Trait Scale Development

Social psychological researchers developed measurement procedures that illuminate
underlying traits or characteristics associated with identities (e.g., volunteer, mother,
moral person) (Burke & Reitzes, 1981; Burke & Stets, 2009). Identity theory typically
uses a two-step process in which researchers determine words and meanings associ-
ated with a particular identity, and then this set of bipolar measures is distributed to
respondents and factor analysis is used to assess validity. The measure is then used to
predict behaviors, emotions, or distress.
For instance, to determine characteristics of a moral identity, Stets and Carter
(2011) used words in the morality literature to develop 12 bipolar continua anchored
by their antonym (e.g., honest to dishonest, compassionate to hardhearted). Next, these
measures were distributed to respondents. Responses were assessed using factor anal-
ysis to assess reliability. Respondents’ scores were averaged as a measure of “moral
identity.” Similarly, Boyle (2016) conducted a pretest in which respondents provided
“words that describe someone who is a victim”; these bipolar measures (e.g., helpless
to capable, scared to brave) were used to develop a measure of “victim identity” later
distributed in the second survey to predict distress.
We follow this approach to assessing underlying meanings of an identity to develop
and test a measure of “incel” identity. Traits and characteristics that journalists associ-
ated with these individuals and this community regarding their relationships with
women were gathered via Google News. We coded the top 10 stories about the “incel
movement” for traits that were mentioned in writers’ descriptions of “incels” or
“incels’” self-descriptions. Similar terms were collapsed into larger categories (e.g.,
“raw hatred” with “hatred”), resulting in 29 traits. We located antonyms for each using
an online thesaurus. This led to more words being collapsed or discarded if they were
too closely related to other terms or did not have a sufficient antonym (e.g., “sexless”).
This resulted in the final list of 20 pairs. Respondents in the self-report survey were
presented with 20 bipolar scales (e.g., from “weak” to “strong”). Respondents slid the
scale to “indicate which word describes you better.” Each was scaled from 0 to 9.
As a scale of 20 items, the “incel” trait scale has a satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha
(α = .92). However, there is variation in the strength of correlation, ranging from a
high for “shunned” and “rejected” (r = .60, p < .001) to a low for “violent” and
“weak” (r = .10, p < .05), two quite divergent terms. First, we conducted an explor-
atory factor analysis to better understand how these concepts relate to one another.
These factor analyses resulted in the emergence of two underlying factors, listed in
Table 1. The first factor contains 13 items (α = .91) and the second contains seven
(α = .81). We name these two “incel” trait scales defeat and hateful after the highest
factor loadings for each subscale.
After the exploratory factor analysis of all 20 items, we conducted a confirmatory
factor analysis using only the first factor’s items (defeated). We used STATA’s
Scaptura and Boyle 285

Table 1.  “Incel” Traits and Factor Scoring Coefficients (N = 541).

Factor 1 M SD Factor scoring coefficients

Defeated 2.60 2.04 0.16
Not confident 2.79 2.07 0.12
Rejected 2.43 2.10 0.12
Confused 2.84 2.22 0.11
Sad 2.62 2.15 0.10
Insecure 3.17 2.44 0.10
Fearful 2.87 2.14 0.10
Frustrated 3.59 2.39 0.10
Excluded 3.53 2.58 0.10
Weak 2.62 2.13 0.10
Scorned 2.83 2.02 0.10
Shunned 2.60 2.05 0.08
Unattractive 3.32 2.38 0.08
Factor 2 M SD Factor scoring coefficients
Hateful 1.97 1.83 0.26
Disgusted 2.41 1.96 0.22
Paranoid 3.21 2.46 0.17
Resentful 3.04 2.39 0.17
Vengeful 3.33 2.36 0.17
Enraged 2.55 2.27 0.15
Violent 2.28 2.25 0.14

Note. Items scaled from 9 (“incel” trait listed) to 0 (“incel” trait antonym).

post-estimation command PREDICT, which produces factor scoring coefficients that

demonstrate the relative importance of each of the 13 defeated items. These factor
scoring coefficients were used to weight respondents’ answers for each item, and their
weighted responses were summed into a single index. We create this weighted index
because simply averaging or summing treats measures as having “an identical loading;
[which is] rarely the case” (Acock, 2013, p. 9). The result is a single continuous vari-
able for defeated. This was followed for hateful.

Self-Report Survey
We use self-reported surveys to research the correlation between “incel” traits, mascu-
linity threat, and violent fantasies. Centiment recruits survey-takers via social media
such as Facebook, creating a pool of potential survey-takers who report their basic
demographics. We provided Centiment with inclusion criteria for the study, and they
notify users who fit these criteria. They do not indicate the topic, providing only a dol-
lar amount and approximate minutes to complete. Respondents follow a link to
286 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

Table 2.  Respondent Characteristics.

Variable % Income %
Race and ethnicity
  Asian or Pacific Islander 7 $0–$9,999 9
  Black or African American 14 $10,000–$19,999 4
 Multiracial 2 $20,000–$29,999 2
  Native American or American Indian <1 $30,000–$39,999 6
 White 77 $40,000–$49,999 7
 Hispanic 3 $50,000–$59,999 12
Education $60,000–$69,999 11
  Less than high school diploma 4 $70,000–$79,999 17
  High school diploma 49 $80,000–$89,999 12
  Associate’s degree 11 $90,000–$99,999 6
  Bachelor’s or advanced degree 36 $100,000+ 15
Internet use Internet Reddit 4Chan
Several times a day 64% 24% 9%
About once a day 33% 11% 6%
A few times a week 3% 16% 4%
Every few weeks <1% 10% 3%
Less often or never 0% 40% 78%
  M SD Minimum Maximum
Age 25 3.82 18 30
Political ideology 4.05 1.69 1 7

Qualtrics, which contains the consent form and survey. After completing the survey,
Centiment checks for quality and completion, pays the respondent via PayPal, and
gives the data to researchers (Centiment does not tell researchers the payment amount
given to respondents).
Of the 612 men who completed the survey, 88% identified as heterosexual or
straight, while the rest identified as bisexual (5%), gay or homosexual (5%), or some
other sexual orientation (<2%). Given our focus on profiles of incels and mass
shooters who feel rejected by and target women, we isolate analyses to 541 hetero-
sexual men (Table 2).

Violent Fantasies
The Aggressive Fantasies measure refers to daydreams of a violent or destructive
nature. The Aggressive Fantasies measure was originally created by Rosenfeld et al.
(1982) in a larger assessment tool called the Children’s Fantasy Inventory, developed
using psychoanalytic theory. Nadel et al. (1996) later adapted the Aggressive Fantasies
measure for school-based intervention and violence-prevention programs for youth.
Scaptura and Boyle 287

We use two of these items: powerful weapon use to approximate mass violence (“do
you sometimes imagine or daydream about using powerful weapons against your ene-
mies?”) and rape, as a form of gender-based violence (“do you sometimes daydream
or imagine rape scenes or forcing someone to have sex?”). Responses were “never,”
“sometimes,” and “frequently.” While the majority of respondents “never” had such
fantasies, 33% fantasized about destroying enemies with powerful weapons and 21%
fantasized about raping someone “sometimes” or “frequently.” Because these vari-
ables have three levels, we use ordinal logistic regression and report odds ratios, which
are exponentiated beta coefficients.

Masculinity Threats
The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987) was chosen to
measure acceptance threat, men’s emotional struggle in trying to meet the socially
constructed expectations of hegemonic masculinity (α = .91). Respondents reply on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all stressful” to “extremely stressful.”
These 15 items were weighted by their factor scoring coefficients and summed into a
single standardized scale: acceptance threat (M = 0.03, SD = 0.96). Like Willer et al.
(2013) we measure status threat with the following: “Recent changes in our society
often disadvantage men” (Pew Research Center, 2012). Responses are a 4-point
Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” About 50% of
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, 35% agreed, and 13%
strongly agreed.

Control Variables
We control for a number of factors, including race (1 = White non-Hispanic) and
age. We include education and income as controls, which are reversed such that a
positive coefficient indicates lower education attainment and less income, respec-
tively. We control for frequency of Internet use; Reddit use, a website that contains
thousands of online forums; and 4Chan, an anonymous set of online forums, because
they have both been popular with “incels” and several “incel” shooters were known
users (Lamoureux, 2019).
Given our gender lens, we include sexist attitudes as control variables. The
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) contains 22 items and two sub-
scales: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. Measures of hostile sexism refer to hateful and
resentful attitudes toward women, such as “women seek power by gaining control of
men,” and benevolent sexism refers to “chivalrous” yet sexist beliefs, such as “a good
woman should be set on a pedestal” (p. 500). For each subscale, responses were
weighted by factor scoring coefficients and summed as benevolent sexism (M = 0.4,
SD = 0.90) and hostile sexism (M = 0.08, SD = 0.91). Like Willer et al. (2013), we
control for political ideology. Higher scores indicate a more conservative ideology
(M = 4.05, SD = 1.69).
288 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

Results
While accounting for our control variables (e.g., race and sexist attitudes), acceptance
threat is positively associated with endorsement of both “incel” trait scales.1 Men with
greater gender role stress more greatly endorse defeated (β = .27, p < .001) and hate-
ful (β = .29, p < .001) “incel” traits. Status threat is positively associated with both
“incel” trait measures on the bivariate level, but no longer reaches significance in
multiple regression.
Next, we assess the relationship between threats, “incel” traits, and fantasies (Table
3). In Models 1 and 3, we see acceptance threat is positively associated with violent
fantasies about using powerful weapons to destroy one’s enemies (odds ratio [OR] =
1.43, p < .01) and rape (OR = 1.48, p < .01) (Table 3). This supports Hypothesis 1,
while Hypothesis 2 is not supported. Status threat is positively but not significantly
associated with either type of fantasy.
Hypothesis 3 predicts a positive effect of “incel” traits on violent fantasies,
which mediates the relationship between threat and violent fantasy. Models 2 and 4
add in “incel” trait scales to predicting fantasies about powerful weapon use and
rape, respectively. Scoring higher on hateful “incel” traits makes fantasizing about
powerful weapons (OR = 2.16) and rape (OR = 1.99) about twice as likely (p <
.001). This reduces the relationship between acceptance threat and fantasies about
powerful weapons (OR = 1.22, n.s.) to non-significance. Although the odds ratio
for rape is reduced when including “incel” traits, this relationship remains signifi-
cant (OR = 1.30, p < .05).
While this suggests support for Hypothesis 3, we elaborate using Sobel–Goodman
mediation tests. This calculates the direct, indirect, and total effects of independent
variables (threat) on dependent variables (fantasies) given their association with medi-
ating variables (“incel” traits). Using STATA’s SGMEDIATION, we also include the
control variables listed in Table 3. Forty-seven percent of the effect of acceptance
threat on weapon fantasies and 34% of the effect on rape fantasies are explained by
“incel” trait endorsement (p < .001).
A few relationships between our key theoretical variables and demographics war-
rant mention. White non-Hispanic and lower income respondents more greatly endorse
“incel” traits of defeat (but not hate). Benevolent sexism is negatively associated with
both trait scales, and hostile sexism is positively associated with hate. Benevolent and
hostile sexist attitudes are significantly (p < .05) associated with fantasies about rape
(OR = 1.36, OR = 1.43), and hostile sexism is associated with using powerful weap-
ons (OR = 1.41, p < .05). 4Chan participation is positively associated with fantasies
about rape (OR = 1.28, p < .05), but not weapons.

Discussion
In American society, a history of gender-based violence is common in cases of mass
violence. Shooters in Aurora, Illinois (2019); in Lafayette, Louisiana (2014); at
Virginia Tech (2008); at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida (2016); at Marjory
Scaptura and Boyle 289

Table 3.  Regressing Violent Fantasies on Threat, Incel Traits, and Control Variables
(N = 541).

Variable Powerful weapon use Rape

  OR SE OR SE OR SE OR SE
Threat
  Acceptance threat 1.43 0.15** 1.22 0.14 1.48 0.19** 1.30 0.17*
  Status threat 1.08 0.15 1.03 0.14 1.27 0.21 1.25 0.21
Incel traits
  Factor 1: Defeated 0.87 0.12 0.78 0.13
  Factor 2: Hateful 2.16 0.32*** 1.99 0.34***
White, non-Hispanic 0.81 0.18 0.76 0.17 0.89 0.23 0.84 0.22
Age 1.02 0.03 1.02 0.03 1.04 0.03 1.04 0.04
Ideology 1.05 0.06 1.05 0.07 1.10 0.08 1.09 0.08
Income (reversed) 1.01 0.04 1.00 0.04 1.05 0.05 1.06 0.05
Education (reversed) 1.02 0.07 1.00 0.07 0.92 0.08 0.90 0.08
Internet use 1.06 0.17 1.09 0.18 0.99 0.18 1.00 0.19
Reddit use 1.12 0.08 1.10 0.08 1.12 0.10 1.08 0.09
4Chan use 1.13 0.09 1.11 0.09 1.27 0.12* 1.28 0.12*
Benevolent sexism 1.01 0.11 1.16 0.14 1.20 0.16 1.36 0.20*
Hostile sexism 1.52 0.21** 1.41 0.20* 1.56 0.26** 1.43 0.24*

Note. OR = odds ratios (exponentiated beta coefficients); SE = standard errors for non-exponentiated
beta coefficients.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, (2018); at a church in

Sutherland Springs, Texas (2017); and beyond have been accused, arrested, or con-
victed of harassing or threatening women, intimate partner violence, or rape (e.g.,
Smidt, 2018; Snyder, 2018). Cases of “incel” shootings further emphasize the rela-
tionships between gender, sex, masculinity, and mass violence. There, frustrated
men are able to vent about rejection or their unattractiveness, and for some, it is a
space to admire and celebrate “incel” shooters who targeted women and promoted
violence (Hines, 2019).
Although most men are not “incels,” and most “incels” are not mass murderers,
“incel” traits and attitudes serve as a reference point for our understanding of mass
violence as a gender-based phenomenon. For instance, the Tallahassee yoga studio
shooter was a self-identified “incel” (Chavez & McLaughlin, 2018). He had a history
of sexual misconduct, expressed hatred of women, referred to the Isla Vista “incel”
shooter with admiration, and fantasized about rape and murder in his journals before
shooting six women, killing two (Etters & Burlew, 2019). He was like many mass
shooters who prepare for their attacks months beforehand by amassing arsenals and
repeatedly imagining their acts, fantasizing about revenge (Collins, 2015).
The goal of the current study was to explore the apparent links between “incel”
traits, masculinity, and fantasies about sexual violence and mass murder. We study
290 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

these fantasies because they are central to imagined domination and control of others
and they precipitate mass shootings (Murray, 2015, 2017a, 2017b). Fantasizing about
rape and mass murder are stepping-stones to perpetuating violence in real life, as we
see in multiple mass shootings (i.e., Columbine, Isla Vista, Sandy Hook, Virginia
Tech, and more). Our findings follow the literature on the “incel” movement, where
masculinity threat and aggressive fantasies converge. In these online communities,
men write about women in derogatory ways to the point of celebrating rape and mur-
der. We see this in the celebration of the Isla Vista shooter, where community members
herald him the “Supreme Gentleman” and buy his favorite latte on the anniversary of
his mass shooting (Spampinato, 2018). While a majority of those online are not acting
on these specific fantasies, they still can express this aggression in other ways that
contribute to a toxic masculine culture that is harmful to women.

Measuring “Incels”: Traits, Emotion, or Strain?

We did not directly survey “incels,” nor did we directly ask respondents if they self-
identify as an “incel.” Rather, we aimed to better understand whether traits common
among “incel” mass shooters exist in a more general sample of heterosexual men,
and furthermore, whether these traits are associated with violent fantasies pro-
claimed and carried out by these shooters. We contribute to understanding of this
relatively new and unstudied identity by creating two measures of “incel” traits. We
administered these measures to 18- to 30-year-old heterosexual, male Internet users
living in the United States. The first factor is comprised of 13 items, such as defeated,
rejected, insecure, weak, shunned, and unattractive. These seem to represent feel-
ings of exclusion or rejection—perhaps due to their unattractiveness or weakness,
complaints discussed at length in “incel” message boards (e.g., Hines, 2019). The
second takes on a more volatile and dangerous tone present in angrier rants or mani-
festos and contains seven items (hateful, disgusted, paranoid, resentful, vengeful,
enraged, and violent). Higher scores on these subscales reflect respondents who feel
rejected and lonely, and those who externalize negative emotion into resentment and
vengeance, respectively.
Not only are these two “incel” trait subscales positively correlated with one another,
but they are both associated with heightened masculine gender role stress. This sug-
gests that men who experience greater interpersonal challenges from women more
closely align with “incel” traits, regardless of whether they participate in that commu-
nity or not. However, only the second factor—which we termed “hateful”—is posi-
tively associated with hostile attitudes toward women and violent fantasies. For every
unit increase in the “hateful” subscale, fantasies about destroying enemies with power-
ful weapons and rape increase twofold. Although this scale was developed by examin-
ing the “incel” community, given our sample, these traits extend to some men in
general who may feel ostracized and vengeful.
We settled on the word “trait,” yet it is worth noting that various items in our
“incel” trait scales are emotions, such as sadness and frustration. This harkens to the
link between emotion and aggression in frustration-aggression and cumulative strain
Scaptura and Boyle 291

theory approaches (e.g., Berkowitz, 1989; Levin & Madfis, 2009). It could be men
who score high on our “incel” scale have experienced chronic strain due to sexual/
romantic rejection unmeasured here. Silver et al.’s (2019) comparison of “public mass
shooters” and “lone actor terrorists” showed that the former were more likely to have
experienced work stress, personal problems, degradation, and long-term stress than
the latter. Including these strains in future research could better reveal the link between
mass violence and “incel” traits, which may in fact mediate the relationship between
chronic strain and these violent acts. Whether we are simply tapping into general strain
processes (Agnew, 1992) could be assessed by narrowing our focus to emotions like
frustration and anger.

Acceptance Threat, Gender Role Stress, and Violent Fantasy

These discourses are embedded in larger attitudes and beliefs about men’s entitlement
to sex and relationships with women. An inability to perform or achieve the ideal mas-
culine gender role, to prove one’s group membership among men, may lead to accep-
tance threat, which we operationalize using the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale
(Branscombe et al., 1999; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). Respondents who felt more
stress with letting women control a situation, losing in a sports competition, and other
forms of failed masculinity reported more frequent fantasies about mass and sexual
violence. With every unit increase in acceptance threat, men report a 43% increase in
imagining destroying their enemies with powerful weapons and a 48% increase in rape
fantasies. This parallels Munsch and Willer (2012), who found men generally rated
male perpetrators of sexual assault as more likable than women did; but men who had
their gender identity disconfirmed rated those male perpetrators as even more likable
and less responsible. In our study, however, rather than imagining an instance of sex-
ual assault through vignette, respondents reported how often they imagined commit-
ting rape themselves.
Men who believe that the status of men as a group is under threat—status
threat—tend to overcompensate. This may push them to threaten other men to move
up the in-group hierarchy, or to dominate other groups, such as women, people of
color, and LGBTQ+ individuals (Branscombe et al., 1999; Kimmel, 1994). For
instance, Willer et al. (2013) found that men who felt social changes were threaten-
ing men expressed greater support for war, pro-dominance attitudes, belief in male
superiority, and homophobia. We did not, however, find support for the hypothesis
that status threat is associated with violent fantasies. This could partially be
explained by the fact that Willer et al. (2013) focused on attitudes while we focused
on fantasies. In addition, the reaction to status threat—threat of the group—may be
different than that to acceptance threat—threat of the individual. When the indi-
vidual feels doubt in his gender role (acceptance threat), he can reassert and imag-
ine dominance through fantasies of rape and murder as an internal justification of
one’s masculinity. However, if the group is threatened by others doubting its supe-
riority (status threat), some may feel the need to outwardly posture and project
masculine traits to combat threat posed by others.
292 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

Limitations and Future Research

The current study contains several limitations that should be addressed in future
research. First, our “incel” traits measure was created by analyzing media reports for
the search term “incel movement” in Google News, which often used the shooters’ and
incels’ own words. Focusing exclusively on the language of members themselves may
provide a more accurate representation of how they see themselves. Another limitation
is that respondents did not see the term “incel” in the survey and therefore did not have
the option to identify as an incel or not. We feared the social stigma of incels could
potentially result in selection bias if that word detracted and/or attracted individuals.
The purpose of this study was to see to how identification of traits within the “incel”
community relates to masculinity and violence beyond that community, though attempts
at strengthening validity and reliability of the measure among “incels” are needed.
We have only two dependent variables: fantasies about destroying one’s enemies
with powerful weapons and about rape. Multiple measures for each item would pro-
vide a more robust test of our hypotheses, and each item has its own limitation. The
first refers to “powerful weapons” and enemies, insinuating mass violence but not
directly stating it; the second does not ask about raping a woman, and we are most
interested in violence against women. For the latter issue, we highlight that the sample
is heterosexual men, and that the term “rape” is legally, historically, and culturally
associated with male perpetrators and female victims (Richards & Marcum, 2014).
Although these measures are incomplete and were developed to be tested among ado-
lescents, they provide a preliminary understanding of the link between masculinity,
“incels,” and mass and gender-based violence.
In terms of our sample and procedure, we only include self-identified heterosexual
men aged 18 to 30 years. We did this because of trends seen in mass shooters and pre-
vious research shows that women do not respond similarly to gender identity threat
with the endorsement of violence (Fox & Levin, 1998; Munsch & Willer, 2012; Willer
et al., 2013). This means we cannot guarantee these processes do not exist among
women or younger, older, or LGBTQ+ men. In future studies, it is important to include
a broader range and background of respondents. Various mass shooters are older than
30 years (e.g., Las Vegas Strip shooting) and have specifically targeted LGBTQ+
spaces (e.g., the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando), places of worship (e.g., Tree of
Life Synagogue in Pittsburg), and racialized minorities (e.g., Emanuel African
Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston). This warrants broader samples and mea-
sures of and attention to not only sexist but homophobic, racist, and anti-Semitic atti-
tudes, which could further highlight the relationship between masculinity, identity,
hostility, and violence.
Finally, our use of cross-sectional data raises the possibility of reverse causation. It
is difficult to imagine that aggressive fantasies would make a respondent feel threat-
ened in their masculine gender role, as aggression is a fundamental aspect of toxic
masculinity. Still, panel or diary data could better assess these processes by collecting
both baseline measures of “incel” traits and repeated, more proximal measures of mas-
culinity threat, emotion, and violent fantasy.
Scaptura and Boyle 293

Conclusion
While mainstream discourses on mass violence tend to focus on mental illness,
violent media consumption, and gun control, the link between gender-based vio-
lence and mass violence has begun to make headlines (e.g., Lopez, 2017; Ramsey,
2015; Sakuma, 2019). Despite this in-depth reporting, empirical research into the
gender-based mechanisms underlying mass violence is rare. Studies often examine
strains specific to domains central to masculinity—the home and workplace. We go
further by addressing the absence of standard quantitative measures of (and thus,
conclusions about) sexism in the study of this issue (e.g., Levin & Madfis, 2009;
Silver et al., 2019). Women and children are overrepresented in mass shooting vic-
tims (Everytown for Gun Safety, 2017; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
2013), yet analysis of patriarchal norms and attitudes that frame and encourage
such violence—and its connection to sex-based or partner violence—is all but
absent. Indeed, there has been a “long silence in the social sciences” on mass mur-
der, and such inquiries have been empirically dominated by studies that emphasize
terrorism or war, law and policy, or mental health (Bauman, 2000; Liwerant, 2007).
Given the focus of feminist criminology on crimes that disproportionately affect
women and children, as well as gendered socialization and processes in offending,
we encourage scholars to further pursue understanding of mass violence through
these lenses.
The goal of the current study was to better understand the connection between
“incels” and masculinity threat in violent fantasy—a key component to preparing for
and executing mass shootings and sexually sadistic killing (Collins, 2015; Fox &
Levin, 1998; Murray, 2015, 2017a, 2017b). To understand how challenges to the
group status of men and to individual men’s sense of masculinity may lead to violent
fantasy, we developed an original measure of traits commonly associated with the
“incel” community (e.g., defeat, rejection, and vengefulness). We find that men with
greater gender role stress, more hostile attitudes toward women, and “incel” traits
report more frequent fantasies about mass murder and rape. While most men will not
commit such heinous acts, our focus on these prevalent and more general gender
attitudes and processes is both worrisome and important. Actual shooters are, under-
standably, the focus of studies of mass murder (e.g., Levin & Madfis, 2009; Murray,
2015; Silver et al., 2019). Our approach, however, highlights the importance and pos-
sibility for exploring gendered, theoretical underpinnings of rare, extreme, tragic
cases that exist in the larger population.

Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the helpful recommendations of Ashley Reichelmann and Neal
King.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
294 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Institute for
Society, Culture and Environment (ISCE) at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

ORCID iD
Kaitlin M. Boyle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9994-6730

Note
1. Full results available upon request.

References
Acock, A. C. (2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. Stata Press
Books.
Aggeler, M. (2018, April 25). Inside the misogynistic philosophy behind the Toronto killer’s
attack. https://www.thecut.com/2018/04/what-is-incel-rebellion-toronto-van-attack-alex-
minassian.html
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology,
30(1), 47–87.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Modernity and the Holocaust. Cornell University Press.
Bell, C. (2017). Reddit bans “involuntarily celibate” community. BBC News. https://www.bbc.
co.uk/news/blogs-trending-41926687
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation.
Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59–73.
Bird, S. (1996). Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic
masculinity. Gender & Society, 10(2), 120–132.
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review,
1(1), 3–7.
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Arzu Wasti, S. (2009).
Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 35(5), 623–634.
Boyle, K. M. (2016). Self, identity, and the mental health of sexual assault victim/survivors
[Doctoral dissertation]. University of Georgia.
Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content
of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity:
Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Blackwell Science.
Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 44(2), 83–92.
Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford University Press.
Casey, E. A., Masters, N. T., Beadnell, B., Hoppe, M. J., Morrison, D. M., & Wells, E. A.
(2017). Predicting sexual assault perpetration among heterosexually active young men.
Violence Against Women, 23(1), 3–27.
Chavez, N., & McLaughlin, E. C. (2018). Tallahassee gunman reported for harassing
women, police say; records show groping case dropped. CNN News. https://www.cnn.
com/2018/11/04/us/tallahassee-shooting-yoga-studio/index.html?no-st=1542134910
Scaptura and Boyle 295

Christensen, J. (2017, October 5). Why the US has the most mass shootings. https://www.cnn.
com/2015/08/27/health/u-s-most-mass-shootings/index.html
Collins, R. (2015, October 9). Even without gun control, warning signs can help stop mass kill-
ings. The Sociological Eye. http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2015/10/even-without-
gun-control-warning-signs.html
Dahl, J., Vescio, T., & Weaver, K. (2015). How threats to masculinity sequentially cause pub-
lic discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance over women. Social Psychology, 46(4),
242–254.
Eisler, R. M., Franchina, J. J., Moore, T. M., & Honeycutt, H. G. (2000). Masculine gender role
stress and intimate abuse: Effects of gender relevance of conflict situations on men’s attri-
butions and affective responses. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1(1), 30–36.
Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress: Scale development and
component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11(2),
123–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455870112001
Elliot Rodger: How misogynist killer became “incel hero.” (2018, April 26). BBC News. https://
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43892189
Etters, K., & Burlew, J. (2019, February 14). Tallahassee yoga studio shooting: TPD report
reveals gunman planned “horrific event” for months. The Tallahassee Democrat. https://
www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2019/02/12/tallahassee-yoga-studio-shooting-scott-bei-
erle-report-tpd-florida/2849736002/
Everitt-Penhale, B., & Ratele, K. (2015). Rethinking “traditional masculinity” as constructed,
multiple, and hegemonic masculinity. South African Review of Sociology, 46(2), 4–22.
Everytown for Gun Safety. (2017). Ten years of mass shootings in the United States. https://
everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
Fox, J. A., & DeLateur, M. (2014). Mass shootings in America: Moving beyond Newtown.
Homicide Studies, 18, 125–145.
Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (1998). Multiple homicide: Patterns of serial and mass murder. Crime
and Justice, 23, 407–455.
Fox, J. A., Levin, J., & Fridel, E. E. (2018). Extreme killing: Understanding serial and mass
murder. SAGE.
Fridel, E. E. (2017). A multivariate comparison of family, felony, and public mass murders in
the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0886260517739286
Ging, D. (2017). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men
and Masculinities, 22, 638–657.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and
benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Glick, P., Gangl, C., Gibb, S., Klumpner, S., & Weinberg, E. (2007). Defensive reactions to
masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men.
Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 55–59.
Global firearms holdings. (2018, June 19). Small Arms Survey. http://www.smallarmssurvey.
org/weapons-and-markets/tools/global-firearms-holdings.html
Harris, F. (2010). College men’s meanings of masculinities and contextual influences: Toward a
conceptual model. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 297–318.
Harris, F., Palmer, R. T., & Struve, L. E. (2011). “Cool posing” on campus: A qualitative study
of masculinities and gender expression among black men at a private research institution.
The Journal of Negro Education, 80(1), 47–62.
296 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

Heinrich, J. (2012). The making of masculinities: Fighting the forces of hierarchy and hege-
mony in the high school setting. The High School Journal, 96, 101–115.
Hines, A. (2019, May 28). How many bones would you break to get laid? The Cut. https://www.
thecut.com/2019/05/incel-plastic-surgery.html
Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. (2010). Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement,
and rampage school shootings. Health Sociology Review, 19(4), 451–464.
Kimmel, M. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction of
gender identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 119–141).
SAGE.
Klein, J. (2005). Teaching her a lesson: Media misses boys’ rage relating to girls in school
shootings. Crime, Media, Culture, 1(1), 90–97.
Klein, J., & Chancer, L. (2000). Masculinity matters: The role of gender in high-profile school
violence cases. In S. Spina (Ed.), Smoke and mirrors: The hidden context of violence in
schools and society (pp. 129–162). Rowman & Littlefield.
Kupers, T. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 61, 713–724.
Lamoureux, M. (2019, September 27). Toronto Van Attacker wanted “beta uprising” to inspire
other attacks. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/xwev94/toronto-van-attacker-alek-
minassian-wanted-beta-uprising-to-inspire-other-attacks
Langman, P. (2014). Elliot Rodger: An analysis. The Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention,
2, 5–19.
Larkin, R. W. (2018). Learning to be a rampage shooter. In H. Shapiro (Ed.), The Wiley
handbook on violence in education: Forms, factors, and preventions (pp. 69–84). John
Wiley.
Levin, J., & Madfis, E. (2009). Mass murder at school and cumulative strain: A sequential
model. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1227–1245.
Liwerant, O. S. (2007). Mass murder: Discussing criminological perspectives. Journal of
International Criminal Justice, 5(4), 917–939.
Lopez, G. (2017, November 6). America’s domestic violence problem is a big part of its gun
problem. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16612410/domestic-
gun-violence-mass-shootings
Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social
identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85(5), 853–870.
Madfis, E., & Arford, T. (2008, February). Investigating precipitating factors in mass mur-
der: Do “last straws” get to the bottom of rampage killing or merely scratch the surface
[Conference session]. Conference of the Eastern Sociological Society, New York, NY,
United States.
McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority,
and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 625–647.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2000). Nine lives: Adolescent masculinities, the body and violence.
Taylor & Francis.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2018). Hegemonic masculinity: Formulation, reformulation, and ampli-
fication. Rowman & Littlefield.
Munsch, C. L., & Willer, R. (2012). The role of gender identity threat in perceptions of date rape
and sexual coercion. Violence Against Women, 18(10), 1125–1146.
Murray, J. L. (2015). Suicidal–homicidal ideation in mass killers and transcendence. Deviant
Behavior, 36(7), 581–588.
Scaptura and Boyle 297

Murray, J. L. (2017a). The role of sexual, sadistic, and misogynistic fantasy in mass and serial
killing. Deviant Behavior, 38(7), 735–743.
Murray, J. L. (2017b). The transcendent fantasy in mass killers. Deviant Behavior, 38(10),
1172–1185.
Nadel, H., Spellmann, M., Alvarez-Canino, T., Lausell-Bryant, L., & Landsberg, G. (1996). The
cycle of violence and victimization: A study of the school-based intervention of a multidis-
ciplinary youth violence-prevention program. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
12(5), 109–119.
Obaidi, M., Kunst, J. R., Kteily, N., Thomsen, L., & Sidanius, J. (2018). Living under threat:
Mutual threat perception drives anti-Muslim and anti-Western hostility in the age of terror-
ism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(5), 567–584.
Peralta, R. L., Tuttle, L. A., & Steele, J. L. (2010). At the intersection of interpersonal violence,
masculinity, and alcohol use: The experiences of heterosexual male perpetrators of intimate
partner violence. Violence Against Women, 16(4), 387–409.
Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individu-
als’ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641–662.
Pew Research Center. (2012, April). April 2012 values survey. http://www.people-press.org/
dataset/april-2012-values-survey/
Ramsey, R. (2015, October 16). UT/TT Poll: Texans say mental health top cause of U.S. mass
shootings. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/16/uttt-poll-mental-
health-top-cause-us-mass-shooting/
Reidy, D. E., Berke, D. S., Gentile, B., & Zeichner, A. (2014). Masculine discrepancy stress and
intimate partner violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 160–164.
Richards, T. N., & Marcum, C. D. (Eds.) (2014). Sexual victimization: Then and now.
SAGE.
Rosenfeld, E., Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., & Torney-Purta, J. V. (1982). Measuring pat-
terns of fantasy behavior in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(2),
347–366.
Sakuma, A. (2019, February 16). The Aurora shooter had a history of domestic violence and
assault. He never should have had a gun. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2019/2/16/18227655/
aurora-shooter-gun-domestic-violence
Selby, E. A., Anestis, M. D., & Joiner, T. E. Jr. (2007). Daydreaming about death: Violent day-
dreaming as a form of emotion dysregulation in suicidality. Behavior Modification, 31(6),
867–879.
Silver, J., Horgan, J., & Gill, P. (2019). Shared struggles? Cumulative strain theory and public
mass murderers from 1990 to 2014. Homicide Studies, 23(1), 64–84.
Smidt, R. (2018, February 17). The Florida school shooting suspect snapped into a jealous
rage when another student began dating his ex-girlfriend. BuzzFeed News. https://www.
buzzfeednews.com/article/remysmidt/cruz
Smith, C. E., Fischer, K. W., & Watson, M. W. (2009). Toward a refined view of aggressive
fantasy as a risk factor for aggression: Interaction effects involving cognitive and situ-
ational variables. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for
Research on Aggression, 35(4), 313–323.
Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., & Chen, J.
(2018). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.
cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf
298 Feminist Criminology 15(3)

Snyder, K. (2018, January 30). The surprising link between mass shootings and domestic vio-
lence and what you can do about it. One Love Foundation. https://www.joinonelove.org/
learn/the-surprising-link-between-mass-shootings/
Spampinato, E. (2018, June 4). How does the literary canon reinforce the logic of the incel?
The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/04/incel-movement-literary-
classics-behind-misogyny
Stets, J. E., & Carter, M. J. (2011). The moral self: Applying identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 74(2), 192–215.
Taylor, M. A. (2018). A comprehensive study of mass murder precipitants and motivations
of offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
62(2), 427–449.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Global study on homicide. https://www.
unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious
manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339.
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., & Modzeleski, W. (2004). Final report and findings
of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the U.S.
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
Wagner, M. (2014, October 26). It was a fight over a girl: Washington state school shooter
targeted girl who rejected him, cousins: Victims friends, family. The New York Daily News.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wash-state-school-shooter-targeted-girl-
rejected-cousins-friends-article-1.1986823
Weaver, K. S., & Vescio, T. K. (2015). The justification of social inequality in response to
masculinity threats. Sex Roles, 72(11–12), 521–535.
Wendling, M. (2018). Toronto van attack: What is an ‘incel’? BBC News. https://www.bbc.
com/news/blogs-trending-43881931
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.
Willer, R., Rogalin, C. L., Conlon, B., & Wojnowicz, M. T. (2013). Overdoing gender: A
test of the masculine overcompensation thesis. American Journal of Sociology, 118(4),
980–1022.

Author Biographies
Maria N. Scaptura received her MS in Sociology at Virginia Tech in 2019, where she is
earning her doctorate. Her research interests are masculinity, gender, and crime. These areas
converge in her thesis project, in which she examines the impact of masculinity on attitudes
toward guns.
Kaitlin M. Boyle is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal
Justice at the University of South Carolina. She examines gender-based violence and institu-
tional responses to these crimes. She recently published such work in Violence and Victims,
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Journal of School Violence.