Mental health service utilization following a campus mass shooting: The role of preshooting emotion dysregulation and posttraumatic cognitions

Acknowledgement: This research was supported by grants from the Joyce Foundation, the National Institute for Child and Human Development [1R15HD049907-01A1], and the National Institute of Mental Health [5R21MH085436-02].
All procedures performed in this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Northern Illinois University. Procedures were also in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
We thank the participants for their invaluable contributions to this study and the undergraduate and graduate students who helped with data collection.
Anthony N. Reffi, Robyn A. Ellis, and Benjamin C. Darnell contributed to study conceptualization. Anthony N. Reffi and Holly K. Orcutt contributed to data curation. Anthony N. Reffi conducted formal analysis. Holly K. Orcutt acquired funding. Holly K. Orcutt carried out the original investigation. Anthony N. Reffi, Robyn A. Ellis, Benjamin C. Darnell, and Holly K. Orcutt contributed to methodology design. Holly K. Orcutt provided resources. Anthony N. Reffi, Robyn A. Ellis, and Benjamin C. Darnell contributed to writing the original draft. Anthony N. Reffi, Robyn A. Ellis, Benjamin C. Darnell, and Holly K. Orcutt reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Mass shootings, as defined as episodes of gun violence resulting in at least four victim deaths (Smith & Hughes, 2016), have seen an increase in the past 50 years (Duwe, 2017). Although most individuals demonstrate resilience following a mass shooting (Orcutt et al., 2014), some go on to develop depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Lowe & Galea, 2017). This subgroup of individuals may be vulnerable to chronic dysfunction warranting clinical services, as PTSD is often comorbid with other medical and psychological conditions, may endure if left untreated, and confers a heightened risk for suicide that is compounded by comorbid depression (Foa et al., 2006; Panagioti et al., 2012). However, those experiencing psychopathology following a mass shooting report low levels of mental health service utilization (MHU; Boykin & Orcutt, 2019; Miquelon et al., 2014), potentially signaling an unmet mental health need among this population. Still, the reasons for this low treatment engagement are unclear. Given that comparable rates of MHU are seen following disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina, September 11 terrorist attacks; Smith et al., 2017), this literature may elucidate who utilizes treatment in the wake of a mass shooting and which factors stand in the way.

Much of the research on MHU comes from the disaster literature and has largely relied upon Anderson’s (1995) behavioral model as a framework to understand three classes of factors that affect health care utilization: predisposing factors (e.g., age, gender), enabling/disabling factors (e.g., stigma, financial constraints), and perceived or evaluated need (e.g., emotional distress; see also Rodriguez & Kohn, 2008). Although the relevancy of these factors varies and appears dependent on the sample, need has been identified as the strongest predictor of MHU (Anderson, 1995; Smith et al., 2017). For example, across the MHU postdisaster and posttrauma literature, variables such as severity of distress, psychopathological symptoms (e.g., depression, PTSD), and exposure are consistent predictors of increased MHU (e.g., Gavrilovic et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2017; Kantor et al., 2017). However, within the context of mass shootings, the sparse data that are available paint a murkier picture.

To our knowledge, there have been only four studies investigating predictors of MHU in the wake of a mass shooting (i.e., Boykin & Orcutt, 2019; Felix et al., 2020; Miquelon et al., 2014; Schwarz & Kowalski, 1992). Ultimately, findings provide mixed support for the otherwise intuitive idea that need promotes MHU. Following a shooting in an elementary school, Schwarz and Kowalski (1992) found that while the majority of individuals utilized an intervention offered in the first two weeks postshooting, those who reported more peritraumatic fear for their life and worse PTSD dropped out of later free mental health screenings. In contrast, Miquelon and colleagues (2014) found the prevalence of different mental health disorders (including, but not limited to, PTSD) predicted more MHU in the 18 months following the shooting at Dawson College, Montreal. More recently, Boykin and Orcutt (2019) found that individuals with probable PTSD six months after the shooting at Northern Illinois University (NIU) utilized treatment at a significantly higher rate than individuals at minimal to no risk for PTSD. Although this seemingly suggests that need may have driven MHU, Boykin and Orcutt did not find that mental health symptoms reliably predicted MHU, as was the case in the Miquelon et al. study. Similarly, mental health symptoms did not prospectively predict MHU following an episode of mass violence (Felix et al., 2020).

Taken together, it is not clear from the extant literature that need is always sufficient to explain who goes on to utilize services following exposure to a mass shooting. Instead, these divergent findings suggest it may be necessary to consider how MHU may be inhibited by other constructs associated with need besides psychopathology, such as different attitudes or beliefs (Smith et al., 2017). For instance, Miquelon and colleagues (2014) found that, among individuals who endorsed symptoms consistent with at least one mental health diagnosis, the most commonly cited reason for not seeking services was that they wanted to “figure things out on their own,” suggesting the acknowledgment of needing services yet a reluctance to do so. Further, Schwarz and Kowalski (1992) posited that the participants in their study who dropped out did so to avoid the distress of trauma reminders despite possibly still having a need for services. This set of results points to how the decision to utilize mental health services following a shooting might be influenced by thoughts about treatment, symptoms, and recovery. Consistent with this idea, researchers have speculated that MHU may be hindered by posttraumatic cognitions (Smith et al., 2017), a construct yet to be studied in this context.

Posttraumatic cognitions refer to negative thoughts and beliefs about the world, the self, and others that might develop following a traumatic event (e.g., “People cannot be trusted,” “I have no future”; Foa et al., 1999; Janoff-Bulman, 1992). These cognitions may be relevant to postshooting MHU because they play a central role in many theories of PTSD development and maintenance for their interference with the natural recovery process (Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Rauch & Foa, 2006). Emotion Processing Theory suggests that posttraumatic cognitions directly increase avoidance of trauma-related stimuli (e.g., “If I think about the event, I will not be able to handle it”), thus preventing the corrective learning required to fully process the trauma memory (Rauch & Foa, 2006). Cognitive theory of PTSD suggests that posttraumatic cognitions lead to interpretations of the environment, symptoms, and so forth as being related to current threat, producing a fear response regardless of whether real threat is truly present (Ehlers & Clark, 2000). Despite these theoretical differences, both models consider posttraumatic cognitions to ultimately promote rigid, maladaptive avoidance of trauma cues that maintains PTSD over time. Accordingly, posttraumatic cognitions may also discourage MHU after a shooting since these services entail confronting trauma-related content that is being avoided. This motivation to avoid trauma reminders and hence treatment may be even stronger for individuals who historically have difficulty regulating their emotions, suggesting another possible barrier to MHU.

Emotion regulation is the ability to remain aware of and accept emotions, inhibit impulsivity, act in goal-directed behavior despite negative emotions, and apply emotion regulation strategies in a flexible, contextual manner (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Problems in these areas (i.e., emotion dysregulation) may serve as a barrier to MHU following a mass shooting, as individuals with difficulty expressing their emotions are disinclined to seek treatment for fear that their self-disclosures be met with a negative response (Ciarrochi & Deane, 2001; Komiya et al., 2000; Vogel et al., 2008). However, because emotion dysregulation contributes to the development and maintenance of PTSD (Seligowski et al., 2015); the relationship between postshooting emotion dysregulation and MHU is difficult to disentangle from associated mental health symptoms that may emerge after shooting exposure. Preshooting data are necessary to clarify how regulatory tendencies predict postshooting MHU. For instance, preexisting emotion dysregulation may inhibit postshooting MHU when coupled with posttraumatic cognitions—without a foundational ability to regulate emotions, negative appraisals that emerge after a shooting may be more difficult to challenge, reevaluate, or manage (e.g., McLean et al., 2019). Consequently, posttraumatic cognitions may take hold and deter individuals from utilizing treatment despite an increase in emotional distress (e.g., “I cannot deal with even the slightest upset”). Understanding these dynamics may help inform ways to promote more engagement in mental health services following mass violence. Therefore, using the same sample as Boykin and Orcutt (2019), the current study investigated preshooting emotion dysregulation and posttraumatic cognitions as prospective predictors of MHU following the mass shooting at NIU.

There are several important differences between this study and Boykin and Orcutt (2019). First, this study examined different predictors of MHU and used different covariates, an important step toward identifying which variables are reliably associated with postshooting MHU. Second, this study utilized more postshooting time points, increasing reliability and statistical power (Willett, 1989). Third, this study analyzed the data using multilevel modeling (MLM), whereas Boykin and Orcutt utilized regression analyses. MLM is a more appropriate statistical approach for handling longitudinal data because repeated-measures collected at each time point (i.e., Level 1) are nested within participants (i.e., Level 2). Such clustered, hierarchical data are interdependent, with responses at different time points inherently tied to individual characteristics (Nezlek, 2008). Although the study by Boykin and Orcutt provided a valuable contribution to the MHU literature, their analyses assumed observations were independent of each other, thus not accounting for the nested data structure.

The current study tested the following hypotheses, controlling for time, age, depressive and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS): (a) greater posttraumatic cognitions will negatively predict the likelihood of MHU; (b) greater preshooting emotion dysregulation will negatively predict the likelihood of MHU; and (c) the relationship between posttraumatic cognitions and MHU will be strengthened by higher levels of preshooting emotion dysregulation. Said differently, it is expected that preshooting emotion dysregulation, and the development of posttraumatic cognitions, will both function as barriers to postshooting MHU.

Undergraduate women were participating in a longitudinal study on sexual victimization when a mass shooting occurred at NIU’s campus (for a detailed discussion of study design, see Boykin & Orcutt, 2019). Following the shooting, the study was expanded to monitor postshooting adjustment among these same women. For the current study, participants were excluded from analysis if they reported not being on campus during the shooting, resulting in a final sample of 483 participants at the preshooting assessment (Mage = 19.23, SD = 2.39, age range = 18–53, Mdnage = 18.83). Timing of subsequent postshooting assessments were variable, but approximately 90% of each follow-up sample was collected approximately nine months (T1; N = 416), 14 months (T2; N = 416), 20 months (T3; N = 417), 26 months (T4; N = 405), and 33 months (T5; N = 397) after the shooting. Regarding race/ethnicity, 65.6% identified as White (n = 317), 22.2% identified as Black or African American (n = 107), 2.9% identified as Asian (n = 14), .2% identified as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (n = 1), 7.2% identified as “Other” (n = 35), and 1.7% preferred not to respond (n = 8); 7.2% identified as Hispanic or Latino (n = 35). Most participants reported being freshmen at the preshooting assessment (77.4%, n = 374).

Preshooting Measures

The current study used the 36-item Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) administered prior to the shooting as a measure of preshooting emotion dysregulation. Participants reported how often the items applied to them along a 5-point scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always). A total sum score was used as a Level 2 predictor of MHU and the slope of posttraumatic cognitions. Previous research supports the scale’s factor structure and its use across racially and demographically diverse samples (Ritschel et al., 2015). In the current study, the DERS total score demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = .93).

Postshooting Measures

Mental Health Service Utilization

Two binary variables adapted from Wang et al. (2007) were used as the current study’s outcome of therapy and/or medication utilization (MHU) in the wake of the shooting across T1 through T5 (“Since the mass shooting on February 14, 2008, have you received any sort of professional counseling or therapy [have you taken any prescription medicines] for problems with your emotions, nerves, or mental health?”). Due to the nature of the study, preshooting data on MHU was not collected. Participants responded either yes (coded as 1) or no (coded as 0). Affirmative responses were fixed to remain constant for all subsequent timepoints. Rates of MHU across timepoints are available in the online supplemental material.

Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory

The Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI; Foa et al., 1999) was used to measure negative appraisals following exposure to the shooting across T1 through T5. The PTCI is a 36-item questionnaire that assesses negative appraisals along three subscales: negative cognitions about the self, negative cognitions about the world, and self-blame. The self-blame scale (5 items) was omitted from the original study to minimize participant distress about the shooting, thus resulting in 31 items total. Participants indicated how much they agreed with each item along a 7-point scale (1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree), with higher scores indicating more negative appraisals. A total sum score was used as a level-1 predictor of MHU. Prior research found the two PTCI scales used in this study differentiate between traumatized individuals with and without PTSD (Beck et al., 2004; Foa et al., 1999). In the current study, the PTCI total score demonstrated excellent internal consistency across all time points: α = .95 (T1), α = .95 (T2), α = .94 (T3), α = .94 (T4), α = .94 (T5).

Covariates

Distressing Events Questionnaire

The 17-item Distressing Events Questionnaire (DEQ; Kubany et al., 2000) was used to assess for PTSS according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) in conjunction with the Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ). Across T1 through T5, participants indicated the severity of their PTSS within the past month in relation to an index trauma along a 5-point scale (0 = almost never to 4 = almost always), with higher scores indicating greater PTSS. The DEQ was administered in relation to the mass shooting, but if participants indicated another event more distressing than the shooting on the TLEQ, a separate DEQ was administered. In the current study, total shooting-related PTSS was used as a Level 1 predictor of MHU. The DEQ has previously shown excellent psychometric properties (Kubany et al., 2000) and demonstrated excellent internal consistency across time points in this study: α = .92 (T1), α = .91 (T2), α = .92 (T3), α = .92 (T4), α = .91 (T5).

Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale

The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21)–Depression subscale (seven items; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) was used to measure depressive symptoms across T1 through T5. Participants reported depressive symptoms over the last week using a 4-point scale (0 = did not apply to me at all to 3 = applied to me very much, or most of the time). Scores were doubled to render them equivalent to those computed using its full 42-item counterpart (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) and then used as a Level 1 predictor of MHU. Previous research supports the scale’s factor structure and its use in nonclinical samples (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). In this study, the DASS-21 Depression subscale demonstrated good internal consistency across time points: α = .89 (T1), α = .89 (T2), α = .88 (T3), α = .88 (T4), α = .89 (T5).

Time

Time since the shooting was used a level-1 predictor of MHU and was coded to correspond with the number of months elapsed between assessments: T1 = 0, T2 = 5, T3 = 11, T4 = 17, T5 = 24.

Age

Participants’ age in years at T1 throough T5 was used as a Level 1 predictor of MHU. Participants’ average ages at each postshooting timepoint were as follows: Mage = 20.32, SD = 2.00 (T1), Mage = 20.81, SD = 2.01 (T2), Mage = 21.26, SD = 1.75 (T3), Mage = 21.70, SD = 1.73 (T4), Mage = 22.24, SD = 1.76 (T5).

Data were first screened for quality using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; IBM Corp, 2013) Version 22, during which we detected two outliers on age. Analyses were performed with and without these data and showed no meaningful differences. Thus, all data were retained. All multilevel analyses were conducted in the statistical program HLM for Windows, Version 7.03 (HLM 7; Raudenbush et al., 2011). Multilevel generalized linear models were fitted to test study hypotheses using a dichotomous (Bernoulli) outcome and penalized quasi-likelihood estimator. Three models tested predictors of the likelihood of utilizing (a) any MHU (either therapy and/or medication), (b) therapy only, and (c) medication only. For all models, predictor variables were centered so that intercept terms may be interpreted as adjusting for their differential effects. Using SPSS, z scores were computed for age, depressive symptoms, PTSS, posttraumatic cognitions, and emotion dysregulation by mean-centering each variable and then dividing by their respective standard deviations; time was grand-mean centered using HLM 7.

First, a null model was fitted to test whether the log-odds of MHU vary across individuals. Next, a series of linear growth models were fitted to test whether posttraumatic cognitions predicted the log-odds of MHU while controlling for time, age, PTS and depressive symptoms. Finally, a preshooting emotion dysregulation was added to test whether it predicted the log-odds of MHU, and moderated the relationship between posttraumatic cognitions and MHU, while controlling for time, age, PTS, and depressive symptoms.

The equation for the full model is as follows:

Level 1:

Level 2: where =log , or the predicted log-odds of mental health service utilization, and = the average log-odds of utilizing mental health services across individuals; through = the respective effects of time, age, depressive symptoms, PTSS, and posttraumatic cognitions on the predicted log-odds of utilizing mental health services; = the effect of preshooting emotion dysregulation on the predicted log-odds of utilizing mental health services (i.e., main effect); through = the cross-level (i.e., moderating) effect of preshooting emotion dysregulation on the relationships between each level-1 variable and the log-odds of utilizing mental health services in individuals; and = the random error variability between individuals.

See Table 1 for descriptive statistics and bivariate point-biserial, Pearson, and Spearman correlations. Age was the only individual difference variable not associated with the others.

The null models indicated statistically significant variation among individuals in the likelihood of utilizing mental health services (see the online supplemental material). Using these results, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the degree to which responses within individuals were similar to each other and different from responses in other individuals . We then calculated the design effect (DEFF) to determine the extent to which our standard errors were inflated due to clustering: , where = average cluster size. Both the ICC and DEFF values suggested a notable amount of clustering.

See Table 2 for results from the multilevel model of posttraumatic cognitions on the likelihood of MHU, controlling for time, age, PTS, and depressive symptoms. Although age had a nonsignificant effect on MHU, it was retained as a covariate in subsequent models given its relationship with MHU in the literature. As expected, time positively predicted the likelihood that individuals would utilize any type of mental health service. Both PTS and depressive symptoms predicted an increase in the log-odds that individuals would utilize any mental health service, including therapy and medication specifically. Posttraumatic cognitions only predicted whether individuals utilized therapy services specifically. Notably, the direction of this effect was unexpectedly positive, indicating that, at a midpoint in time, each unit increase in posttraumatic cognitions predicted a .28 increase in the log-odds that individuals of an average age would utilize therapy, controlling for PTS and depressive symptoms.

With preshooting emotion dysregulation added into the model, posttraumatic cognitions no longer predicted MHU, and depressive symptoms no longer predicted medication utilization (see Table 3). Preshooting emotion dysregulation positively predicted an increase in the likelihood of utilizing any services, and therapy and medication separately, controlling for all other variables. Preshooting emotion dysregulation also moderated the relationship between depressive symptoms and therapy utilization, decreasing the log-odds by –.17, while controlling for all other variables. Preshooting emotion dysregulation also strengthened the positive relationship between age and therapy utilization, predicting a .38 increase in log-odds.

This study is the first to examine how preshooting shooting emotion dysregulation and posttraumatic cognitions predict MHU among college women following a mass shooting. Ultimately, preshooting emotion dysregulation and postshooting PTS and depressive symptoms were the most robust predictors of increased MHU. Although posttraumatic cognitions initially predicted increased therapy utilization specifically, this effect did not persist after considering preshooting emotion dysregulation. Contrary to expectations, preshooting emotion dysregulation did not interact with posttraumatic cognitions in predicting MHU, but instead weakened the relationship between depressive symptoms and therapy utilization and strengthened the relationship between age and therapy utilization. Overall, findings suggest that women who need mental health support after a mass shooting utilize services, however, preshooting emotion dysregulation hinders such utilization in the presence of depressive symptoms.

Contrary to hypotheses, posttraumatic cognitions only predicted therapy utilization, but not medication utilization or the combination of the two service types. Notably, the relationship between posttraumatic cognitions and therapy utilization was unexpectedly positive, while controlling for the effects of time, age, PTS and depressive symptoms. These results suggest that the development of negative beliefs after the shooting (e.g., “I cannot deal with even the slightest upset”) may have been a factor driving the decision to utilize psychotherapy, and not a barrier as previously thought. Posttraumatic cognitions may have only predicted increased utilization of therapy, but not medication, because the women in this study may not have considered medication to be a viable solution to beliefs such as “my life has been destroyed by what happened” or “the world is a dangerous place.” This is consistent with evidence that women are inclined to choose psychotherapy over medication to address a trauma memory (Angelo et al., 2008). That said, posttraumatic cognitions were no longer a significant predictor of therapy utilization after the inclusion of preshooting emotion dysregulation. This may mean that the ability to cope with the distress and emotions produced by posttraumatic cognitions are a more important facilitator of MHU than the cognitions themselves.

Preshooting emotion dysregulation also predicted an increase in the likelihood of all MHU on its own, controlling for the effects of time, age, PTS and depressive symptoms, and posttraumatic cognitions. Again, this relationship was unexpectedly positive, suggesting that preshooting emotion dysregulation functions to promote, rather than inhibit, utilization of mental health services. Although this conflicts with evidence that difficulty relating to and managing emotions deters MHU (Ciarrochi & Deane, 2001; Vogel et al., 2008); this study may have found the opposite because our sample was comprised entirely of college women. Compared to college men, college women report greater openness to emotions and more positive views of counseling (Komiyaet al., 2000). As such, it is possible these characteristics facilitated MHU among women in the current study despite a history of emotion dysregulation. Alternatively, reporting more difficulties in emotion regulation prior to the shooting may have reflected a greater level of awareness and understanding of emotions (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012). If so, these women may have then been more attentive to their emotions following the shooting and thus interpreted later difficulties in managing emotions as a sign they needed help. Regardless, the ability of preshooting emotion dysregulation in prospectively predicting MHU presents implications for clinicians working with similarly aged women exposed to shootings and perhaps other acts of mass violence. For instance, women exposed to mass violence may benefit from learning to rely more on certain regulatory strategies (e.g., reappraisal) over others (e.g., rumination) in a way that is flexible and context-dependent (see Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012).

In support of the extant literature on MHU, PTS and depressive symptoms predicted more utilization of therapy and medication services separately and when combined (therapy and/or medication). This was true even after controlling for time, age, and posttraumatic cognitions. This finding is in line with the broader literature indicating that those with greater psychopathology, and therefore greater need for MH services, are more likely to utilize services (Smith et al., 2017). Although previous analyses using the same sample did not find any reliable predictors of MHU (i.e., Boykin & Orcutt, 2019), this discrepancy likely reflects differences across studies in statistical modeling, number of timepoints used, and selection of variables.

The addition of preshooting emotion dysregulation in the models altered the relationships between PTSS, depressive symptoms, and MHU in two ways. First, while PTS and depressive symptoms remained significant positive predictors of both combined MHU and therapy specifically, only PTSS continued to predict medication usage on its own. It is unclear why a unique relationship between PTSS and medication utilization emerged, especially given evidence that psychotherapy is preferred over medication for the treatment of both depressive and anxiety disorders (including PTSD; McHughet al., 2013). Future work is needed to understand why PTSS may be uniquely tied to medication utilization above and beyond preexisting problems with emotion regulation.

Second, the effect of emotion dysregulation on the relationship between depressive symptoms and psychotherapy utilization was negative, suggesting greater emotion dysregulation prior to the shooting dampened the positive effect of depressive symptoms on psychotherapy utilization specifically. Said differently, although postshooting depressive symptoms predicted an increased likelihood of utilizing therapy, this was not true for people who had more difficulties regulating emotions prior to the shooting. The reasons for this interaction are likely varied. Given the uncontrollable and unpredictable nature of a mass shooting, the development of depressive symptoms among women who already had trouble regulating their emotions may have engendered a passive coping response that led to avoidance of therapy—an expression of depressive behavior known as learned helplessness (Vollmayr & Gass, 2013). Conversely, women who were predisposed to regulate their emotions more adaptively may have already been comfortable expressing and experiencing their emotions, and thus more likely to seek out opportunities to do so in a therapeutic context when depressive symptoms developed after the shooting. Another possibility for this interaction could be the tendency for women to engage in rumination (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012); a repetitive thinking style considered key in maintaining depression (Kennair et al., 2017). Although not explicitly assessed in this study, our measure of preshooting emotion dysregulation may have still captured ruminative tendencies (e.g., Ando et al., 2020). This would explain the observed interaction because depressive rumination entails abstract thoughts about a depressed mood’s meaning, causes, and consequences that stymy problem-solving behaviors (e.g., MHU; Kennair et al., 2017). Communities affected by mass shootings may potentially mitigate this deterring effect by promoting messages that normalize the experience of depression and other mental health difficulties, as strength-based campaigns that emphasize only resilience may alienate those who are struggling (e.g., “BOSTON STRONG;” Smith et al., 2017).

Contrary to expectations, age did not predict any MHU before including preshooting emotion dysregulation. However, age and preshooting emotion dysregulation interacted to predict an increased likelihood of psychotherapy utilization, suggesting that older women with greater preshooting emotion dysregulation were more likely to utilize psychotherapy services. This aligns with the broader MHU literature that shows the effect of age on MHU varies by context (Smith et al., 2017). However, the effect of age in the current study was found only for psychotherapy, not medication use. It is possible that the effect of age is due to developmental factors or changes in resource availability across the life span that influence avoidance of emotional expression, such that older individuals are less likely to avoid psychotherapy despite past difficulties with regulating emotion. Furthermore, this effect may be nonlinear considering evidence that middle-aged individuals are more likely to use mental health services than younger or older individuals (Smith et al., 2017). More research is needed to understand the effect of age on MHU, both generally and specifically in the context of mass shootings.

The current study is not without its limitations. To start, the unique features of our sample, the trauma, and the location in which it occurred restrict the generalizability of our findings. On the one hand, our sample of women is a strength given the paucity of research on help-seeking among women with PTSD (Smith et al., 2020). Nonetheless, our results may not generalize to men or individuals who identify as male, and our college sample limits the extent to which our results apply to older or community samples. For instance, following disaster, women utilize more MH services than men, and previous MHU work has utilized older samples and those with wider age ranges than ours (Smith et al., 2017). Additionally, younger individuals and women both show a preference for psychotherapy over medication (McHugh et al., 2013). Therefore, our sample’s characteristics may have biased relationships between predictors and MHU. Future researchers may explore whether the links between emotion dysregulation and MHU are moderated by sex, gender identity, or race/ethnicity. It might also be useful to study other moderators of the emotion dysregulation to MHU relationship (e.g., sleep, substance use/self-medication) to inform intervention efforts more precisely.

Regarding the study of a mass shooting, our results may not extend to other kinds of traumas or mass casualty events, such as natural disasters, but it is also worth discussing how findings may vary across different mass shooting events. MHU may have been biased in this study given the increased access to MH services on our campus after the influx of mental health resources in the wake of the shooting. Relatedly, it is not known how differences between evolving guidelines for how to respond to such events could impact MHU. As such, researchers may consider how MHU varies by institutional and community responses, including how MHU may be inadvertently discouraged by strength-based campaigns (Smith et al., 2017).

Finally, although the finding that posttraumatic cognitions enabled greater MHU was unexpected, the a priori hypothesis that they would serve as a barrier to MHU was theoretical (see Smith et al., 2017). In other words, there were no previous data on which to base study predictions, and it seems an argument could be made for either directionality (i.e., negative beliefs either inhibiting or facilitating treatment usage). Future research may find the direction of this effect depends on variables such as sample, trauma type, or severity of exposure.

Among college women exposed to a mass shooting, preshooting emotion dysregulation, and postshooting mental health symptoms, independently predicted an increased likelihood of utilizing mental health services up to 33 months later. These findings converge with the broader literature and offer hope—those with greater need for services are more likely to engage in them, and clinicians may find emotion regulation difficulties to be a useful starting place for treatment. An important caveat is that women with preexisting difficulties in regulating emotions who went on to develop depressive symptoms after the shooting may have been discouraged from utilizing therapy. Since these women were less likely to enter a clinician’s office, another takeaway from this study is for the communities affected by mass violence: It may be important to raise awareness not only of strength and resilience, but also of struggle and the opportunity for recovery.

1  For a detailed description of shooting exposure in this sample, please see Boykin and Orcutt (2019).

2  The original study design also included an assessment one-month post-shooting, but this was not part of the current study because relevant variables were not included until the subsequent timepoint. Timing of assessments in the current study are therefore described differently than the original study (e.g., what was T3 in the original study is now T1 in this study, and so on).

3  Except for T4-5 medication usage. Due to error, these items asked participants to respond using the timeframe “Since your last visit on [date] . . .” instead of “Since the mass shooting . . .”

4  There is no error term at level-1 because error is defined by the response proportion.

5  This reflected the way MHU items asked if participants had utilized services since the shooting. Participants who responded “yes” at any time point were then fixed as a “yes” response for subsequent timepoints. Therefore, the likelihood of MHU could only increase over time.

6  For instance, within an hour of the shooting, our university established a 24-hour support hotline; within the first two hours of the shooting, Psychology and Counseling faculty visited residence halls to support to students; the day after the shooting, student affairs staff contacted all students enrolled in the class where the shooting occurred and the class in the adjoining lecture hall to assess trauma exposure, provide information on resources, and refer students to on-campus counseling and the Provost’s Office; and upon returning to class the following week after the shooting, volunteer counselors presented to classes about resources and remained available outside of classrooms. In addition to counseling, students also had access to campus-based psychiatry services.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).

Anderson, R. (1995). Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter?Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(1), 1–10. 10.2307/2137284

Ando, A., Giromini, L., Ales, F., & Zennaro, A. (2020). A multimethod assessment to study the relationship between rumination and gender differences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61(6), 740–750. 10.1111/sjop.12666

Angelo, F. N., Miller, H. E., Zoellner, L. A., & Feeny, N. C. (2008). I need to talk about it”: A qualitative analysis of trauma-exposed women’s reasons for treatment choice. Behavior Therapy, 39(1), 13–21. 10.1016/j.beth.2007.02.002

Beck, J. G., Coffey, S. F., Palyo, S. A., Gudmundsdottir, B., Miller, L. M., & Colder, C. R. (2004). Psychometric properties of the Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI): A replication with motor vehicle accident survivors. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 289–298.

Boykin, D. M., & Orcutt, H. K. (2019). Treatment use among college women following a campus shooting. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(3), 261–280. 10.1080/10926771.2018.1480548

Ciarrochi, J. V., & Deane, F. P. (2001). Emotional competence and willingness to seek help from professional and nonprofessional sources. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 29(2), 233–246. 10.1080/03069880124843

Duwe, G. (2017). The patterns and prevalence of mass public shootings in the United States, 1915–2013. In L. C.Wilson (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of the psychology of mass shootings (pp. 20–35). 10.1002/9781119048015.ch2

Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(4), 319–345. 10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00123-0

Felix, E. D., Janson, M., & Fly, J. (2020). Factors affecting mental health service use among university students following an episode of mass violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Advance online publication. 10.1037/tra0000571

Foa, E. B., Ehlers, A., Clark, D. M., Tolin, D. F., & Orsillo, S. M. (1999). The Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI): Development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 303–314. 10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.303

Foa, E. B., Stein, D. J., & McFarlane, A. C. (2006). Symptomatology and psychopathology of mental health problems after disaster. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67(Suppl. 2), 15–25. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16602811/

Gavrilovic, J. J., Schützwohl, M., Fazel, M., & Priebe, S. (2005). Who seeks treatment after a traumatic event and who does not? A review of findings on mental health service utilization. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(6), 595–605. 10.1002/jts.20068

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54. 10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. (Version 22.0).

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. Free Press.

Kantor, V., Knefel, M., & Lueger-Schuster, B. (2017). Perceived barriers and facilitators of mental health service utilization in adult trauma survivors: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 52, 52–68. 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.12.001

Kennair, L. E. O., Kleppestø, T. H., Larsen, S. M., & Jørgensen, B. E. G. (2017). Depression: Is rumination really adaptive? In T.Shackelford & V.Zeigler-Hill (Eds.), The evolution of psychopathology. Evolutionary psychology (pp. 73–92). Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-319-60576-0_3

Komiya, N., Good, G. E., & Sherrod, N. B. (2000). Emotional openness as a predictor of college students’ attitudes toward seeking psychological help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 138–143. 10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.138

Kubany, E. S., Leisen, M. B., Kaplan, A. S., & Kelly, M. P. (2000). Validation of a brief measure of posttraumatic stress disorder: The Distressing Event Questionnaire (DEQ). Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 197–209. 10.1037/1040-3590.12.2.197

Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. 10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U

Lowe, S. R., & Galea, S. (2017). The mental health consequences of mass shootings. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(1), 62–82. 10.1177/1524838015591572

McHugh, R. K., Whitton, S. W., Peckham, A. D., Welge, J. A., & Otto, M. W. (2013). Patient preference for psychological vs. pharmacological treatment of psychiatric disorders: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74(06), 595–602. 10.4088/JCP.12r07757

McLean, C. P., Zang, Y., Gallagher, T., Suzuki, N., Yarvis, J. S., Litz, B. T., Mintz, J., Young-McCaughan, S., Peterson, A. L., Foa, E. B., & The STRONG STAR Consortium. (2019). Trauma-related cognitions and cognitive emotion regulation as mediators of PTSD change among treatment-seeking active-duty military personnel with PTSD. Behavior Therapy, 50(6), 1053–1062. 10.1016/j.beth.2019.03.006

Miquelon, P., Lesage, A., Boyer, R., Guay, S., Bleau, P., & Sèguin, M. (2014). Mental health service utilization among students and staff in 18 months following Dawson College shooting. AIMS Public Health, 1(2), 84–99. 10.3934/publichealth.2014.2.84

Nezlek, J. B. (2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 842–860. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00059.x

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012). Emotion regulation and psychopathology: The role of gender. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 161–187. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143109

Orcutt, H. K., Bonanno, G. A., Hannan, S. M., & Miron, L. R. (2014). Prospective trajectories of posttraumatic stress in college women following a campus mass shooting. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27(3), 249–256. 10.1002/jts.21914

Panagioti, M., Gooding, P. A., & Tarrier, N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the association between posttraumatic stress disorder and suicidality: The role of comorbid depression. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53(7), 915–930. 10.1016/j.comppsych.2012.02.009

Rauch, S., & Foa, E. (2006). Emotional processing theory (EPT) and exposure therapy for PTSD. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 36(2), 61–65. 10.1007/s10879-006-9008-y

Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & Du Toit, M. (2011). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling (HLM7). Scientific Software International.

Ritschel, L. A., Tone, E. B., Schoemann, A. M., & Lim, N. E. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale across demographic groups. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 944–954. 10.1037/pas0000099

Rodriguez, J. J., & Kohn, R. (2008). Use of mental health services among disaster survivors. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 21(4), 370–378. 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328304d984

Schwarz, E. D., & Kowalski, J. M. (1992). Malignant memories: Reluctance to utilize mental health services after a disaster. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Advance online publication. 10.1097/00005053-199212000-00005

Seligowski, A. V., Lee, D. J., Bardeen, J. R., & Orcutt, H. K. (2015). Emotion regulation and posttraumatic stress symptoms: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 44(2), 87–102. 10.1080/16506073.2014.980753

Smith, A. J., & Hughes, M. (2016). Challenges to the empirical investigation of mass shootings. In L. C.Wilson (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of the psychology of mass shootings (pp. 3–19). 10.1002/9781119048015.ch1

Smith, A. J., Ramsdell, K. D., Wusik, M. F., & Jones, R. T. (2017). Mental health service utilization following mass shootings. In L. C.Wilson (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of the psychology of mass shootings (pp. 312–330). 10.1002/9781119048015.ch17

Smith, J. R., Workneh, A., & Yaya, S. (2020). Barriers and facilitators to help-seeking for individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 33(2), 137–150. 10.1002/jts.22456

Vogel, D. L., Wade, N. G., & Hackler, A. H. (2008). Emotional expression and the decision to seek therapy: The mediating roles of the anticipated benefits and risks. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(3), 254–278. 10.1521/jscp.2008.27.3.254

Vollmayr, B., & Gass, P. (2013). Learned helplessness: Unique features and translational value of a cognitive depression model. Cell and Tissue Research, 354(1), 171–178. 10.1007/s00441-013-1654-2

Wang, P. S., Gruber, M. J., Powers, R. E., Schoenbaum, M., Speier, A. H., Wells, K. B., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). Mental health service use among Hurricane Katrina survivors in the eight months after the disaster. Psychiatric Services, 58(11), 1403–1411. 10.1176/ps.2007.58.11.1403

Willett, J. B. (1989). Some results on reliability for the longitudinal measurement of change: Implications for the design of studies of individual growth. Educational and Psychological Measurements49(3), 587–602. 10.1177/001316448904900309

Submitted: October 27, 2020 Revised: January 7, 2021 Accepted: January 25, 2021