The photo is credited to Andrew Cullen for The New York Times
How do mass shootings and domestic terrorism affect the way organisations respond to poor performance? A new study published in the Academy of Management Journal (Schumacher, Keck & Gupta, 2026) provides evidence regarding this.
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified.
Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and economics. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
It is found that when local communities experience violent traumatic events, firms’ decision‑makers become significantly less willing to take risks – even when their performance is falling behind.
The researchers analysed 39,343 fourth‑down decisions made by NFL coaches over a decade, linking each decision to 386 mass shootings and terrorist attacks near team headquarters.
The findings show that after a violent event, the probability of a coach “going for it” on fourth down when trailing dropped from 12% to just 5% – a 57% reduction in risk‑taking.
Two controlled experiments confirmed the underlying psychological mechanism: exposure to traumatic events lowers a leader’s promotion focus (the drive to pursue ambitious goals), which in turn weakens their typical risk‑taking response to performance shortfalls.
Therefore, community trauma has real strategic consequences. Boards should be aware that an apparently cautious or passive response to poor results may not reflect a flawed strategy. But rather the emotional aftershock of a local tragedy.
The study also shows that longer‑tenured local leaders and those geographically closer to the event are most affected, while egalitarian workplace cultures can buffer the impact.
Below are the summary, methodology, key empirical facts, and implications.
Integrating affect, trauma and performance feedback
Why do some organisations react to performance shortfalls with extreme risk‑taking, while others become cautious? The paper proposes that exposure to violent traumatic events (mass shootings, domestic terrorism) in the local community alters decision‑makers’ regulatory focus – lowering promotion focus and raising prevention focus – which then weakens the usual positive relationship between performance below aspirations and risk‑taking.
Hypotheses
- H1: Occurrence of a violent traumatic event weakens the positive relationship between performance below aspirations and risk‑taking.
- H2a: The effect is partially mediated by the decision‑maker’s lowered promotion focus.
- H2b: The effect is partially mediated by the decision‑maker’s heightened prevention focus.
- H3: Decision‑maker tenure in the community strengthens the moderating effect (H1).
- H4: Geographical proximity to the violent event strengthens the moderating effect (H1).
Field study: 39,343 fourth‑down decisions in the NFL (2009‑2018)
Key variables
- Violent traumatic event: Binary =1 if team headquarters within 100 miles of event in the last 30 days.
- Negative attainment discrepancy: Score differential when team is behind (spline, 0 when ahead).
- Decision‑maker tenure: Coach’s years of professional residence in the area.
- Proximity: Distance (miles) between team location and event site.
Conditional logit models with team and year fixed effects. Treatment = teams within 100 miles/30 days post‑event. Control = same teams before event + other teams + two‑year post‑period. Robust to coarsened exact matching and placebo tests.
Two preregistered experiments: causal evidence and mediation
Mediation findings
- H2a (promotion focus) supported: Violent event salience → lower promotion focus → weaker risk‑taking response to below‑aspirations performance. Bootstrapped CIs exclude zero in both studies.
- H2b (prevention focus) not supported: Although violent events increased prevention focus, the mediated indirect effect was not significant. The authors reason that promotion focus is the primary driver of performance‑induced risk‑taking; prevention focus alone does not suppress it enough.
- Negative affect pathway: Violent event salience increased negative affect, which in turn lowered promotion focus (consistent with theorising).
Main results from the NFL field study
Support for H3 (community tenure)
- Split‑sample median split: coaches with above‑median tenure → odds ratio = 0.843 (p<0.001).
- Coaches with below‑median tenure → odds ratio = 0.959 (p=0.045, much smaller effect).
- Longer‑tenured decision‑makers are more psychologically affected by local traumatic events.
Support for H4 (geographic proximity)
- Within 100 miles → 10.0% decrease in odds of risk‑taking (p<0.001).
- Beyond 100 miles (100‑200, 200‑300, etc.) → no significant effect.
- Same metropolitan statistical area (MSA) further strengthens the result.
State‑level macroeconomic controls, coarsened exact matching, alternative time windows (30‑day effect persists but decays), and a placebo test using “future” violent events (no effect) all support the main findings.
Moderators: tenure and proximity shape the response
- Longer residency → stronger identification with victims → larger drop in promotion focus → much weaker risk‑taking response
- Odds ratio 0.843 vs. 0.959 for short tenure
- Only events within 100 miles of team headquarters matter
- Same MSA effect even larger
- Distance beyond 100 mi → no significant moderation
Supplementary analysis: egalitarian culture as a buffer
- Teams with higher pay equality (a proxy for egalitarianism) showed weaker effects of violent events on risk‑taking reduction.
- Suggests that inclusive workplace practices may buffer the negative impact of community trauma on strategic decision‑making.
What this means for organisations, investors and policy
- BTOF enrichment: Shows that negative emotions from community shocks penetrate organisational boundaries, altering performance‑induced risk‑taking – moving beyond the “dispassionate actor” assumption.
- Dynamic regulatory focus: Demonstrates that promotion/prevention focus are not just stable traits but are situationally recalibrated by external trauma.
- Mega‑event literature: Extends research from hate crimes and natural disasters to mass shootings/terrorism, showing strategic competitive consequences.
Managerial & policy implications
- Boards and investors should recognise that apparent strategic inertia after performance shortfalls may reflect affective trauma, not incompetence.
- Organisational culture matters: Egalitarian practices may buffer the negative effects of community violence on risk‑taking.
- Local embeddedness: Decision‑makers with long community ties are more vulnerable to psychological shocks – firms may need temporary support structures.
Limitations & future research
- NFL “action teams” differ from intellective tasks (e.g., R&D, strategic planning). Generalisability needs testing.
- Future work should examine other traumatic events (wars, natural disasters, pandemics) and other emotions (anger, grief).
- Causal chain: the experiments establish internal validity; field study provides external validity in a high‑stakes setting.
Final conclusion
Using a unique combination of NFL play‑by‑play data and controlled experiments, Schumacher, Keck and Gupta provide compelling evidence that local violent traumatic events reduce organisational risk‑taking in response to performance shortfalls. The effect operates through a dampened promotion focus, is amplified by community tenure and proximity, and has real economic significance. The paper opens a new research agenda on affect, community embeddedness, and strategic behaviour.
Full reference
Schumacher, C., Keck, S., & Gupta, A. (2026). Violence and competition: The effect of mass shootings and domestic terrorism on organizational risk‑taking in response to performance shortfalls. Academy of Management Journal, 69(2), 212‑242. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.0306
Data sources: NFL fourth‑down decisions (pro‑football‑reference.com), Mother Jones mass shootings database (1982‑2024), Global Terrorism Database (GTD), coarsened exact matching, two preregistered experiments (OSF links in paper).
This summary is for educational and commentary purposes. All findings are accurately represented from the original article. Copyright © Academy of Management, 2026.
