Are Students Scared or Prepared? Psychological Impacts of a Multi-Option Active Assailant Protocol Compared to Other Crisis/Emergency Preparedness Practices

Abstract

ABSTRACT Debates concerning active assailant protocols across American schools have grown in size and contention. While both sides of this debate have the safety and well-being of our nation’s youth at heart, they are often only able to support their position with anecdotal evidence. This project seeks to bring science to the conversation and add to the limited amount of empirical research on the topic by assessing both the negative and positive psychological impacts of one multi-option based approach, ALICE, among a sample of 4th-12th grade students. Implemented through classroom, discussion-based exercises, the analyses reveal that students are generally no more fearful of ALICE than other crisis/emergency preparedness practices, particularly tornado drills and Stranger Danger discussions. Additionally, over 85% of students indicate learning about ALICE either did not change how they felt or made them feel more prepared, confident, or safe compared to approximately 1 in 10 students experiencing a negative psychological outcome. Consistent throughout the study, students reporting they were fearful of other crisis/emergency preparedness practices experienced more negative and less positive psychological outcomes after learning about ALICE. The study closes with potential policy implications on how to prepare, and not scare, students for the unthinkable.