Researchers at Rutgers University have found that frequent exposure to real-world gun violence through the media may affect our mental health. The research suggests that regularly viewing firearm-related news and social media content is linked to higher levels of depression and emotional distress among adults throughout the United States.

The study examined 5,000 adults nationwide. Throughout the study, the research team focused on exposure to real-world firearm violence through popular media outlets such as Instagram, cable television news, newspapers, and other related media. Unlike fictional violence seen in movies, video games, or television dramas, the study took a direct look at the reactions to actual incidents of gun violence reported in the media throughout the United States.

“One of the most critical elements is ‘threat system activation,’ essentially how the brain’s survival system (fear/vigilance) gets activated again and again from violent images/narratives,” according to Niloufar Esmaeilpour, a Registered Clinical Counselor and the Founder of Lotus Therapy & Counseling Center.

Esmaeilpour, who was not connected to the study, told The Debrief in an email that “Although an individual might not be at risk personally, seeing shootings, victims, police/emergency response, etc., repeatedly in the media could cause individuals to inaccurately judge their personal safety,” invoking a cognitive bias known as “availability heuristic.”

“Chronic activation of the body’s threat response through repeated viewing could result in chronic stress responses (sleep disturbances, irritable mood, emotional numbing), and potentially later symptoms of anxiety/depression,” Esmaeilpour said.

Another outside perspective was provided by Dr. Clint Salo, a Board-Certified Psychiatrist at The Grove Recovery Community. “What’s happening neurologically is that the brain doesn’t fully distinguish between witnessing violence directly and consuming it repeatedly through a screen,” Salo said. “The threat response activates either way.”

“So chronic exposure to graphic news content keeps the nervous system in a low-grade state of vigilance, and over time, that contributes to anxiety, depression, and a distorted sense of how dangerous the world actually is,” Salo said. “Algorithms make this significantly worse because they’re optimized for engagement, and fear and outrage drive engagement.”

The Findings  

The researchers found that people who watch or frequently encounter firearm-related content reported more days when they experienced poor mental health and a higher rate of depression symptoms. Researchers used statistical models to compare levels of media exposure with personal emotional well-being, revealing a connection between repeated exposure and negative emotional or mental health outcomes.  

Devon Ziminski, a postdoctoral fellow at the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at the Rutgers School of Public Health, says in a statement that the findings  “support existing research that repeated exposure to firearm violence may negatively affect well-being, and that real-world media firearm violence exposure may also have negative implications.”

Even watching highly-publicized firearm violence events like mass shootings, how the event is shaped, its narrative, the volume of coverage, and how it’s framed in the media—even if the outlet is credible—can all lead to negative mental health outcomes. Fundamentally, the idea is that the coverage could reinforce perceptions of threat and harm. 

The overall outcome is that large amounts of gun voilence consumed can contribute to poor mental health. Researchers believe the emotional effects of repeatedly watching violent real-world events should be part of a broader discussion about how people receive their news and are exposed to information.  

“While much work focuses on direct victimization, these findings suggest that cumulative media exposure to real-world firearm violence could contribute to a mental health burden, even for those not personally involved in an incident,” Ziminski says. 

While researchers are not suggesting we turn off all our media devices, they are encouraging people to be well-informed and to work toward a better understanding of how negative media can shape emotional well-being. Strategies such as limiting repetitive exposure to distressing content, taking breaks from it, and balancing news consumption with positive activities may help reduce emotional strain.

“When consuming news, I recommend creating a ‘news dosing schedule,’ setting aside specific times each day (e.g., 20-30 min once/twice per day) for news consumption instead of constant browsing,”  Esmaeilpour suggests. “Browsing continuously can overwhelm emotions, making it difficult to manage one’s mental health.”

“Intentional selection of high-quality news sources that include contextual information and do not repeatedly present graphic detail will also help mitigate the emotional response to news stories,”  Esmaeilpour added. “In addition, taking some type of physical/cognitive break immediately following exposure (i.e., going for a walk, listening to music, talking with others) is beneficial because it changes the state of the nervous system away from being in a continued threat state.”

The recent study, “Associations between media gun violence exposure (GVE) and mental health: a national cross-sectional study,” was published in BMC Public Health.

Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.

New research emerging from the University of Oxford marks a pioneering step in understanding the intricate connection between environmental stressors and social outcomes. Specifically, this groundbreaking study provides the first quantitative analysis linking prolonged drought exposure over the preceding year to a heightened risk of sexual, emotional, and physical violence against adolescents residing in Southern Africa. The findings highlight a distressing pattern where cumulative drought conditions over two years amplify the vulnerabilities faced by young people, underscoring a critical crisis driven by climate change and socio-economic instability.

Analyzing a vast dataset encompassing over 20,000 adolescents aged 13 to 24 from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Lesotho, the research sheds light on demographic segments disproportionately affected by drought-induced violence. Girls and young women emerge as the most vulnerable, alongside older adolescents within the upper age range of the cohort and those dwelling in rural environments. This nuanced understanding reveals the intersectionality of gender, age, and geographic location in shaping exposure to violence, mediated by the stresses induced by environmental scarcity.

Water scarcity is forecasted to become a defining challenge in Southern Africa, with projections estimating a decline in water availability by approximately 30% by the year 2050. This anticipated reduction exacerbates entrenched issues including poverty, food insecurity, and mental health disturbances. These factors converge to magnify existing inequalities and disrupt family structures, fostering environments where maladaptive coping mechanisms such as child marriage, child labor, and forced migration are more prevalent. Alarmingly, sub-Saharan Africa already grapples with historic levels of violence towards children, with estimates suggesting nearly 79 million girls have suffered sexual violence before reaching adulthood.

Published in the prestigious journal The Lancet Planetary Health, the research was led by Dr. Bothaina Eltigani, a DPhil student at Oxford’s Department of Social Policy and Intervention. Her team’s analysis quantifies the increases in violence during drought periods: a staggering 46% rise in sexual violence perpetrated by non-partners, a 51% increase in emotional violence by intimate partners, surging to 73% for emotional violence committed by non-partners, and physical violence increases of 39% and 41% by partners and non-partners respectively. These figures starkly illustrate the profound social repercussions of climatic shocks on adolescent safety.

The study also reveals that the risks are not uniform. Regions experiencing drought conditions over extended durations—up to 24 months—face the possibility of adolescents enduring bilateral increases in the risk of all forms of violence. This effect is particularly pronounced for female adolescents, who face disproportionate risks of sexual and emotional abuse from both partners and non-partners. Older adolescents, aged 18 to 24, show heightened vulnerability compared to their younger peers, a factor partly attributed to increased mobility, social exposure, and financial responsibilities that accompany this life stage.

Geographical disparities further compound the landscape of risk. Adolescents in rural areas, where reliance on rain-fed agriculture predominates and infrastructure resilience is minimal, encounter elevated dangers. The scarcity of adaptive resources and institutional support in these regions creates a breeding ground for violence, driven by heightened stress within households contending with drought’s multifaceted impact.

Dr. Eltigani’s observations bring a deeply human perspective to the data. Drawing from her medical experience in Sudan, she underscores how drought-induced water scarcity imposes substantial strain on families, especially in rural communities. The invisibility of youth safety concerns amid such crises calls for integrating violence prevention strategies focused on adolescents into climate resilience frameworks. She advocates for embedding gender-sensitive approaches within early warning systems and sustainable adaptation initiatives, recognizing that with climate models projecting increased drought severity and frequency, such integration is imperative rather than optional.

The research offers critical insight into why certain groups experience differential vulnerability during drought episodes. Gendered power imbalances limit girls’ access to crucial adaptation resources and decision-making platforms, simultaneously burdening them with increased unpaid domestic tasks such as water and fuel collection, which heightens their exposure to harm. Furthermore, older adolescents’ expanded social networks and responsibilities amplify their exposure to both intimate partner and non-partner violence. The infrastructural deficits and economic dependencies inherent to rural areas amplify exposure risks, reflecting a complex interplay between environmental, social, and economic dimensions of vulnerability.

Methodologically, this study synthesizes violence victimization reports with demographic data derived from the Violence Against Children Surveys (VACS) involving 20,290 adolescents across the three countries. To operationalize drought exposure, researchers applied a rigorous definition centered on prolonged intervals of below-average rainfall, leveraging meteorological data to align environmental conditions with violence incidence. This multidisciplinary approach reinforces the robustness of the findings and provides an empirical foundation for policy interventions targeting the nexus between climate and social vulnerability.

The implications of these findings resonate beyond the academic sphere, posing urgent challenges for policymakers, humanitarian organizations, and climate adaptation strategists. As water scarcity intensifies, its ripple effects exacerbate social inequalities, catalyze family destabilization, and increase the prevalence of harmful coping mechanisms. This calls for multi-sectoral approaches that not only address environmental sustainability but also integrate protective measures for at-risk youth populations, particularly in regions disproportionately burdened by poverty and limited infrastructure.

Given the complexity of drivers underpinning violence in drought settings, targeted interventions must reconcile the intersections of gender, age, and locality. Empowering adolescent girls through enhanced access to resources, education on rights, and community engagement can mitigate risks while reinforcing resilience. Simultaneously, infrastructure investments in rural regions and social safety nets can alleviate some of the socio-economic triggers for violence. By embedding these strategies within overarching climate adaptation frameworks, stakeholders can foster more holistic, equitable responses to the compounded crises faced by Southern Africa’s adolescents.

In conclusion, this seminal study spotlights a critical yet underexplored dimension of climate change impacts—its direct influence on the safety and well-being of young people. The quantitative association between drought exposure and elevated violence risk emphasizes the urgent need to align climate resilience efforts with social protection imperatives. As Southern Africa confronts escalating drought frequency and severity, prioritizing adolescent-focused, gender-sensitive violence prevention within climate policies is essential to safeguard the region’s youth and secure a more just and sustainable future.

---

Subject of Research: The investigation centers on the relationship between drought exposure and the increased risk of sexual, emotional, and physical violence against adolescents in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Lesotho.

Article Title: Drought exposure and the risk of sexual, emotional, and physical violence against adolescents in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Lesotho: an observational study

News Publication Date: Not specified

Web References: Not provided

References: The study references Global Warming of 1.5°C by the IPCC (2018), UNICEF reports on violence against girls in sub-Saharan Africa (2024), and Hillis et al.’s systematic review on past-year violence against children (2016).

Keywords: Droughts, Violence, Human sexual behavior, Human social behavior, Aggression, Human aggression

A comprehensive new study conducted by the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention provides pivotal insights into the current state of political violence attitudes among U.S. adults. Despite widespread national polarization and a contentious election cycle between mid-2024 and mid-2025, findings reveal a striking stability in public endorsement of political violence, challenging fears of imminent widespread escalation. This survey, encompassing a nationally representative sample of over 8,000 adults, interrogated nuanced belief systems surrounding democracy, civil unrest, and the legitimacy of force in political contexts.

Importantly, while modest increases were observed in the fraction of respondents who deemed political violence justified under certain conditions, the data demonstrated no concomitant rise in personal willingness to engage in such acts. Particularly, there was no uptick in readiness to inflict physical harm or employ firearms in pursuit of political objectives. These revelations underscore a persistent societal equilibrium, even amid intense political tensions and rhetoric that at times border on incitement.

Dr. Garen Wintemute, the lead investigator and director of the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention, emphasized that political violence remains an exception rather than a norm. His extensive interdisciplinary research frames violence as not merely a security threat but a complex public health issue that demands empirical exploration. By deploying an annually repeated, nationally representative survey commencing in 2022, Wintemute and colleagues are able to track temporal dynamics in attitudes towards violence, providing valuable longitudinal context to current findings.

Key metrics within the study showed a slight increase in those believing violence is “usually or always” justified to achieve at least one political objective, rising from 32.3% to 35.6%. However, readiness to personally participate in violent acts—ranging from damaging property to committing homicide—remained stable or even declined slightly in some categories. This distinction highlights an important psychological phenomenon: abstract conceptual support for political violence does not necessarily translate into personal behavioral intent.

Exploration of firearm-related dispositions revealed no significant change in the proportion of survey participants anticipating being armed in hypothetically justified violent scenarios. Similarly, willingness to threaten or shoot individuals under such conditions remained consistently low. These findings contribute empirical weight to ongoing debates regarding the relationship between political beliefs and firearms possession or use, challenging simplistic narratives that conflate ideological conviction with propensity for violent militancy.

The study also examined perceptions relating to civil war, a perennial concern in political discourse. While a small uptick occurred in the number of respondents anticipating a potential civil war in forthcoming years, the proportion endorsing civil war as a necessary corrective mechanism remained unchanged. This suggests a heightened awareness or fear without a corresponding escalation in advocacy for violent revolution, reflecting a nuanced public calculus rather than wholesale acceptance of conflict as inevitable.

Crucially, the researchers segmented responses by political affiliation, particularly contrasting strong Democrats with supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. Striking disparities emerged in beliefs about the justification for political violence; over half of MAGA Republicans viewed such violence as justified under at least some conditions, compared to roughly one-third of strong Democrats. However, willingness to personally engage in injuring or killing remained infrequent and did not differ significantly between these groups, indicating a broad societal moderation with respect to direct violent action.

Temporal trends within these political cohorts revealed countervailing movements: strong Democrats exhibited modest increases in perceived justification for violence, whereas MAGA Republicans displayed slight decreases on similar measures. This bidirectional flux complicates narratives of unilateral radicalization and suggests a complex interplay of factors driving attitude shifts. It also casts doubt on determinist models predicting a linear path toward escalated political violence.

One notable finding was that a small minority in all political groups expressed personal willingness to engage in political violence as lone actors, with MAGA Republicans indicating a higher propensity (6.3%) relative to strong Democrats (2.8%). Similarly, the likelihood of being armed in violent confrontations was markedly higher among MAGA supporters. These insights align with prior research linking ideological extremism and individual predisposition to risk-taking behaviors, underscoring the salience of targeted prevention and intervention.

Despite ongoing concerns about political unrest, election-related violence, and threats targeting public officials, the study authors caution against alarmism. Public opinion data do not currently indicate an inexorable slide toward widespread political violence. Rather, the persistence of majority rejection of violent methods across the political spectrum highlights resilience factors that could be leveraged in violence prevention strategies.

Veronica Pear, senior author and epidemiologist at UC Davis, articulated that these findings affirm the potential efficacy of prevention initiatives grounded in the recognition that support for violence remains the exception rather than the rule. The study advocates for nuanced approaches that balance vigilance toward emergent risks with reinforcement of democratic norms and nonviolent conflict resolution.

Methodologically, this rigorous survey utilized validated psychometric instruments to assess beliefs, intentions, and anticipated behaviors concerning political violence. Its representative sampling framework and longitudinal design enhance both generalizability and temporal sensitivity, rendering it a critical contribution to the field of violence epidemiology. The transparent disclosure of funding sources and absence of competing interests further solidify the study’s credibility.

As political tensions and societal fractures persist in the United States, this evidence-based articulation of public attitudes provides an essential counterbalance to sensationalized narratives. Understanding the complex mosaic of support, rejection, fear, and intent regarding political violence informs policymakers, public health professionals, and the broader community in efforts to maintain democratic stability and prevent escalation.

The linkage of political violence to public health underscores the imperative for interdisciplinary collaboration, integrating epidemiological methods with political science, psychology, and law enforcement frameworks. Preventative measures must not only address individual risk factors but also confront structural conditions and discursive environments shaping political attitudes.

In conclusion, the resilient majority stance against political violence, amid sustained societal strain, offers a cautiously optimistic outlook. This stability amidst volatility suggests that despite heightened political polarization, the United States has not descended into a spiral of normalized violent conflict. It affirms the critical role of evidence-driven public health approaches and political engagement in safeguarding democratic processes and social cohesion.

---

Subject of Research: People

Article Title: Views on democracy and political violence in the United States in 2025: findings from a nationally representative survey

News Publication Date: 27-May-2026

Web References:

• Read the study
• UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention
• Support for authoritarianism and use of force by and against the federal government in the United States in mid-2025
• Military Service and Support for Political Violence and Right-Wing Extremism
• Approval of the National Rifle Association and political violence

References: 10.1186/s40621-026-00684-3

Keywords: Human health, Behavioral psychology, Human social behavior, Human aggression, Group behavior, Violence

Wildfire smoke does more than hurt your lungs. New study suggests it may also raise risk of violence.