Outrage or Indifference?
Understanding Public Reactions to Violence Through Psychology
The September 2025 shooting of Charlie Kirk, a polarizing conservative commentator, has been generating headlines across the United States, overshadowing other major headlines, even. For some, the event has provoked outrage—anger at political violence, grief over a preventable death, empathy for Charlie’s family, and anxiety about public safety and the ability to express opinions. For others, the reaction seemed almost indifferent: a shrug, or even a sense that such incidents are inevitable in today’s climate. Or, in some instances, that this violence is “understandable” given the commentator’s radical views.
The question, though, on many of our minds—why do violent events provoke such different emotional and moral responses? While complicated, psychology offers some clues. Exploring the psychological mechanisms of outrage and indifference can help us better understand not only this particular tragedy, but also the larger patterns of how societies react to violence—and what we can do to protect our hearts and our minds.
Why Some People Feel Outrage
Outrage often arises from what psychologists call moral foundations—core intuitions about fairness, harm, loyalty, and purity that guide our judgments (Haidt, 2012). When a violent act violates deeply held moral principles, anger becomes an almost automatic response.
Violation of norms. Political violence undermines democratic norms, triggering moral anger even among those who disagreed with Kirk’s views.
Empathy and identification. Outrage is amplified when individuals identify with the victim or see themselves as potential targets (Cikara et al., 2014).
Collective threat. Outrage may also reflect fear of escalation—if one political figure can be attacked, others may follow, destabilizing civil discourse.
Outrage, in this sense, is a signal of care. It channels attention and motivates collective action. We sometimes forget that words can carry real weight, and when the words of someone with real influence threatens our moral foundations, that risks fueling cycles of anger and retribution if left unchecked.
Why Others Appear Indifferent
On the other end of the spectrum, some observers have responded with indifference—or at least, muted concern. A “shrug,” if you will. In part, I believe this is a form of retaliation—for when others “shrugged” at their concerns and outrages. However, there is more to it than that. Several psychological processes are likely at play here:
Moral disengagement. People may distance themselves from victims who represent opposing ideologies, effectively neutralizing empathic concern (Bandura, 1999).
Compassion fatigue. Continuous exposure to violence through media can dull emotional responses, leading to numbness rather than outrage (Figley, 1995).
Just-world belief. Some people hold to the cognitive bias that “people get what they deserve” (Lerner, 1980). This belief, though inaccurate, reduces distress by framing violence as an expected outcome, thereby reducing our awareness that violence could happen to us.
Normalization of violence. In regions or communities where shootings are frequent, responses can shift from shock to resignation (Feldman & Bichler, 2019).
Indifference, then, is not necessarily a lack of feeling; it is a protective mechanism—though one that risks reinforcing cycles of violence by limiting collective will for prevention.
When Violence Remains Hidden
Another reason reactions vary is that not all violence is visible. Some forms of harm—especially domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse—remain hidden from public view.
Underreporting. Survivors often do not disclose abuse due to fear of retaliation, stigma, or financial dependence. Police reports therefore capture only a fraction of actual cases (Felson et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2018).
Normalization. Behaviors like controlling finances or emotional degradation may not be recognized as abuse until they escalate physically (Kelly & Johnson, 2008).
Structural barriers. Immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and rural residents face added hurdles, from language barriers to lack of local shelters (Crenshaw, 1991; Peek-Asa et al., 2011).
Data gaps. While homicide statistics are public, the non-fatal abuse that precedes them often stays hidden, surfacing only after tragedy (Campbell et al., 2003).
Because this violence is hidden, it rarely provokes the same public outrage as high-profile shootings. Yet it carries devastating public health consequences: survivors experience higher rates of PTSD, depression, and chronic health conditions (Coker et al., 2002), while children who witness hidden violence show increased risks for anxiety, aggression, and academic struggles (Kitzmann et al., 2003).
The “hiddenness” of domestic violence helps explain why society sometimes reacts with indifference—not because the suffering is less real, but because it is less visible.
The Broader Context: Violence as a Social Phenomenon
In moments of tragedy, it is often helpful to cut through the noise and understand the broader context. When we experience specific moments of violence, we often respond by asking each other, ourselves, and trusted sources—do I need to worry about this? Because beyond individual reactions, research shows that violence itself follows broader patterns.
Crime trends: Violent crime overall has declined in the U.S., with FBI data showing murders down 15% in 2024 (FBI, 2025).
Political violence: Targeted attacks, however, are rising—doubling in early 2025 compared to the year prior (ACLED, 2025).
Domestic violence: Often less visible, domestic violence remains a leading driver of homicide, especially in states like Utah (Utah Domestic Violence Coalition, 2024). When violence remains hidden, it not only
In other words: people’s outrage or indifference exists against the backdrop of both encouraging declines in everyday crime and concerning rises in political and domestic violence. In some ways, both reactions are therefore understandable, and we must first seek to understand rather than judge if we truly care about and want to prioritize coming together.
What We Can Do: Some Evidence-Based Steps
Regardless of our differences, whether our first impulse is outrage or indifference, we must find a way to respect each other and stick together, because sometimes, we are all each other has. While it may feel good to vent, say, on social media—doing so may bring short-term relief or raise awareness in your circles, but lasting change usually comes from pairing our words with respectful dialogue, community building, and action beyond the screen. Luckily, research offers practical steps that communities (and by communities I mean, you, reader—us, we) can take to reduce violence:
Promote safe firearm storage and risk-based removal laws. Access to firearms is one of the strongest predictors of violent lethality (Anglemyer et al., 2014).
Support domestic violence interventions. Lethality assessments and firearm restrictions in DV cases save lives (Campbell et al., 2003).
Encourage behavioral threat assessment. Universities and workplaces can intervene when warning signs—threats, manifestos, location scouting—are observed (NTAC, 2021).
Strengthen community-based programs. Violence interrupters and hot-spot interventions reduce shootings when sustained over time (Braga et al., 2019; Skogan et al., 2009).
Moving Beyond Outrage and Indifference
Outrage can mobilize action; indifference can protect against emotional overload. But both, left alone, are incomplete. The challenge is to translate outrage into constructive solutions and to transform indifference into mindful engagement with evidence-based strategies. Not simply arguing on social media, then returning to our distracted lives. So, if you need a break from all of this, take a break. Then, once you are rested, let us all come back to the table for more discussion, because we still have much to do.
Violence is preventable—not through moral judgment alone, but through a sustained commitment to interventions that research has shown can work. Recognizing why we react differently to violence is the first step toward building the collective resolve to reduce it.
References
ACLED. (2025). US crisis monitoring dataset. Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project.
Anglemyer, A., Horvath, T., & Rutherford, G. (2014). The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members. Annals of Internal Medicine, 160(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-1301
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2019). Hot spots policing effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3).
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., … Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide. NIJ Journal, 250, 14–19.
Cikara, M., Bruneau, E., & Saxe, R. (2014). Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6), 408–413.
Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P. H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4), 260–268.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2025). Uniform Crime Report: 2024 Crime Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Feldman, M., & Bichler, G. (2019). The normalization of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(6), 1186–1208.
Figley, C. R. (1995). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. Brunner/Mazel.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–499.
Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 339–352.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Springer.
Messing, J. T., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Cavanaugh, C. E., Glass, N. E., & Campbell, J. C. (2015). Culturally competent intimate partner violence risk assessment: Adapting the Danger Assessment for immigrant women. Social Work Research, 39(1), 31–42.
National Threat Assessment Center. (2021). Averting targeted school violence: A U.S. Secret Service analysis of plots against schools. Washington, DC.
Peek-Asa, C., Wallis, A., Harland, K., Beyer, K., Dickey, P., & Saftlas, A. (2011). Rural disparity in domestic violence prevalence and access to resources. Journal of Women’s Health, 20(11), 1743–1749.
Skogan, W. G., Hartnett, S. M., Bump, N., & Dubois, J. (2009). Evaluation of CeaseFire-Chicago. Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research.
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: 2015 Data Brief. CDC.
Utah Domestic Violence Coalition. (2024). Domestic violence homicide report. Salt Lake City, UT.
