Traumatic Events in Local Communities Can Push Organizations Toward More Cautious Decision-Making
A growing body of evidence shows that violent traumatic events in a community can shape far more than just public sentiment—they can directly influence how organizations make decisions. A new study from researchers at the University of Washington, published in the Academy of Management Journal, uncovers how events such as mass shootings and acts of domestic terrorism can make leaders and teams significantly more risk-averse, even when risk-taking might normally be the logical move. This research challenges the long-held belief that decision-makers operate as purely rational actors unaffected by the emotional climate around them.
The study’s central message is simple but powerful: people don’t leave their emotions at home. When a community experiences a violent tragedy, its emotional shockwave can extend into workplaces, shaping strategic choices in measurable ways. According to the research team, decision-makers exposed to nearby traumatic events become less focused on pursuing ambitious goals and less willing to take risks to overcome performance gaps.
To arrive at this conclusion, the researchers used a two-part approach. First, they conducted an extensive observational field study examining nearly 40,000 fourth-down decisions made by NFL teams from 2008 to 2019. Then, to validate the psychological mechanisms behind those decisions, they conducted two controlled laboratory experiments with participants exposed to narratives about traumatic events.
In the NFL portion of the study, researchers analyzed how often teams chose to attempt a fourth-down conversion versus opting for safer choices like punting or attempting a field goal. Previous research already shows that teams trailing in a game tend to take more risks—specifically, they attempt more fourth-down conversions because doing so increases their chances of catching up. In fact, the study notes that teams underperforming in a game were typically three times more likely to take a riskier fourth-down conversion.
But this pattern shifted dramatically after a traumatic event occurred near a team’s home community. Following such an incident, underperforming teams were 10% less likely to take that risk, even though strategic logic suggested they should. This pattern persisted across thousands of observations, making the effect statistically strong.
One especially interesting detail the researchers highlight is the role of distance. Even in an era when information spreads instantly, the physical proximity of a traumatic event still matters. Events occurring two miles away had a significantly stronger influence on risk-taking behavior than those occurring twenty miles away. The closer the event, the easier it becomes for decision-makers—coaches in this case—to imagine themselves or their loved ones being affected. This increases the emotional weight of the event and, according to the researchers, reduces the motivation to pursue lofty or high-stakes objectives.
Another factor the study identifies is the degree of community embeddedness. Coaches who had spent more time living in or connected to their team’s community showed an even stronger drop in risk-taking following a traumatic local event. In other words, the more emotionally invested a leader is in the surrounding community, the more deeply that community’s trauma affects their professional judgment.
To ensure these effects were tied to psychological mechanisms rather than unique aspects of NFL gameplay, the authors ran two controlled experiments. Participants were randomly assigned to read either a Wikipedia article about a mass shooting or a neutral article about a music festival or an accounting conference. After reading, participants took part in a three-round competitive game where they could make choices that involved varying levels of risk, with the incentive of earning bonus pay.
Across both experiments, those exposed to the traumatic narrative consistently took fewer risks in later rounds. They also reported a weaker focus on winning or achieving the highest possible outcome, indicating that the emotional effect of sadness or distress reduced their motivation to pursue ambitious goals. This aligns directly with what was observed in the NFL field data.
The researchers suggest that these behavioral shifts stem primarily from a sadness effect, a concept supported by multiple areas of psychological study. Sadness tends to diminish the psychological energy required to chase aspirational objectives. It doesn’t necessarily stop people from avoiding losses or negative outcomes, but it does dull the drive needed to take bold steps forward. This study is one of the first to demonstrate how such emotional impacts can appear not just at the individual level but across entire organizations.
One of the broader implications of this work is that societal trauma may subtly shape economic and organizational behavior in ways that are not immediately visible. If leaders across industries react similarly to traumatic events, communities could experience slowdowns in innovation, reduced entrepreneurial activity, or shifts in competitive behavior—all influenced not by economic conditions but by the collective emotional climate.
This finding pushes back against traditional economic and management frameworks that treat decision-makers as detached or purely analytical. Instead, it supports a growing body of research showing that emotions—especially those shaped by community-wide experiences—can meaningfully influence strategic decisions. When events like mass shootings occur, their effects can ripple far beyond the immediate tragedy, touching everything from leadership psychology to team performance to local economic activity.
This study also expands the conversation around organizational risk-taking, which has often been explored through the lens of profit motives, competition, and internal performance measures. By incorporating community trauma and emotional states into the analysis, the researchers introduce a new dimension rarely considered in strategic decision-making models.
Given the increasing frequency of violent traumatic events in the United States, the authors believe this research should encourage organizations to reevaluate how external emotional pressures influence their strategic choices. They emphasize that emotional states are dynamic and difficult to measure, which is exactly why more empirical research in this direction is needed. The hope is that understanding these emotional influences can help organizations build more resilient decision-making structures—ones that account for the broader social environment rather than assuming perfect emotional neutrality.
To provide more context for readers, it’s worth noting that similar patterns have been documented in other fields. Studies in psychology show that traumatic events can increase risk aversion for years or even decades. Research in economics has demonstrated that exposure to instability or violence can reduce entrepreneurial activity and investment. And sociologists have observed how community trauma shapes everything from social trust to participation in local institutions. This new study connects those threads directly to organizational strategy, filling a previously unexamined gap.
Additionally, the use of NFL data for behavioral research is becoming increasingly common because professional sports offer a rich, real-time dataset where motivations and decisions are clearly measurable. In this case, fourth-down decisions provide an excellent laboratory for observing risk-taking patterns because the stakes, options, and outcomes are well defined.
Overall, the study offers a clear, data-driven explanation of how traumatic community events influence risk behavior at the organizational level. It shows that emotional disruptions, even those happening outside the workplace, matter deeply. They reshape decision-makers’ willingness to pursue ambitious outcomes and influence how organizations react to performance challenges. As traumatic events become more frequent in modern society, understanding these relationships becomes increasingly important—not just for academic researchers, but for leaders, policymakers, and communities navigating uncertain times.
Research Paper: Violence and Competition: The Effect of Mass Shootings and Domestic Terrorism on Organizational Risk-Taking in Response to Performance Shortfalls
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.0306
