Take the case of a husband who shoots his wife in her elementary school classroom. Is it domestic violence, workplace violence, or a school shooting? All of the above. Labels force us to put people and incidents into buckets, which reduces critical thinking, risks missing the full picture, and constrains effective threat assessment and management. Even a label such as “suicidal” is limiting: The difference between suicide and homicide is a split second.

From a psychological perspective, labeling individuals—as incels, for example—alienates them, reinforcing their sense of exclusion from society. People who identify with a certain group may not be violent, but a label can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, hardening their identity, amplifying their grievances, and making opportunities for successful management strategies more difficult.

Labels also glamorize. Some labels, like school shooter, lone wolf, and jihadist, have become badges of honor. Media amplification of labels can inspire copycats, as seen with the Columbine effect, where attackers emulate iconic incidents.

When a concerning behavior is reported, it is important not to label it and proceed accordingly. Threat assessors should apply a human factors approach. Investigate the situation and the person, and assess their behavior, motivation, intent, and lethality. Management strategies should be built around the human factors relevant to the person of concern, and not based on a cookie-cutter approach that relies on the label that seems to be the best fit.