PDF Summary:The Gift of Fear, by Gavin de Becker

Your intuition is trying to keep you safe, but are you listening? In The Gift of Fear, security specialist Gavin de Becker contends that violence is a normal part of human nature and that you possess an innate ability to detect warning signs of danger—your intuition. He writes that when you ignore this instinct in favor of logic, you become more vulnerable to danger. By learning to identify warning signs and trust your intuition, you can better manage your safety and be more prepared for dangerous situations.

In this guide, we’ll discuss some misconceptions of violence, the importance of trusting intuition, and methods for predicting and preventing various forms of violence. We'll delve into strategies for handling workplace, domestic, and youth violence, while providing scientific research on violence, fear, and intuition as well as additional safety tips to complement de Becker's strategies.

(continued)...

2. Excessive niceness. De Becker writes that strangers don’t generally go out of their way to be nice to you. Although it’s possible a person might just be acting nice, if someone seems overly friendly or helpful without reason, be cautious and consider whether they have other intentions.

3. Making you feel indebted to them. People with bad intentions may go one step beyond just being nice and give you gifts or do unsolicited favors. By doing this, they hope you’ll feel obligated to repay them and be more open to their demands.

(Shortform note: Excessive niceness and gift-giving are common tactics used in love bombing—a manipulative strategy some people use to quickly gain control over a romantic partner. Love bombers shower you with excessive affection, gifts, and attention early on to make you feel special and indebted to them. Like with potential aggressors, this behavior goes beyond normal kindness or generosity.)

4. Not taking “no” for an answer. De Becker states that anyone who ignores your refusals and keeps insisting until you give in is a red flag. For example, this might be if someone insists on giving you a ride home even after you’ve declined multiple times. This is the most serious red flag, according to de Becker, because when someone refuses to accept your decision, and you let them, you give them control over you.

(Shortform note: Setting and maintaining boundaries is important for dealing with people who refuse to take “no” for an answer. In Set Boundaries, Find Peace, clinical therapist Nedra Glover Tawwab explains that boundaries are standards for how you want to be treated. Setting boundaries involves a three-step process: First, identify what boundaries you want to establish by reflecting on situations that make you uncomfortable and determining how you'd prefer to be treated. Next, communicate these boundaries to others assertively and directly, without over-explaining or apologizing. Finally, take action to reinforce your boundaries, such as by restating them if someone refuses to respect your “no.”)

5. Oversharing. People with bad intentions often provide too many details in their stories to seem more believable and familiar. For example, they might explain that they’re waiting for a bus because they need to buy a last-minute birthday gift for a friend who loves red pandas. De Becker notes that truthful people don’t feel the need to overshare because they aren’t worried that you won’t believe them.

(Shortform note: If you suspect someone is lying, try to get them to reveal holes in their story by encouraging them to keep talking. In Read People Like a Book, Patrick King says that liars have to devote a lot of mental energy to keeping their false story straight. The more they talk, the more likely they are to make a mistake that exposes the lie. Because of this, King recommends asking specific, open-ended questions to throw them off, as they likely haven't thought through every aspect of their story. For instance, in the red panda example, you might ask, "How long have you known your friend?” and “Why do they love red pandas?" These questions would force the other person to make up details that are hard to keep track of.)

6. Challenging you. De Becker writes that potential aggressors might try to manipulate you by challenging you to do what they want you to do. For example, they may say, “You’re probably too afraid to do something this spontaneous,” in the hopes you’ll feel the urge to prove them wrong. If someone challenges you, you should simply not respond at all, suggests de Becker.

(Shortform note: You feel uncomfortable when someone challenges you to do something because it threatens your freedom to choose. This feeling is called reactance, and it makes you want to do the opposite of what you're challenged to do, just to prove you're in control. Studies show that people from individualistic cultures that value personal freedom tend to react more strongly to these challenges.)

7. Making promises. De Becker argues that people make promises to convince you of something, but promises don’t actually guarantee anything. For example, just because someone says, “My car is just around the corner, I promise,” doesn’t mean that it really is. The fact that they feel the need to make a promise means they’ve noticed your doubt (a sign of your intuition), which is why you should be cautious.

(Shortform note: This behavior is similar to a manipulative tactic called future faking—when someone makes grand promises about the future to manipulate you in the present. For example, a romantic partner might talk about getting married without any real intention of following through. Or a friend might continuously talk about starting a business together that never materializes. These empty promises play on your hopes and desires, making you more likely to trust or cooperate with the person making them. To protect yourself from future faking, be wary of promises that seem too good to be true. If you notice a pattern of unfulfilled promises, it may be a sign that you're dealing with future faking.)

The JACA Assessment

De Becker introduces a framework to assess the likelihood of someone committing violence. This assessment tool examines four key factors—justification, alternatives, consequences, and ability (JACA):

Justification: Does the person believe that violence is justified? De Becker explains that people who think they have a valid reason to use violence are more likely to do so. The threshold for justification can vary—for example, you might not view a simple disagreement like getting cut off in traffic as a valid reason to act violently, but others might.

(Shortform note: In The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explore how changing beliefs can affect whether people see violence as justified. They discuss an argument that inflammatory speech is a form of violence because it causes emotional harm. This belief, they say, makes people more likely to see violence as a justified response to speech they find offensive. The authors consider this problematic—if we treat speech that causes stress as violence, then almost anything could be seen as violence. This mindset has real-world consequences, leading to riots on college campuses aimed at silencing controversial speakers.)

Alternatives: Does the person see any nonviolent ways to achieve their goals? De Becker says that people who believe violence is their only option are more likely to resort to it. For example, if a bullied teenager feels like they can’t reach out to anyone for help, they may see fighting back as the only solution they have.

(Shortform note: According to the FBI, certain behaviors can indicate that a person feels like violence is the only remaining option. You might notice drastic changes in their appearance or self-care, like suddenly getting tattoos with violent themes, losing a lot of weight, shaving their head, or neglecting basic hygiene. They may also start engaging in reckless behaviors with no concern for future consequences. Stopping medications or using substances, or withdrawing from their normal life patterns and obligations could all be signs that the person has no other alternatives and is making final preparations to act out violently.)

Consequences: What does the person think about the potential outcomes of a violent act? De Becker explains that people who anticipate negative consequences—such as getting a prison sentence or social stigma—will be less likely to engage in violence. Conversely, people who anticipate positive consequences—such as the attention that comes with infamy—or feel like consequences don’t matter are more likely to commit violent acts.

(Shortform note: Many people believe that harsh punishments prevent crime, but some criminologists disagree, arguing that the fear of getting caught is what actually deters criminals, not severe penalties. Contrary to popular belief, research shows that longer prison sentences do little to prevent crime. In fact, they can make people more likely to commit crimes in the future by exposing them to other criminals. Even the death penalty fails to show any measurable deterrent effect on crime rates. Criminologists suggest that increasing the chances of getting caught and ensuring swift punishment are more effective, even if the punishment isn’t very severe.)

Ability to Act Violently: Does the person have the capability to commit violence? According to de Becker, people who have the skills and confidence to carry out violent acts are more likely to do so. Typically, these include weapon owners and people with a history of violence. In other words, someone who regularly shoots firearms has a greater ability to act violently than someone who has never touched a weapon in their life.

(Shortform note: Research shows that people with a history of violence are indeed more likely to commit violent acts again. A US Sentencing Commission study found that 64% of violent offenders were rearrested within a few years of release, compared to only 40% of nonviolent offenders. Violent offenders also tend to commit more serious crimes when they reoffend, with assault being the most common new charge. They also reoffend more quickly, with a median time of 18 months to their first new offense compared to 24 months for nonviolent offenders.)

Threats as a Predictor of Violence

De Becker writes that threats can sometimes be a sign that someone will act violently but, at other times, be a sign that someone won’t. To determine which is the case, you must recognize what qualifies as a genuine threat as opposed to an intimidation.

When someone issues a real threat, they’re stating their intention to do harm without offering any conditions you can meet to prevent it—for example, “I’m going to make you regret what you did.”

However, if a threat contains words like “if,” “or else,” or “unless,” then it’s not a real threat but an intimidation. When someone makes an intimidation, they often want to avoid violence because they’re offering you a chance to prevent the harm they’re threatening. An example of intimidation is: “If you don’t stay off my property, I’m going to make you regret it.”

(Shortform note: De Becker distinguishes between intimidations and threats when it comes to violence, but mental health experts consider both to be harmful verbal behaviors. Threats and intimidations are both forms of verbal abuse. Verbal abuse involves using words to bully, demean, frighten, or control another person, which can include anything from yelling, name-calling, and swearing to more subtle behaviors like sarcasm, manipulation, and the silent treatment. The goal of verbal abuse is always to gain power over you and control you. This can lead to anxiety, decreased self-esteem, and other negative effects on your mental health.)

Assessing the Severity of a Threat

De Becker explains that contrary to popular belief, threats often suggest that someone is less likely to act violently. This is because people who issue threats usually want to scare you rather than commit violence. Clues that a person only wants to incite fear include:

• Using graphic language: For example, a message describing in brutal detail how they plan to harm you. Subtler expressions like “I can’t let this go on” can signify a more serious threat.
• Anonymity: Anonymous threats usually aren’t carried out since, often, their purpose is to inspire fear.

(Shortform note: Threats, even those not intended to be carried out, aren’t protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that “true threats”—statements intended to frighten or intimidate others with serious harm aren't constitutionally protected. This means you can't claim free speech protection if you deliberately threaten violence against someone, even if you don't plan to follow through. Thus, while people might often use threats to instill fear rather than communicate real intentions to commit violence, the law treats such threats seriously regardless of the speaker's actual plans.)

But when should you take a threat more seriously? De Becker argues that you should pay close attention to threats that emerge later in a conflict. Late threats often represent a more calculated decision to use violence, rather than an immediate emotional outburst.

Also, if you hear about a threat indirectly, you should take it more seriously—for example, if a college friend tells you that their roommate has been making threats about their professor. De Becker recommends you report such threats because they could reflect an actual intent to harm. These threats aren’t being delivered to the person they’re supposedly threatening but to someone else that the person wouldn’t be trying to scare.

(Shortform note: The FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) refers to these indirect threats as “leakage.” They note that leakage may be more common in adolescents, possibly because they’re more likely to act impulsively and use social media. Leakage isn't always verbal—it can also be through actions, like creating violent videos or artwork. Like de Becker, the BAU warns against dismissing these signs, as it's often difficult to distinguish between harmless venting and genuine threats.)

De Becker points out that the impact of a threat depends on the recipient’s reaction. So if someone threatens you, avoid showing fear, as doing so can give more confidence to the person making the threat. Instead, calmly assess the situation, ask yourself whether you’re in immediate danger, and act accordingly.

(Shortform note: The FBI provides a guide for responding to threats and intimidations. When faced with a physical threat, they recommend three options: Run, hide, or fight as a last resort. For verbal threats, they advise recording the exact words and details about the person making the threat. If you receive a phone threat, try to keep the caller on the line and collect as much information as possible. For electronic threats, preserve the message and notify law enforcement immediately.)

Preventing and Responding to Different Forms of Violence

Now that we’ve discussed ways to predict, avoid, and respond to violence in a general sense, let’s explore strategies for preventing and reacting to different forms of violence: workplace violence, domestic violence, stalking, youth-related violence, and violence against public figures.

Workplace Violence

De Becker writes that violence in the workplace—physical attacks that occur in a work setting—can be prevented. He argues that workplace violence often happens because companies lack proper hiring practices and overlook early warning signs of violent behavior. To prevent this type of violence, de Becker provides the following tips for companies:

1. Conduct background checks. Many companies fail to thoroughly research the backgrounds of the people they hire. To avoid employing potentially dangerous individuals, use background checks and verify the information that applicants provide during the hiring process.

How to Conduct a Background Check

When conducting a background check like de Becker recommends, you can either hire a professional service or do it yourself. If you choose to do it yourself, consider the following steps:

1. Know the law. Visit your state's Department of Public Safety website to learn what employers can legally investigate. This ensures your background checks are lawful and ethical.

2. Create clear policies. Create a standard process for background checks to ensure fairness and consistency for all candidates. Consider using an online background check website to review public records.

3. Inform candidates. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires that you tell applicants you'll be conducting a background check, so get the candidate's signed permission as part of your application process.

2. Be responsive to warning signs. Companies must identify high-risk employees early and address their issues through counseling or termination. De Becker suggests that businesses create an environment where employees feel comfortable reporting concerning behavior.

(Shortform note: Many workplace safety experts recommend creating a safe reporting culture. They recommend you provide multiple ways for employees to report issues, such as online forms, email, phone, or in-person. The more options you give, the more likely people will be to speak up when they notice red flags. Creating a safe reporting culture allows companies to address problems early and take appropriate action to foster a safer work environment, like providing counseling or terminating the employee.)

Intimate Partner Homicides

De Becker shares insights on how to predict and prevent the most severe outcome of domestic violence: intimate partner homicide. He argues that most intimate partner homicides are predictable. He writes that these killings rarely occur during heated arguments. Instead, they frequently happen after the victim has left the relationship, often following long periods of stalking by the perpetrator.

(Shortform note: Statistics support de Becker’s claims about intimate partner homicides. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly half of female homicide victims are killed by a current or former male intimate partner. The CDC also reports that about one in 10 victims of intimate partner homicides experienced some form of violence in the month before their deaths.)

De Becker argues that seeking refuge in a shelter can be safer than relying on restraining orders for protection. Going to a shelter makes you physically unavailable, allowing you to avoid potential danger, whereas restraining orders don’t provide you any real protection from violence. He notes that restraining orders can be useful in cases with no history of violent abuse. However, they can worsen situations in which the abuser has a strong emotional investment in the relationship: They can provoke more violence by angering the person whom the order is issued against. Restraining orders can also create a false sense of safety, causing you to let your guard down.

(Shortform note: While domestic violence shelters are valuable resources, experts in domestic violence argue that leaving an abusive relationship isn't always the safest or most feasible immediate option, especially without a safety plan. They point out that leaving can sometimes increase the danger for victims, causing the abuser to become more violent and potentially leading to severe harm or even death. In fact, the US Department of Justice reports that 75% of homicide victims in abusive relationships had attempted to leave in the year prior to their death.)

Stalking

De Becker defines stalking as when someone repeatedly follows, contacts, or observes you against your wishes. He writes that if someone is stalking you, firmly tell them to stop and then cut off all contact. Don’t try to negotiate with them or explain your reasoning, as any form of contact—even telling someone you don’t want to hear from them anymore—can be seen as encouragement to keep reaching out to you. If you respond after promising to ignore the stalker, they’ll think their behavior is effective and continue to harass you.

If you’ve cut off contact and the stalker continues to harass you, de Becker advises you to avoid the temptation to confront them. Even asking someone else to confront the stalker or getting the police involved can escalate the situation, angering the stalker and causing them to harass you even more.

(Shortform note: After you’ve cut off contact, it may be helpful to track a stalker’s behavior in a stalking log. A detailed record of stalking incidents provides evidence and helps you remember specific events if you need to involve the legal system. Your stalking log should include details of each incident, like harassing calls, messages, or encounters. If you report these incidents, note down who you spoke to and their identification details.)

Youth Violence

De Becker writes that youth violence—which can include assault, murder, and even mass shootings—can be prevented. De Becker argues that there are numerous warning signs that might suggest a child's inclination toward violence: an unusual attraction to weapons and brutal behavior, persistent anger, an obsession with media, and exposure to alcohol and drugs, to name a few. Often, youth at risk for violence are also missing important skills like self-motivation and emotional regulation.

Some people question whether violence in the media, like in video games and movies, could incite aggressive behavior in children. While the content of such media matters, de Becker argues that the real problem lies in the hours spent interacting with them, which often take away from valuable human connections. Real human connections help children develop empathy, communication skills, and emotional regulation. Without enough time spent interacting with others, children may never fully develop these skills.

(Shortform note: Other experts argue that violent media may not directly cause violence, but it can be a contributing factor. They acknowledge that consuming violent media won't automatically make you violent, especially if you have a stable home life, good mental health, and a network of friends. But studies show that heavy exposure to media violence does increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and aggressive behaviors while making people less empathetic and helpful. This suggests that while human connections are crucial, as de Becker suggests, the content of media children are exposed to also matters.)

Thus, to reduce youth violence, de Becker argues that parents, schools, and society as a whole must treat children with love and kindness and help them feel valued. He advocates instilling a sense of value, purpose, and empathy in them, as doing so makes them less likely to turn to violence.

Developing Emotional Intelligence in Children

In Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman argues that early emotional education can prevent future problems, as children with poor emotional skills often struggle with anger, depression, and social isolation. Emotionally intelligent children typically have better relationships, academic performance, and overall health.

What parents can do: Goleman says that the family is the first place children learn about emotions, which is why parents must take their child's feelings seriously, use emotional moments as teaching opportunities, and offer positive ways to deal with emotions. He also urges parents to set a positive example by managing their own emotions well.

What schools can do: While it may seem outside the scope of academics, cultivating emotional intelligence in the classroom is a worthwhile investment, says Goleman. He proposes integrating emotional skills into existing subjects rather than creating separate courses. For example, an English class could use stories to discuss empathy and self-awareness. Research shows that students receiving this type of education are more responsible, assertive, understanding, and better at resolving conflicts. They also score higher on standardized achievement tests.

Public Figure Attacks

De Becker writes that some people are motivated to attack celebrities as a way to gain fame and recognition. These attackers usually lack healthy relationships and develop a strong sense of connection to their famous targets. They see attacking a celebrity as a way to link themselves to that celebrity’s fame.

(Shortform note: Cases of celebrity attackers highlight a darker side of parasocial relationships—one-sided connections that people form with celebrities or fictional characters they don't actually know. While most of these relationships are harmless, some can become unhealthy or dangerous. The most extreme cases are borderline-pathological parasocial relationships. In these situations, people lose control over their thoughts, feelings, and sometimes actions regarding the celebrity. They may develop delusional beliefs, like thinking the celebrity would welcome them into their home or that dying for the celebrity is a noble act.)

De Becker points out that after a widely covered assassination, the danger of copycat attacks soars. This is because the media sensationalize the attacks, portraying the perpetrators as highly competent and dangerous and giving others the confidence that they, too, can successfully carry out an attack.

(Shortform note: This phenomenon is known as the contagion effect, and it doesn't just apply to assassinations—it also affects suicide rates. When the media extensively covers a celebrity suicide, it can lead to an increase in suicide attempts among vulnerable people. This happens because detailed reporting on suicides can unintentionally glamorize or normalize the act, making it seem like a viable option to those who are already struggling. Like de Becker, suicide prevention experts have found that responsible reporting, which avoids sensationalizing details and includes helpline information, can help mitigate this effect.)

To deter more attacks, de Becker suggests removing the promise of fame or recognition, as these are significant motives for these crimes. This means the media should portray criminals in a less appealing light—for instance, by using less flattering nicknames instead of sensational nicknames or full names, which tend to glamorize or aggrandize the criminal. Additionally, instead of focusing on the criminal and giving them the attention they seek, the media should focus more on the personnel and strategies in place to prevent such attacks.

(Shortform note: The FBI agrees with de Becker, explaining that being mindful of the terms and language we use to describe attacks can help deter them. They suggest avoiding terms that project power and sensationalize violence like “active shooter” and “lone wolf.” Instead, they recommend using more neutral language like “incident” instead of “attack” or “offender” instead of “attacker.” The FBI also urges the media to avoid naming the criminals, showing their photos and videos, or doing detailed reporting on their lives and motivations.)