ChapterPDF Available

Crisis negotiation

Authors:
Oostinga, M. S. D. (2017). Crisis negotiation. In B. Baker, R. Minhas, & L. Wilson (Eds.), What you need
to know about psychology and law: Factbook Volume II. European Association of Psychology and Law.
CRISIS NEGOTIATION
Miriam Oostinga, PhD Candidate
University of Twente, NL
What is crisis negotiation?
Police officers, often the first respondents on the scene, are confronted with crisis situations
such as suicidal individuals, rioters, hostage takers, religious or political fanatics and many
more. Where in the past the only solution to this problem was the use of a specialized
response team, nowadays a more peaceful solution is available known as ‘crisis negotiation’.
Crisis negotiation is the communication between a trained negotiator from the police and a
perpetrator (St-Yves & Michaud, 2012). The ultimate goal of the negotiator is to achieve
behavioral change. That is, they want the perpetrator to stop the situation without risking the
safety of victims. The victim may either be the perpetrator himself, a person taken hostage,
bystander or police officer (Beauregard & Michaud, 2015).
In the literature usually a distinction is made between expressive and instrumental
types of incidents (Hammer & Rogan, 1997; Vecchi, Van Hasselt, & Romano, 2005). In an
expressive situation, the perpetrator is in need of help and wants to draw attention to
him/herself. This type of crisis negotiation includes suicide attempts, barricaded persons, and
domestic disputes. In an instrumental situation, the perpetrator makes demands to achieve a
businesslike transaction. This type of crisis negotiation includes sieges, kidnappings, and
extortions (Giebels & Noelanders, 2004).
Goal of negotiating
To administer behavioral change of the perpetrator, the negotiator focuses on three sub goals:
(i) gaining time, (ii) gathering intelligence, and (iii) influencing the behavior of the perpetrator.
Gaining extra time enables more time to make contact with the perpetrator and build rapport,
the organization has more time to secure operations, and the expectations of the perpetrator
become more realistic. The gathering of intelligence helps to fully understand the situation
and to make more informed decisions. The influencing of behavior is a necessary prerequisite
to soften the transition from a perpetrator’s uncooperative to cooperative behavior (Giebels
& Noelanders, 2004; Vecchi, Hasselt, & Romano, 2005). To be effective in achieving these sub
goals, the negotiator needs to make sense of the overall situation.
Sensemaking
Sensemaking is a process to understand the motivation of the other party (Weick, Sutcliffe, &
Obstfeld, 2005). Each negotiation is different, as how a conversation evolves depends on the
type of situation (expressive or instrumental) and personal characteristics of the perpetrator
(e.g., cultural origin). By listening, the negotiator can make sense of the other party’s
motivation and determine what is important and what is not. Research shows that this could
be extracted from how the perpetrator addresses certain topics (Taylor, 2002). That is, the
words used indicate whether the focus is on instrumental issues, relationships or the
individual. Once this motivation is established, a negotiator could try to talk on the same level
of motivation, as this makes their communication more in sync. For example, research from
Giebels and Taylor (2009) shows that when addressing a perpetrator from a low-context
country (individualistic, e.g., the United Kingdom), persuasive arguments appear to be
particularly effective, as these individuals prefer more direct messages. In contrast, the use of
threats may be ineffective when talking to a perpetrator from a high-context country
(collectivistic, e.g., China), as they prefer more indirect messages. A more recent study from
Giebels, Oostinga, Taylor, and Curtis (in press) shows that formal language and messages,
which emphasize laws and regulations, appear to be effective when addressing a perpetrator
from a high-uncertainty avoidant country (e.g., Germany), as these individuals are less tolerant
of unknown or uncertain situations. However, when using this approach with perpetrators
originating from a low uncertainty avoidant country (e.g., the Netherlands) this is less
effective.
Hostages
A potential pitfall of focusing on how a perpetrator should be approached, is overlooking the
hostage (when present) and their psychological well-being. During the negotiation, the
hostage may, for example, develop excessive stress, feelings of sadness, or hopelessness.
Although focusing on how to get the hostages out alive by addressing the perpetrator is
important, psychological processes during the negotiation should not be underestimated, not
least because these can contribute to a Post-Traumatic Stress-Disorder (PTSD) afterwards
(Crocq & Pierson, 2012). Even more so, research (e.g. Giebels, Noelanders, & Vervaeke, 2005)
suggests that negotiators can play a critical role in estimating and promoting the psychological
wellbeing of hostages during the negotiation. For example, negotiators can let hostages know
that they really matter, focus on their own professional appearance to create trust, and by
having contact, they show the hostages that there is someone out there working on their
release. The extent to which hostages need these affirmations is, again, dependent on the
situation and the person. It is therefore important for the negotiator to include the hostages’
needs in their sensemaking of the situation.
What’s new?
More recent efforts in the crisis negotiation field focus on situations where something goes
wrong in sensemaking: the negotiator talks on the wrong communicative frame or makes an
error in the communication (cf., Oostinga, Giebels, & Taylor, 2017). So far, it is unknown what
the best response is after something is said in error.
Conclusion
Crisis negotiations are police-civilian interactions in which the focus is on making the
perpetrator stop the situation by gaining time, gathering intelligence and influencing the
behavior. Recent research focuses on how a negotiator can make sense of the motivations of
the perpetrator to be able to fine-tune the communication to their needs. When doing this,
the psychological well-being of possible hostages should not be forgotten, as addressing their
needs during the negotiation may promote their well-being on the long run.
Quick summary
- The ultimate goal of a crisis negotiation is to achieve behavioral change.
- Within the interaction, the negotiator focuses on gaining time, gathering intelligence
and influencing the behavior of the perpetrator.
- Making sense of the type of incident (either expressive or instrumental) and personal
characteristics of the perpetrator (e.g., culture) is key to fine-tuning crisis
communication.
- The hostages (if present) should not be overlooked and can also be reached during the
crisis negotiation itself to estimate and promote their psychological well-being.
References
Beauregard, E., & Michaud, P. (2015). “HIGH-RISK”: A useful tool for improving police decision-
making in hostage and barricade incidents. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology,
30(3), 125-138. doi: 10.1007/s11896-014-9151-4
Crocq, L, & Pierson, F. (2012). Psychological reactions of hostages and others deprived of their
freedom due to criminal aggression. In M. St-Yves & P. Collins (Eds.), The psychology of
crisis intervention for law enforcement officers (pp. 489-510). Toronto, CA: Carswell.
Giebels, E., & Noelanders, S. (2004). Crisis negotiations: A multiparty perspective. Veenendaal,
NL: Universal Press.
Giebels, E., Noelanders, S., & Vervaeke, G. (2005). The hostage experience: Implications for
negotiation strategies. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12(3), 241-253. doi:
10.1002/cpp.453
Giebels, E., Oostinga, M. S. D., Taylor, P. J., & Curtis, J. L. (2017). The cultural dimension of
uncertainty avoidance impacts police-civilian interaction. Law and Human Behavior,
41(1), 93-102. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000227
Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2009). Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations: Persuasive
arguments and cultural differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 5-19. doi:
10.1037/a0012953
Hammer, M. R., & Rogan, R. G. (1997). Negotiation models in crisis situations: The value of a
communication-based approach. In R. G. Rogan, M. R. Hammer, & C. Van Zandt (Eds.),
Dynamic processes of crisis negotiation, (pp. 9–24).Westport, CT: Praeger.
Oostinga, M. S. D., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2017). 'An error is feedback': The experience of
communication error management in crisis negotiations. Police Practice and
Research. doi: 10.1080/15614263.2017.1326007+
St-Yves, M., & Michaud, P. (2012). From Munich to Columbine. In M. St-Yves & P. Collins (Eds.),
The psychology of crisis intervention for law enforcement officers (pp. 3-22). Toronto, CA:
Carswell.Taylor, P. J. (2002). A cylindrical model of communication behavior in crisis
negotiations. Human Communication Research, 28(1), 7-48. doi:
10.1111/j.14682958.2002.tb00797.x
Vecchi, G. M., Van Hasselt, V.B., & Romano, S.J. (2005). Crisis (hostage) negotiation: current
strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution. Aggression and Violent Behavior
10(5), 533-551. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2004.10.001
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking.
Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
This research examines how the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance-a person's (in)tolerance for uncertain or unknown situations-impacts communication alignment in crisis negotiations. We hypothesized that perpetrators high on uncertainty avoidance would respond better to negotiators who use formal language and legitimize their position with reference to law, procedures, and moral codes. Data were transcriptions of 53 negotiations from a Dutch-German police training initiative, where police negotiators interacted with a high (German) and low (Dutch) uncertainty-avoidant mock perpetrator. Consistent with accounts of cross-cultural interaction, negotiators tended to achieve more alignment in within-culture interactions compared to cross-cultural interactions. Moreover, German negotiators, who scored higher on uncertainty avoidance than the Dutch negotiators, were found to use more legitimizing messages and more formal language than their Dutch counterparts. Critically, irrespective of the negotiators cultural background, the use of these behaviors was a significant moderator of the degree to which negotiator and perpetrator aligned their communicative frames: Using legitimizing and formal language helped with German perpetrators but had no effect on Dutch perpetrators. Our findings show the effects of cultural background on communication alignment and demonstrate the benefits of using more formal language and messages that emphasize law and regulations when interacting with perpetrators high on uncertainty avoidance. (PsycINFO Database Record
Article
Full-text available
The aim of the study is to examine several combinations of risk factors known to the police – i.e., perpetrator and situational characteristics of the incidents – leading to two possible outcomes in domestic hostage and barricade incidents (HBI): autoaggressive and heteroaggressive behaviors from the perpetrator. Using a series of conjunctive analyses on a sample of 534 hostage and barricade incidents, results show that, depending on the specific combination of factors, the likelihood of violence could very much vary, suggesting that the checklist approach is not adequate for risk assessment in hostage and barricade incidents. HIGH-RISK represents a decision support system that can be easily integrated to any crisis-intervention structure (CIS) or police unit dealing with hostage and barricade incidents.
Article
From a clinical and social psychological perspective, this exploratory study aims at relating the hostage experience to hostage negotiation strategies. Therefore, we conducted 11 semi-structured and in-depth interviews with victims of two types of hostage-taking: sieges and kidnappings. The results showed that all hostages reported feelings of helplessness. Additionally, feelings of uncertainty and isolation were particularly strong for victims of kidnapping, while this was not the case for victims of sieges. Furthermore, our analyses suggest that prudence is called for labeling the positive bond that is likely to develop between hostages and their captors as some sort of psychological artifact. We conclude with some general guidelines for estimating and promoting the psychological well-being of hostages during their captivity. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
Crisis (hostage) negotiation has been described as the most significant development in law enforcement and police psychology over the past several decades. This paper reviews three primary components of crisis negotiation: (1) the incorporation of crisis management and intervention in current broad-spectrum approaches to crisis negotiation; (2) the Behavioral Change Stairway Model (BCSM), constructed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU), that provides a systematic, multistep process directed toward peaceful, nonlethal resolution of critical incidents; and (3) role-playing as a vital tool in the assessment and training of crisis negotiation skills. Advancements and limitations in the field of crisis negotiation are highlighted; suggestions for directions that future work in this area might take are offered.
Article
Sensemaking involves turning circumstances into a situation that is comprehended explicitly in words and that serves as a springboard into action. In this paper we take the position that the concept of sensemaking fills important gaps in organizational theory. The seemingly transient nature of sensemaking belies its central role in the determination of human behavior, whether people are acting in formal organizations or elsewhere. Sensemaking is central because it is the primary site where meanings materialize that inform and constrain identity and action. The purpose of this paper is to take stock of the concept of sensemaking. We do so by pinpointing central features of sensemaking, some of which have been explicated but neglected, some of which have been assumed but not made explicit, some of which have changed in significance over time, and some of which have been missing all along or have gone awry. We sense joint enthusiasm to restate sensemaking in ways that make it more future oriented, more action oriented, more macro, more closely tied to organizing, meshed more boldly with identity, more visible, more behaviorally defined, less sedentary and backward looking, more infused with emotion and with issues of sensegiving and persuasion. These key enhancements provide a foundation upon which to build future studies that can strengthen the sensemaking perspective.
Psychological reactions of hostages and others deprived of their freedom due to criminal aggression
  • L Crocq
  • F Pierson
Crocq, L, & Pierson, F. (2012). Psychological reactions of hostages and others deprived of their freedom due to criminal aggression. In M. St-Yves & P. Collins (Eds.), The psychology of crisis intervention for law enforcement officers (pp. 489-510). Toronto, CA: Carswell.
Negotiation models in crisis situations: The value of a communication-based approach
  • M R Hammer
  • R G Rogan
Hammer, M. R., & Rogan, R. G. (1997). Negotiation models in crisis situations: The value of a communication-based approach. In R. G. Rogan, M. R. Hammer, & C. Van Zandt (Eds.), Dynamic processes of crisis negotiation, (pp. 9-24).Westport, CT: Praeger.
An error is feedback': The experience of communication error management in crisis negotiations
  • M S D Oostinga
  • E Giebels
  • P J Taylor
Oostinga, M. S. D., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2017). 'An error is feedback': The experience of communication error management in crisis negotiations. Police Practice and Research. doi: 10.1080/15614263.2017.1326007+