Wk5CH15

CHAPTER 15: Crisis/Hostage Negotiation It may seem strange to have a chapter on hostage negotiation in a crisis book. There are several reasons this chapter is included, and they all pertain to your general health, well-being, and indeed, ability to do crisis intervention of the most harrowing kind under emergency conditions. First, the name of this chapter has been changed to include crisis negotiation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation found that only about 12 percent of all incidents in which a perpetrator is barricaded and refuses to surrender involve hostages. Most crises involving barricade situations occur in the home, are unplanned, and involve males who are enraged by domestic disputes (Roush, 2002; Strentz, 2006), which is clearly a population with whom many readers of this book will deal. Many more crisis interventionists are now either employed by or work with law enforcement agencies in a consultant capacity (Hatcher et al., 1998; Slatkin, 2000). Because police officers such as those of the Memphis Crisis Intervention Team routinely integrate hostage negotiation skills with crisis intervention techniques in a wide variety of crisis situations, the term “crisis negotiation” is a more apt and descriptive term. Second, the chilling accounts of hostage takings that occur a continent away by terrorists make sensational headlines. Most of us assume that being taken hostage would happen to “the other guy” but not to us. Yet if you are a school counselor, a mental health worker, or even a medical staff member at a world-famous hospital such as St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, you might be “the other guy.” About 52 percent of all hostage takings are instigated by mentally ill or emotionally disturbed individuals (Blau, 1994, p. 257). This statistic should indicate that human services providers are not insulated from the potential for being taken hostage. The third reason for this chapter is that because violence is rising in the workplace (Kein, 1999; Runyan, Zakocs, & Zwerling, 2000) and acts of hostage taking occur there, it is likely that crisis interventionists will be involved in debriefing the hostages or serendipitously doing the negotiation because they are on the premises (McWhirter & Linzer, 1994). The fourth reason is that crisis intervention is the core of hostage negotiation. Donohue, Ramesh, and Borchgrevink (1991) call hostage negotiation “crisis bargaining,” which they define as negotiation aimed at coercing another person to comply with some course of action. All the elements of a crisis are present: Disequilibrium and stress, dysfunctional behavior, poor cognition, heightened emotionality, and the traumatic wake that occurs after the resolution of the event are all part and parcel of a hostage situation. A crisis negotiation happens, according to Hammer (2007, p. 32), because five conditions that characterize a crisis are almost always present. First, a decision-making point is present such that severe negative outcomes can occur if the “wrong” decision is made. Second, the element of surprise is present and is invariably not pleasant. Third, the event is unexpected; it has a low probability of happening and high negative consequences when it does. Fourth, the situation is highly unstable and time appears extremely limited. Fifth, it is characterized by extreme stress, emotional arousal, anxiety, and fear. Further complicating matters, while the event itself is occurring the interventionist is dealing with the perpetrator, not the victims. There is probably no other crisis situation in which an intervener will need to be so skillful in handling a variety of difficult problems in rapidly changing circumstances under such dangerous conditions. The fifth reason for this chapter is that the psychological dynamics of people who survive being held hostage are not unlike those of victims of battering, coerced prostitutes, and abused children, which can give you a new perspective on what it means to go through those traumas essentially as a hostage (Herman, 1995, p. 92). Therefore, many of these skills you will learn from using this book are the foundation on which crisis negotiation interactions are built (Hammer, 2007; McMains & Mullins, 2010; Noesner, 2010; Strentz, 2006). Sixth, a number of potential suicides and domestic violence situations end up as barricade or hostage situations. At times, individuals who are bent on killing themselves and do not quite have the courage will enlist the help of the police, who will indeed shoot back when shot at. Lord and Sloop (2010) examined data from the national Hostage Barricade Data System (HOBAS; Federal Bureau of Investigation Crisis Management Unit, 2008) that designate death as a Suicide-by-Cop (SbC) event and compared them to general self-inflicted suicides. Their model predicted a 97.9 hit rate for those suicides as SbCs. So it is clear that there are suicidal persons who use the police to expedite their departure from this world. In regard to the part domestic violence plays in barricade/hostage situations, 46 percent of the incidents reported by the HOBAS system involved spouse/ex-spouse, family members, or significant others. Finally, more than 95 percent of crisis/hostage situations are resolved peacefully without shots being fired, and this is due to the purposeful use of crisis intervention theory and techniques (Slatkin, 2005; Strentz, 1995, p. 134). Recent HOBAS data confirm that negotiation is effective, with 57 percent of negotiations resolved by verbal techniques only. In 80 percent of the situations hostages were not killed or injured, and in 82 percent the hostage taker was not killed or injured (Federal Bureau of Investigation Crisis Management Unit, 2008). To bring the issue “up close and personal,” the human services worker is likely to meet people who have had their lives radically altered in what they may feel are very negative ways by human services agencies. The rise of the American health-care system as a bureaucratic institution has led people to feel uncared for and ignored in times of emotional stress, particularly when they do not seem able to find coping mechanisms or resources on their own (Turner, 1984, p. 177). Just as hostage taking is a political act for terrorists too weak to cause revolution, in the health-care setting it is a feeling act from people too weak to change what they believe to be grave injustices perpetrated on them by that system (Turner, 1984, p. 172). In other words, these people typically will have very high triage assessment scores when in crisis, and their lethality level will be commensurately high as well. Dynamics of Hostage Taking First, hostage takers should be viewed as people who have reached an acute level of frustration. Second, the taking of hostages should be viewed as an attempt at problem solving. Third, hostage takers in most cases see hostages as mere pawns in a larger game and use them as bargaining chips throughout the negotiation process. Finally, the taking of hostages is an attention-seeking behavior to attract an audience, for without an audience the hostage taking is meaningless (Schlossberg, 1980, pp. 113–114). Dynamically, two general classifications of behavior may be observed in hostage takers: instrumental behavior and expressive behavior. Instrumental behavior has some recognizable goal the perpetrator seeks to have fulfilled. Bargaining negotiation is most often used with instrumental types and involves situation-related, substantive objective wants or demands of each party (Hammer & Rogan, 1997). For example, a bank robber caught in the act is willing to exchange a hostage for a getaway car. Those engaging in expressive behavior seek to display their power. Expressive negotiation focuses on the impact of emotion and relationship on the resolution of the crisis (Hammer & Rogan, 1997). Medical personnel held in a hospital by an aggrieved parent who has just lost his child is a demonstration of the hostage taker’s ability to gather attention to himself and demonstrate his power. Understanding the dynamics of the hostage taker is extremely important, because it is the expressive (emotion-based) hostage situation that the human services worker is most likely to encounter. Hostage-taking acts that are more likely to result in injuries or fatalities are expressive in nature (Lipsedge & Littlewood, 1997). Of the two, expressive acts are the more difficult to understand, for such action appears to the casual observer to be senseless. There would seem to be no way that the perpetrators can gain anything except their own or others’ destruction (Miron & Goldstein, 1978, p. 10). However, as an expressive gesture, such action is extremely powerful and indicates to the world at large that the perpetrators are able for a short while to take matters and destiny into their own hands. These dynamics combine variously to generate a number of types of hostage takers that the human services worker is likely to encounter. To further complicate matters, instrumental and expressive acts are sometimes blended and are perpetrated by people with political, economic, and psychological agendas (Hammer, 2007, pp. 36–37). So, although the typologies portrayed in this chapter may be overly simplistic and not so easily type cast, we are mainly concerned with dealing with expressive types. Types of Hostage Takers Although Dominick Misino, one of the very best New York Police Department negotiators, proposes that one not get too hung up on diagnostic labels, he still spends time in his book on the different types of hostage takers and how to handle them (Misino, 2004, pp. 110–120). Why does he do this? If a negotiator can ferret out characteristics and identify the particular type of hostage taker being dealt with, then a valid triage assessment can be made and appropriate psychological and behavioral responses constructed. In general, with criminal types who are engaging in instrumental behavior, a rational, problem-solving approach that seeks a compromise in concrete terms is proposed. With psychotic or other emotionally disturbed types who are engaging in expressive behavior, emphasis is on affective techniques that seek to promote affiliation and interdependence between the negotiator and the hostage taker (Donohue & Roberto, 1993). With terrorists who are “emotionally rational,” a mix of the two basic techniques is probably best (Miron & Goldstein, 1978, pp. 96–97). Instrumental and instrumental/expressive hostage takers such as bank robbers, political terrorists, and religious fanatics/cultists have been omitted from this chapter because of the unlikelihood of the worker’s encountering these types. However, the instrumental/expressive type, such as the aggrieved or wronged individual, and true expressive types, such as psychotics or those with personality disorders, that the worker is likely to encounter are legion and are frequent recipients of human services. The Mentally Disturbed Although earlier research (Fuselier, 1981a; Strentz, 1984) indicated that 50–60 percent of hostage situations involved a person who was mentally ill, newer research indicates that figure is most likely high, with Hammer (2007, pp. 58–59) reporting a rate of 7–19 percent. Indeed, Hammer is critical of the emphasis on psychopathology because he feels that takes away from the core issues of the interactive dynamics of crisis/hostage negotiation. That being said, the people we are most likely to deal with have a high potential for a mental disorder. Mentally disturbed hostage takers suffer from various kinds of psychological maladies. A mentally disturbed person may or may not be in touch with reality. This individual will likely be a loner, acting in obedience to some intensely personal, often obscure impulse (Cooper, 1981, p. 57). This person may believe that taking hostages will carry out some sacred mission or prove that he or she can do something important (Fuselier, 1981a). The negotiator is likely to encounter a variety of major diagnostic categories of mentally disturbed hostage takers. The problem is that most mentally disturbed individuals do not fall into the nice discrete categories that follow. Many times they are comorbid or have two or more different diagnoses. Some of the most dangerous hostage takers are those who have Axis I psychoses and Axis II personality disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pp. 28–29), which may also be compounded by substance abuse problems. As Strentz (2006, p. 6) indicates, these are some of the most dangerous individuals a negotiator can come up against. One of the first things that needs to happen is an attempt to determine whether the person has been prescribed antipsychotic or mood-stabilizing medication (Misino, 2004, p. 106) and whether the person has been taking it. The answer to that last question is almost invariably “No.” Following are a few of the more common types of hostage taker that human service workers are likely to run into in the course of their work. The Schizophrenic Personality. In a sense, everybody the negotiator comes in contact with is schizophrenic in that they see the world differently than others do (Misino, 2004, p. 110). However, while people diagnosed with schizophrenia come in a variety of forms, they are all out of touch with reality. They may be recognized by their false system of beliefs and especially by their hallucinations or delusions, disheveled appearance, eccentric dress, ritualistic behavior associated with magical thinking, and their brief, concrete responses to questions. People with paranoid schizophrenia are generally the most dangerous of the various types, and this is further exacerbated if they have a companion diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (Strentz, 2006, p. 104). They often take hostages in order to carry out what they believe is a “master plan” or to obey “orders from some special person or deity” (Fuselier, 1981a). They are conflicted and have difficulty coping with even minimally stressful situations. They operate out of logic-tight mental compartments that may be extremely bizarre, such as demanding the removal of all white people from the planet within 24 hours (Strentz, 1995, p. 142). One of the frequent symptoms of this type of hostage taker is ideas of reference, in which the individual believes that public media broadcasts are addressing him or her personally and transmitting special coded messages that deliver warnings or tell the individual to do things (Strentz, 2006, p. 105). This combination of frustration, fear, and conflict produces a tremendous amount of anxiety. Excessive anxiety tends to make such people extremely sensitive and volatile, particularly when they are off their medication and their hallucinations and delusions are very active. Real time may be sped up or slowed down for the paranoid schizophrenic. Dissociation from reality is a hallmark of this type, and the negotiator must try to keep the dialogue at an even pace and keep the individual calm enough to stay in touch with the reality of the moment. A very ominous and dangerous turn of events occurs when the paranoid’s ideation turns from a collective “they” or “them” against the individual to a specific person or organization (Strentz, 2006, p. 106). Individuals who have not only paranoid features with schizophrenia but an additional diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder are exponentially more dangerous (Strentz, 2006, p. 103). Their delusions of people or institutions plotting against them means they have to take action first before they are harmed, and they have few moral pangs or guilt feelings about doing so. Good negotiating strategy calls for reducing anxiety and at the same time attempting to create a problem-solving atmosphere (Maher, 1977, pp. 64–65). Keeping the subject focused on generalities as his target (“they” and “them”) is important. Once the subject identifies a specific person or organization as the target, the potential for violence increases a great deal (Strentz, 2006, p. 106). Many times allowing paranoid schizophrenics to ventilate to the point of exhaustion is an effective method of ending the situation (Strentz, 2006, p. 102). The best approach is to accept the paranoid schizophrenic’s statements as true, although the negotiator should not agree with them. The negotiator should not try to convince the person that he or she is wrong (Fuselier, 1981a). Empathic understanding of the beliefs of the paranoid and reflection of the disturbed individual’s feelings are appropriate responses. Developing closeness or trust is not likely and indeed may cause the paranoid to become suspicious and distrustful of the negotiator. Because paranoid schizophrenics tend to have sexual identity problems and may become homophobic if a same-sex negotiator is used, it is probably a good idea to have an opposite-sex negotiator. Being sincere and asking questions about the individual’s world-views is helpful in assessing and determining what strategy may be successful (Strentz, 2006, p. 110). In introducing themselves, negotiators need to stay away from references to rank and downplay their officer roles (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 318). Like Sgt. Friday of Dragnet fame, stick close to the facts and ask for the subject’s view of the situation (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 327). Hostage Taker (HT): The radio messages keep coming, even though I’ve told these people to shut their radios off. They’re driving me crazy! You’re a cop, you could make them do that. Negotiator (Neg): Well, I’m a cop okay, but right now I am more a guy trying to see if we can’t get you some relief and out of this predicament to the point that you feel safe and can get some peace and quiet. It must be really exasperating that they won’t do what you tell them, particularly when all you want is peace and quiet. What are they saying to you that is causing you so much distress? HT: They are so damn loud. It’s the Tea Party, I tell you, and they espouse all this Goody Two Shoes stuffbut they want to have sex with me and it’s the males for God’s sake. They keep sending the messages. Don’t you hear them? Neg: No, I don’t hear them, but clearly you do and that’s what counts. Can you tell me some more about the messages? Like when you get them. I know they are scaring the hell out of you by the way you are attempting to handle it. Maybe, since they’re beaming them into your dorm room, we can find a place that’ll seal them off. While the negotiator never sides with the delusions or hallucinations, they should generally be accepted as real for the subject (Fuselier, 1986). The negotiator uses an empathic response that validates the subject’s feeling and proposes a potential way of relieving the painful intrusions by reassuring and attempting to refocus the subject on a proactive solution rather than continue his reactive behavior. The negotiator also shows respect and interest without belittling or making satirical comments about the auditory hallucinations (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 328), at the same time attempting to problem-solve (Fuselier, 1986). The Bipolar Personality. Bipolar hostage takers may be in either a manic or a depressive phase of the illness. When bipolar disorder in the manic stage is overlaid with antisocial personality disorder, the individual is extremely volatile and dangerous (Strentz, 2006, p. 116). He or she will take chances, make threats, and believe that he or she is shrewd enough to escape the police no matter how impossible that might be. Manic individuals need to be kept busy and involved so their attention doesn’t focus on the hostages. Their egos also need to be stroked. Active listening skills are critical in allowing the individual with mania to feel that he or she is being heard and is the center of attention. If the person also has antisocial tendencies, then the reality of the situation needs to be made clear as to how far he or she can go before police will take action (Strentz, 2006, pp. 119–121). Neg: An individual as smart as you certainly understands the difficulty of getting that amount of money together in such a short time. If you start shooting people, that will generate a response that will most likely get you hurt. Surely this is not the day or place you wish to get shot to pieces. The person with mania needs to be kept on track and grounded. More directiveness can be applied to the situation as it progresses, but the expectation is that the manic will outlast a single negotiator so that a team of negotiators will be needed (Slatkin, 2005, p. 99). HT: They’re gonna drop me down a hole a hundred years deep, so what difference does it make what I do to these people. Say, what happened to Lt. Murphy, and who are you? Neg: You wore her out. I am Lt. Hansen. Things are certainly not going to be peachy keen after this, and you and I both know that. What you decide to do right now can make a difference in how you fare when you come before a judge, though. Conversely, hostage takers who are depressed seem incapacitated mentally and may not make clear demands (Strentz, 1995, p. 142). They are very confused and identify themselves by their inability to make a firm decision. They may be characterized by slow, subdued speech, a negative outlook on life, and demands intermingled with references to death. Their hostages are frequently persons known to them. Clinically depressed people are very unpredictable and extremely dangerous. Often they are suicidal and may take a hostage to force the police to shoot them (Strentz, 1984, p. 185) for failing to heed their instructions, or they may fire at the police or fire at a hostage (Strentz, 1984, pp. 193–194). This phenomenon has become known in law enforcement as “suicide by cop”; it is essentially a tactic depressed individuals employ to commit suicide when they do not have the courage to kill themselves (Strentz, 2006, pp. 137–149). They are extremely dangerous because they will engage in aggressive actions designed to force the police to kill them (Strentz, 2006, p. 137). In cases of depression, a problem-solving approach would most likely be futile. The negotiator must be firm and manipulative but somewhat paradoxically sympathetic and empathic, and listen, listen, listen (Strentz, 2006, p. 121). The negotiator keeps speech slow and subdued to match that of the subject during this initial interaction. The negotiator reflects the subject’s loss of a sense of control but also takes a positive, nurturing stance. HT: I just don’t know what to do. It’s just a mess. Neg: I can sense you’re feeling like you’ve lost control of about everything. I understand you’ve had some problems for a long time and are pretty down about it and feel like there’s little if any hope, but you’re still here and a long time is not necessarily forever. I also understand you’re one of the best mechanics around. There’s no reason with some R&R, some medication, and therapy you can’t be back to being the best mechanic in Bartlett. Lots of people get down, but “down” isn’t necessarily a forever contract. I see lots of people on this job who get down on their luck just like you, and they are walking around right now getting on with their lives. So why not give me a chance to get you some help? Nothing to lose, everything to gain and feel good about yourself again. At least come meet me by the door. After providing basic understanding and empathic responses, the negotiator challenges the subject’s beliefs and provides clear instructions (Slatkin, 1996) targeted at the depressed person’s indecision to try to induce mobility. At the same time, the negotiator reframes the depression as a relatively commonplace occurrence that can be handled (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p. 326). Neg: Look, like I said, most everybody gets down in the dumps. There’s no reason at all this can’t be taken care of, but holding your kids and everybody else hostage in the day care center is not going to solve that. You can’t imagine the effect it will have on the kids if something bad happens to their dad, and I know you are a father who cares very much what happens to his kids. I’ve done this a long time and have seen its traumatic wake on families. The mess will just get worse if you keep putting yourself deeper in this hole. Send the children out, and then come out and we’ll see if we can’t get this mess out of the hopeless and into the hopeful arena. If the individual is suicidal, the negotiator needs to extract a commitment, no matter how tenuous, to keep the person from acting out a threat, and if possible change the subject to get the person’s mind off the actions he or she is about to take. In the following dialogue, the negotiator attempts to shift the hostage taker’s focus away from suicidal ideation and onto more effective communication. Negotiations in this case involve applying, in a very paced way, the intervention procedures described in the chapter on suicide. A sudden improvement should not be taken as a reflection of the negotiator’s fine intervention skills. To the contrary, a positive change in disposition may mean that the depressive has made up his or her mind to commit suicide. HT: I wonder if you’d see that the picture albums get to the kids? Neg: I’d be willing to help in any way I can, but I want you to agree to not do anything until we get all these other issues settled. HT: I really am feeling much better now. I appreciate all you have tried to do. Neg: Thank you, but if that is true there is no reason you can’t put the gun down, let your family and other kids walk out and walk out yourself. One indication that the hostage taker may be suicidal is the use of hostages to conduct the negotiations. Although getting information from the hostages is a plus, the refusal of the hostage taker to personally negotiate is a bad sign and has a high possibility of ending in violence (Strentz, 1995, p. 142). Hostage: This is Molly Higgins. I’m a secretary here. He says he doesn’t want to talk, that I’m to do his talking. Neg: Thanks for getting on the line, Molly. If you could tell me who else is there and how they are, I’d appreciate it, if it’s OK with Jeb. But I really need to talk to Jeb. So would you tell him to get back on the line, so I can tell him that? Many times depressed individuals fuel their courage by alcohol. When that happens, one of the better ploys is to wait them out until the alcohol wears off and they are no longer under the influence. Another delaying tactic is to get depressed individuals to start to doubt the decision to kill themselves (Strentz, 2006, p. 141). Neg: Do you know that most people who attempt suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge and survive it, later report regretting going through with it as they were flying through the air? You have the rest of your life to kill yourself. I understand you feel the pain is intolerable right now, but forcing us to hurt you isn’t the answer to that deep hurt inside of you. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I would sure like for you to put that gas can down, shove your lighter in your pocket, and come out, and let’s see if there aren’t some other options. The Inadequate/Dependent Personality. These individuals have come to expect that the authority figures in their life will be critical of them. They don’t measure up and generally have to be taken care of by significant others (McMains & Mullins, 2010, p, 301).They have a history of failure and never get things right (Slatkin, 2005, p. 105). They are the born losers in life. They don’t graduate from high school, they don’t keep jobs, they didn’t date the prom queen or anyone else much for that matter, and see themselves as losers. Often they have botched a robbery and have been caught in the process. Because the hostage-taking incident may be the high point of the person’s life, the inadequate personality type tends to stretch the situation for all it is worth. Identified by key phrases such as “I’ll show them who’s boss” and “Now they’ll see what I can do,” this hostage taker basks in the limelight of the situation. Such pronouncements are indicative of a low self-image. Therefore, the motivation for taking hostages may be to prove that the inadequate type can succeed at something. Yet in the same instance, he or she may appear contrite and apologetic for the behavior. The inadequate personality type may initially state demands with considerable conviction and then turn around and provide the negotiator with several options (Strentz, 1984, p. 185). Negotiators need to be aware of and seize those options. In the beginning the negotiator’s strategy is to be open, empathic, understanding, uncritically accepting, and sympathetic to the many grievances the hostage taker has. Helping the individual find a way to end the situation without failing again is critical. Keeping significant others away from the scene is critical because this type of hostage taker may need to show them he actually can do something—like kill somebody. The primary strategy of the negotiator is to present problem-solving alternatives so that the hostage taker will not feel that he or she has “failed again.” The inadequate/dependent person is now involved in something way beyond his or her problem-solving capacity, so after providing ego support, more directiveness is needed. Understand that this individual is impulsive and fatigues easily, so he or she may suddenly give up or take other, more lethal measures to end the situation (Strentz, 2006, p. 89). Playing up to this hostage taker’s ego and helping the person find a face-saving alternative are excellent tactics. Those with inadequate personalities have a need to prove themselves to some “significant” others. The “I’ll show them” statements indicate this need, and they may murder the hostages if their egos are not handled with extreme care (Slatkin, 2005, p. 106). HT: I want a personal interview with the news director of Channel 3 right now. I’ve got some things I want to say. You do that, and I’ll let them go. Neg: I understand how important it is to you to get on television. You let those people go now, and I’ll see that you get on the 10 o’clock news. Reinforcement (Slatkin, 1996) also boosts the inadequate/dependent personality’s image and sets the stage for compliance. Neg: So you made it through Parchman Prison for 7 years. It takes a smart guy to do that. My bet is you’ll be just as smart here and make the exchange for the food. Nurturing the inadequate/dependent’s need for approval is a key component in resolving the situation. As such, the negotiator can take a much more directive stance as an attendant, caring, authority figure (McMains & Mullins, 2010, pp. 302–303). Neg: I think I have enough clout with my boss to make this happen, so it is imperative that you do the following to make this work. The Antisocial Personality. The person with antisocial personality disorder repeatedly comes into conflict with society and is incapable of having significant loyalty to individuals, groups, or social values. Such people tend to blame others and offer rationalizations for their behavior (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and are most likely already adjudicated for some crime (Misino, 2004, p. 110). They are deceitful, superficial, grandiose, lacking in empathy, and don’t accept responsibility for their actions (Greenstone, Kosson, & Gacono, 2000). The antisocial type is likely to dehumanize the hostages and should be considered extremely dangerous to them because this person will manifest little feeling for their well-being. Although antisocial personalities have not internalized moral values, they do understand their effect on others and are therefore potent adversaries. While antisocial personality disorders lack emotional depth, they may display a wide range of skillful emotional overlays in place of true emotional responses (Lanceley, 1981, pp. 31–32). The only concern of these hostage takers is for themselves. They do not relate to others, and attempts to empathize with them will do little good. Personal or sensitive information should never be shared with them, particularly about hostages, as they have absolutely no empathy. Therefore, the negotiator should be aware that this type has no compunction about doing anything to anybody. If at any point this hostage taker decides that hostages are a burden, they will be killed. This individual takes risks and is stimulated, not frightened, by this situation. What frightens others delights the antisocial personality. Because he or she is most likely a criminal and has knowledge of the penal code and system, lying to him or her is not a good idea. Rationalizing the seriousness of the situation and focusing on the mortality of the person is a way of justifying his or her actions and focusing his or her attention on the one thing most desired—not to die! (Strentz, 2006, p. 98). HT: Don’t give me that crap about “more time.” You get that car in here, or I start doing some fun things to this little 6-year-old, and her mommy gets to watch. Neg: I know you’re mad about the car, but you know I gotta go through procedures. Surely you know how the bigwigs are and having to be at their beck and call. I understand you could work the kid over, but I wonder if you’ve thought about the good that’ll do you in the long run. It’s your hide you’re dealing with, too! So let’s work on that side of it. The negotiator does not focus on the hostage but rather focuses directly on the antisocial’s profound desire to preserve his or her own best interests, affiliating with the hostage taker from the standpoint that they both suffer injustices at the hands of the powers-that-be (Bradstreet, 1992). The profound egocentricity of the antisocial type requires constant stimulation. Again, reinforcement (Slatkin, 1996) along with confrontation about negative consequences can induce the antisocial type to become more reasonable. A primary objective in the negotiation process is to keep the holder’s attention and avoid having him or her turn attention to the hostages as a source of stimulus. Neg: You’re the man here. You’re the one calling the shots. We both know that chance brought the security cop back, and except for that you’d be outta here. I gotta hand it to you, it was a great plan. So use your smarts here too. You and I can work a deal. This person is not only streetwise but also police-wise, so trickery is not a good idea. Also, the negotiator should avoid references to jail or hospitalization, because antisocial types are likely to become highly agitated if they believe they are going to lose their freedom or it is insinuated that they are crazy. Dealing with this person should never be done in a tentative manner. Such responses will be seen as weakness and will be greeted with contempt. Confidence, assurance, forth-rightness, and assertiveness are critical to dealing with the antisocial type. The negotiator may not know the answer, but a waffling “I… umh … ah … well… I guess… Ill… ah… have to check that out, okay?” is not the way to handle the antisocial personality. Neg: You know you have done several things right here to help yourself, but the request for the lawyer to come down here will have to be passed through the site commander. That’s just procedure. You know that. The Borderline Personality. We have already met the hallmark of difficult clients in Chapter 5, people with borderline personality disorder. They are no strangers to contacts with the police in either barricade or hostage situations because of their emotional volatility (Misino, 2004, p. 113). Along with the antisocial personality, they are so numerous and infamous in barricade situations that a number of the negotiators referenced in this chapter have felt obliged to make recommendations on how to handle them (Borum & Strentz, 1992; Lanceley, 2003; McMains & Mullins, 2010; Misino, 2004; Slatkin, 2005; Strentz, 2006). One of the major problems in dealing with borderline personalities is their ambivalence about people in authority. Given their mercurial “I hate you, don’t leave me” feelings, negotiators have their hands full trying to defuse emotionality and maintain contact to keep them from acting on their impulses. Strentz (2006, p. 237) believes this is one of the most dangerous of hostage takers because this person doesn’t realize the gravity of the situation and may make inordinate demands and be extremely agitated when they are not immediately met. Further, the subject may start to exhibit psychotic and suicidal/homicidal (Borum & Strentz, 1992; Lanceley, 2003) ideation and indeed act on it. They engage in numerous suicide attempts and have completion rates of about 10 percent. Combine the foregoing characteristics with the additional stressors of a hostage situation, and it is easy to see why Borum and Strentz (1992) think it is important for the negotiators to monitor their own stress levels or, better yet, have another professional monitor them. Primary components of negotiating strategies with borderline personalities are setting limits, structuring goals, showing empathic understanding, defusing emotions, caringly confronting manipulative behavior, providing support but not eliciting dependence, and staying “with” the subject to control erratic and impulsive behavior. Asking them how the subject feels about a negotiation point is more important than the point itself (Misino, 2004, p. 114). Calmness, structure, and coolness under extreme emotional conditions are the watchwords. Structuring detail about what normally happens in each stage of the negotiation process and staying in touch with the subject throughout the situation are critical (Lanceley, 2003; Borum & Strentz, 1992). Bonding with and reassuring the subject that help is available and that you will find him or her help are important in massaging that part of the borderline personality that is so needy. Neg: (on the telephone) No, I will not abandon you like your girlfriend or family has. I understand you are extremely distraught over your lover wanting to leave you. But I want you to understand that I can’t help you much as long as those day care kids are still in there and you won’t put that kitchen knife down and come out and talk to me face to face. If you really do want help, like you say, you can do these things to help yourself. We’ll take this one step at a time, and you and I will work this through together. I don’t ever quit on folks, and from the way you are talking about how much you care about your girlfriend, I don’t think you do either. In summary, the ideal relationship with the mentally disturbed hostage taker is one in which affiliation and interdependence are high, because those factors lead to mutual trust. It is crucial that the negotiator attempt to establish a trusting relationship early on because research has found that once the tone of the relationship is established (high or low), it tends to stay that way for the duration of the negotiation. When negotiators establish low affiliation, the content of the perpetrator’s messages is much more negative and therefore more dangerous (Donohue & Roberto, 1993). Other Hostage Takers The Estranged Person. Misino (2004, p. 104) characterizes this hostage taker as highly unpredictable because he or she is driven solely by emotion. A hostage taker who is connected emotionally to the hostage is extremely volatile and dangerous. Invariably, the estranged hostage taker will know the hostage, who will probably be a spouse, a lover, or his or her children. The estranged hostage taker is experiencing a breakdown in his or her interpersonal relationships. These breakdowns lead to domestic quarrels and, in turn, the escalating nature of the quarrels and the feared loss of the significant other lead the estranged person to take the hostage. (Alcohol often provides the liquid courage necessary to carry out the taking.) The estranged hostage taker seeks to coerce the maintenance of the relationship through force. The most distinctive feature of this kind of hostage taking is its intensely personal nature and its unique purpose of continued domination over the significant other (Cooper, 1981, pp. 27–28). As in any other domestic dispute, the negotiator should be extremely careful of this volatile situation and use empathic listening and responding skills to their fullest. Empathic responding (Slatkin, 1996) that reflects the hurt and despair of the estranged person s feelings demonstrates concern and caring. Neg: Things really seem to have come unraveled even after you tried your damnedest. It really hurts that she doesn’t appreciate what you’ve done for the family. Self-disclosure of like problems (Slatkin, 1996) may be a way of creating a bond with the estranged person who is looking for a sympathetic shoulder to cry on. Neg: I haven’t had it as bad as you, but I sure do know about working two jobs to make ends meet and then coming home to a cold shoulder, a cold dinner, and a cold bed. So I do know how it feels. With this type, the negotiator must contend with the highly personal nature of the hostage taking and the continued denial of reality. Intrinsic to intervention is the negotiator’s ability to keep denial from turning into despair. The key to resolution is that the estranged hostage taker needs to be shown a graceful way out (Cooper, 1981, p. 28). HT: It’s not my fault. I’ve done everything she asked, and then she still jilted me. If I can’t have her, nobody will. Neg: She really hurt you, then. I can start to see why you feel you had to do this. I’m wondering, though, if she can’t see now just how strongly you feel. Perhaps you’ve made your point to her. You certainly have to me! Because this type of hostage taker often depersonalizes and belittles the hostage in order to make it easier to harm him or her, the negotiator seeks to restore the hostage’s dignity and personhood (Misino, 2004, p. 105). Neg: That “bitch” as you say has seen you through two stints of rehab, as I understand it. So Melanie has stood by you in very tough times, and you know that. The Institutionalized Individual. Institutionalized hostage takers are inmates who have a grievance, usually about conditions within the system in which they are confined. Hostage takings of this sort are usually deemed instrumental acts planned to produce concrete changes in the institution (Maher, 1977, p. 65). However, an institutional hostage situation invariably also involves expressive elements, and there may be more than one spokesperson among the perpetrators. Therefore, it is extremely important for the negotiator to initiate a dialogue that seeks an empathic understanding of the hostage takers, balanced with focusing on their demands. Because such individuals are wise in the ways of institutional and law enforcement policy, the negotiator needs to be very careful about attempting to manipulate or trick the perpetrators because they are then putting the lives of the hostages in his or her hands, and if caught in a lie, negotiations will crash (Strentz, 2006, p. 157). HT: Go to hell! We want to see the warden, and we want these 25 demands met, and they ain’t negotiable! Neg: I understand you’re pissed that he wouldn’t listen to you. I’ll certainly convey your message to him, but before I do I want to know that the hostages are all right. HT: Kiss off! You ain’t gettin’ nuthin’. Neg: Look! You know how the game goes. You want something; they want something. So let’s get going and see if we can’t get what you want. The Wronged Person. The wronged hostage taker is dissatisfied or aggrieved by the system at large or a particular bureaucracy. Wronged individuals may be identified by the “crosses” they bear and the paranoia associated with their beliefs. These hostage takers feel so grossly discriminated against by the “establishment” that they seek to remake society to their own satisfaction (Cooper, 1981, p. 10). Aggrieved or wronged individuals are high on the list of potential candidates with whom the human services worker may become involved—if not as a negotiator, then as someone being taken hostage. Aggrieved people feel that no one in a position of responsibility will willingly redress the terrible wrongs that have been done to them. After exhausting a variety of acceptable options within the system and still receiving no redress, such people may do something dramatic (Turner, 1984, p. 178). The wronged individual needs a chance to ventilate his or her feelings to an empathic and sympathetic listener. Summary restatement and reflection (Slatkin, 1996) allow the negotiator to convey to the wronged individual how deeply understood he or she is and that, for once, somebody in authority is listening. HT: The doctors, nurses, the administrators, the psychologists, the social workers, they’re all at fault. She wouldn’t have died if they’d done their job. Everybody thinks this is such a hotshot hospital. It’s really Murder Incorporated, and people need to know the truth. They killed my wife. She was everything to me. I’m lost without her. Neg: So what you’re saying is that the hospital up and down the line couldn’t have screwed things up worse. And in screwing them up they lost your wife. She was the center of your world, and now your world is gone. It really sounds as if the hurt and anger goes bone deep, and the frustration you’ve felt makes this the only way you can get some respect and command their attention. Associated with this type of hostage taking is the high priority attached to publicity, because the hostage taker is usually motivated to make the public aware of the wrongs imposed by the particular authorities in question. Proper involvement of the media can enhance the opportunity for releasing the hostages, if the hostage taker perceives that a wrong can be made right by a public airing (Gladis, 1979). Neg: I realize what a terrible shock her death was, and how you trusted all those people. Yet you believe they let you down and should be exposed for the incompetent blunders they’ve made. Would you be willing to make a deal? If I can set it up so you can read that statement you’ve prepared about the hospital, will you let those people out? Negotiators also need to establish a continuous state of interdependence between themselves and perpetrators who are not classified as “mentally ill.” Doing the foregoing is not easy given that perpetrators often undergo mercurial behavioral, cognitive, and affective shifts. Indeed, it may be tempting for negotiators to try quickly to get perpetrators to start thinking more realistically about their problems by getting them to withdraw from the situation or nail down their goals to achieve crisis resolution. However, negotiators need to reject this need for closure and focus on directing and controlling affiliation so that positive affect and mutual liking are developed. In so doing, negotiators can keep the perpetrator talking, gather intelligence, improve leverage, and move to more normative bargaining issues (Donohue & Roberto, 1993). Alcohol and Substance Abuse. The HOBAS database indicates that about 28 percent of barricade hostage situations involve a person who is intoxicated. Working “wet” certainly makes any negotiation more difficult and potentially more dangerous. Slowing down, being patient, and speaking slowly give the intoxicated subject time to consider what is being asked. Alcohol releases inhibitions, and those inhibitions may range from violence toward hostages to suicide and/or homicide. As a result, the negotiator needs to be alert to indicators that violence potential is increasing whenever alcohol or other mood elevators are used (McMains & Mulllins, 2010, p. 340). Stages and Dynamics of a Hostage Situation Throughout the entire hostage episode, emotions of both hostage and hostage taker move on a curve that oscillates between desperation and euphoria. As the episode is protracted, the cycle tends to dampen and retreat from both emotional extremes (Schreiber, 1978, p. 50). It is within this context that the following stages should be examined. There are four stages to a hostage situation: alarm, crisis, accommodation, and resolution (Strentz, 1984, pp. 189–194; 1995, pp. 137–146). Alarm. The alarm stage is the most traumatic and dangerous and typically lasts about an hour. Whatever the type of hostage takers, in this first stage their emotions are running exceedingly high, their reason may be diminished, and they may be extremely aggressive in their reaction to any perceived threat. To force their will on the hostages, the hostage takers generally believe that hostages must be terrorized into submission. Therefore, hostage takers may be inclined to harass, abuse, or even kill anyone who seems to be interfering with their attempts to consolidate their position (Strentz, 1984, p. 190). For the unprepared individual who suddenly becomes a hostage, the alarm stage is traumatic in every respect. A previously tranquil situation now becomes a life-and-death one that pivots every minute. For the victim, defenseless and confused, the nightmarish experience takes on an unreal aspect. Many begin to deny the reality of the situation, particularly when people from whom they expect help seem to be doing nothing. The hostage taker becomes the most important person in the life of the victim, and over time his or her actions shape the victim’s psychology. The accounts of battered women, abused children, and coerced prostitutes bear an uncanny resemblance to those of hostages, concentration camp survivors, and political prisoners (Herman, 1995, p. 92). From that standpoint, the psychological and behavioral dynamics for these groups during and after their escape or release tend to run parallel. Effective coping at this early stage means immediately putting into place a strong will to survive and not succumbing to panic. It is at this stage that most injuries occur (Strentz, 1995, p. 137). Any sign of panic may cause the perpetrators to overreact and may dramatically diminish the chances of survival (Strentz, 1984, p. 196). Crisis. The crisis stage marks the beginning of reason for the hostage takers. However, there is still a great deal of unpredictability and danger as they try to consolidate their position. Initial attempts at negotiation at this stage may be marked by outrageous demands and emotional diatribes by the hostage holders. Because they fear assault by the authorities, hostage takers may move hostages to a more secure area or enlist their cooperation in making the area they are in more secure (Strentz, 1984, p. 191). The hostage taker is put at center stage and is tasked with decision making. Although this may seem surprising, there are two reasons why this is done. First, the act of making constant decisions in a stressful situation is extremely fatiguing and wears the hostage taker down. Second, the hostage taker’s need for an audience gives him or her a chance to be put in the limelight and focuses attention on the taker and not the hostages (Strentz, 1995, pp. 139–140). For the hostage, the crisis stage is the most critical because it sets the tone for the remainder of the situation. Hostage-captor interaction at this stage can either enhance or reduce hostages’ chances of survival. Although denial by hostages may still be in place as a defense mechanism, the decision to face reality and engage in normal behavior generally provides some emotional relief and mental escape. Hostages who are in positions of responsibility must be very careful not to intimidate their captors. If their captors feel inferior, they may see defiance as the hostage’s attempt to humiliate them. In particular, verbal humiliation precipitates violence (Strentz, 1984, p. 203). Fear is also increased by unpredictable outbursts of violence and by inconsistent enforcement of numerous trivial demands and petty rules. But violence is not the only way the hostage taker gains control over a hostage. The capricious granting of small indulgences may undermine the victim’s psychological resistance far more effectively than unremitting deprivation and fear (Herman, 1995, pp. 92–93). There is little difference in these dynamics between the hostage taker and a pimp who controls his prostitutes. In addition to inducing terror, the perpetrator seeks to destroy the victim’s sense of autonomy. Deprivations of food, sleep, shelter, exercise, personal hygiene, and privacy are common practices (Herman, 1995, pp. 92–93). These same deprivation tactics are certainly understood and employed by batterers and child abusers. At this stage, hostages may start to experience three problems: isolation, claustrophobia, and/or the loss of a sense of time. People who are isolated have to come to grips with the fact that the only human contacts they have may be extremely hostile toward them. Claustrophobia can take its toll even if the individual is not isolated and confined to a small cell. And losing a sense of time becomes a very important problem. By this stage, captors have usually removed personal items, including watches, from the hostages. Sense of time becomes very important to someone held captive who is hoping for rescue. Asking for such small favors as information about time or date puts hostages completely at the mercy of their captors. Hostage takers use such requests to good advantage in earning compliance from their captives (Herman, 1995, p. 93; Strentz, 1984, p. 197). The message is “We can do with you what we want. There is no hope other than what we give you!” Accommodation. The accommodation stage is the longest and most tranquil. Constantly assessing the mental status of the hostage taker clarifies his or her personality and typology (Strentz, 1995, p. 143). For the hostage, the accommodation stage is marked by time dragging by. Boredom, punctuated only by moments of terror, is the hallmark of this stage. The crests and troughs of emotions that have occurred until this point are likely to induce fatigue in both hostage and hostage taker. With increased control by their captors, hostages suffer from a constriction of initiative and planning. The hostage no longer thinks of how to escape but rather of how to stay alive. With prolonged captivity, constriction becomes habitual. Surviving as a hostage calls for a blend of dignified passivity and non-aggressive, nonhostile actions. To the contrary, being overcompliant also may be risky and taken as a sign of weakness (Strentz, 2006, p. 234). Thus chronically traumatized people are often characterized as passive or helpless, which certainly lends credence to Walker’s (1984) theory of learned helplessness in battered women who are held “captive” by their abusive mates (Herman, 1995, p. 93). If this stage becomes protracted, then there is a likelihood that Stockholm syndrome, named after an aborted bank holdup in Sweden during which one of the hostages fell in love with her captor, will come into operation (Strentz, 1984, p. 198). Stockholm Syndrome. Unlikely as it may seem, Stockholm syndrome can occur under the most terrifying and horrific of conditions (Speckard et al., 2005; Strentz, 2006, pp. 243–258). Stockholm syndrome is possible if three conditions are met: extended period of time, not being isolated from one’s captor, and positive contact between captor and captive (Fuselier, 1981b). The phenomenon comprises the following three elements (Strentz, 1984, p. 198): 1. Hostages generate positive feelings toward the hostage taker. 2. Hostages generate negative feelings toward police and the authorities. 3. Captors generate positive feelings toward their hostages. Whether the victim is part of a religious cult, a child who has been physically abused by a parent, a political terrorist’s hostage, or a customer caught in a bank holdup, the potential for such traumatic bonding is strikingly similar. Evidence seems to support the idea that Stockholm syndrome is not a well-gauged ploy by the hostage to ensure survival. The phenomenon is probably an automatic, unconscious emotional response to the trauma of being taken hostage (Strentz, 1979, p. 2). It seems that as people are thrown together, both captor and captive start to respond to one another on more personal terms. If this occurs, it becomes very hard to regard one another as faceless entities to be despised and used. Familiarity with each other provides a fertile ground for identification with the other’s problems, hopes, fears, and outlook on life. If such positive identification by a hostage is reciprocated by the holder, the hostage’s chances of survival increase considerably (Ochberg, 1977). During this stage, it is not uncommon for hostages to believe that the authorities are the chief cause of the problem and that if the authorities would only go home, the siege would end (Speckard et al., 2005; Strentz, 1984, p. 200). Auerbach and associates (1994), using simulated hostage role plays, determined that captives who found their captors most aversive were those who perceived the “terrorists” as most dominant and least friendly. Those “hostages” who had received training in emotion-versus problem-focused coping perceived their “captors” as less threatening and were perceived by the “terrorists” in the same way. The hostage can make use of this phenomenon. In as genuine a way as possible, the hostage should seek to build a positive relationship with his or her captors. The easiest way to do this is to be as real a person as possible by attempting to share the more personal aspects of one’s life and to elicit the same from the holders. If hostages make attempts to gain familiarity with the hostage takers, they would probably be wise to avoid political or religious discussions with them, because such discussions accentuate differences between captor and captive (Miron & Goldstein, 1978, p. 92). Eating and exercising are musts. Hostages should take whatever food is offered. Even if it is possible to do only flexibility exercises, hostages should do them regularly (Strentz, 1984, p. 204). It should be understood that Stockholm syndrome generally does not develop because of the short duration of most hostage situations. Second, most of the hostage situations that human service workers see do not involve strangers. Hostage and hostage taker generally are known to one another and those prior dynamics weigh far more than the dynamics of the hostage taking. However, if this is not the case, the negotiator will many times try to generate a Stockholm syndrome by attempting to personalize the hostages if they are unknown to the taker. That includes using the term “people” rather than “hostages” and always attempting to use personal names. Finally, time is an ally. The more time that passes, the more personal the hostage taking becomes and the more difficult it is to dehumanize the hostages (McMains & Mullins, 2010, pp. 468–469). It is with good reason that Gary Noesner’s book (2010) is titled Stalling for Time. Resolution. In the resolution stage, the hostage takers have become fatigued as the long hours or days take their toll. The high expectations that they held early become dashed as they find they have lost most of the bargaining chips. Whether there is a positive or negative resolution now depends on the ability of the negotiator to skillfully bring closure to the situation (Strentz, 1984, p. 193). In particular, it is important to understand the difference between the behavior of a hostage taker who is planning to surrender and one who is planning to commit suicide (see the chapter on suicide for clues indicating whether the hostage taker is also suicidal). If the hostage taker gives any clues at all during this final stage, the negotiator should be prepared to move immediately into a suicide prevention mode. Whatever the type, and however long and arduous the incident, the trained negotiator takes a purposeful and dignified approach to the perpetrator’s surrender. Indeed, this is the most critical part of the whole process. Everyone is wary and on edge. If a surrender is to be made, it must occur with every i being dotted and t crossed so no miscommunication occurs that causes someone to get killed or injured (Misino, 2004, pp. 150–151). Intervention Strategies Assessing the motives and emotional status of the hostage taker is an extremely important and delicate task because people’s lives are generally at stake. Negotiators must be competent in active listening and relationship skills because the hostage taker cannot be tested or evaluated in any normal way during the period of the emergency (Slatkin, 2005, pp. 19–53). Triage assessment is especially difficult in these circumstances. Often the negotiator has no way of knowing, other than by information that can be obtained verbally, what might be motivating the captor to take such extreme measures. Even then, the negotiator may have to make a determination based only on a verbal assessment taken over the telephone. A compounding problem is that often the negotiator must determine a great deal of personal information beyond the current mental status of the perpetrator, including the expertise and the will to carry out threats. At best, much of this information will be obtained from secondhand sources, such as friends, coworkers, or relatives, who may provide a very biased picture of the captor. Worse, this entire scenario may take place with a great deal of noise, confusion, a crowd, and the media present. Understanding and assessing the degree of mobility/immobility the hostage taker feels are of particular importance because the negotiator needs to decide how directive, collaborative, or nondirective to be. The following intervention procedures are universally recognized by hostage negotiation teams and can be considered constants in the negotiating process. Yet each hostage situation is unique, and resolution cannot be reduced to any formula that works for all cases. Therefore, the successful negotiator, like other crisis interventionists, is creative but follows a standard procedure, takes risks but proceeds with caution, has empathy but believes in justice, and has patience but moves decisively (Misino, 2004; Slatkin, 2005; Strentz, 2006). These intervention techniques generally fall within two operational models called REACT (McMains & Mullins, 2010) and S.A.F.E. (Hammer, 2007). REACT is a task model that includes the following steps: Recognition of the conditions needed to make an incident negotiable involves planning, strategy and tactics, and safety and security. Engagement is a task that builds rapport and reassurance and facilitates ventilation and validation. Assessment continuously evaluates the physical risks to all the parties involved. Contracting/Controlling includes facilitating an agreement on how to resolve the incident; planning out how it will be resolved; helping the perpetrator with his or her ambivalence toward the police, him- or herself, others, and the resolution itself; controlling how the surrender will occur so that nothing goes wrong; and gaining surrender of the hostage taker and release of the hostages. Terminating/Transferring has to do with what will happen after the surrender, such as arranging for follow-up care with perpetrators who are mentally ill or those known by uniform patrol officers as “frequent fliers” for their constant involvement with the police in such situations. (McMains & Mullins, 2010, pp. 123–202) The S.A.F.E. model is more a communications model that can be effectively integrated into the REACT tasks. S.A.F.E. has the following components: Substantive issues are the initial demands and wants made by the subject and consequently the return wants and demands of the negotiator. Attunement is the degree of relational trust, attraction, liking, respect, and desire to cooperate with another party. Face is the self-image of the parties that is either threatened or honored (saving face). Emotion is the degree of emotional distress experienced by both parties. (Hammer, 2007) As we move through examples and the case study in this chapter, you should see how these interlocking models can work together. The S.A.F.E. model is a reaction to earlier models that focused on instrumental hostage takings from a primarily substantive standpoint and expressive hostage takings from a primarily affective standpoint. This model operates from a more flexible communications basis that recognizes which frame (substantive, attunement, face, emotion) is the main dynamic framework the subject is demonstrating and seeks to match the negotiators’ responses to that frame (Hammer, 2007). Communication Techniques Throughout the negotiations, basic listening and responding skills critical to any crisis situation are employed (Slatkin, 2005). The first and foremost step is defining the problem. Very clear problem definition is crucial to learning the motives and concerns of the hostage taker, what type of siege operation will occur, what the risks of violence are, and the conditions under which the negotiator will operate (McMains & Mullins, 2010). Use of active listening through clarification and paraphrasing of content, reflection of feelings, summary restatement, and open-ended questions and leads

i