Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Crisis and Hostage Negotiation

Since the 1970s, some clinical psychologists (often referred to as operational psychologists) have become more actively involved in the resolution of critical incident situations, which are classified as either hostage situations or crisis intervention situations. Police psychologists are valuable contributors to the training of tactical and crisis/hostage negotiators. Onscene responsibilities for operational psychologists include providing professional consultation on the potential behavioral effects of psychopathology and psychopharmacology, selection of primary and backup negotiators, suggestions and input regarding the actual negotiation process, and operational consultation to the tactical commander. Research shows that police departments that employ psychologists during special operation responses have significantly fewer casualties of both hostages and hostage takers and more incidents that are peacefully resolved via a negotiated surrender than by a tactical entry or violent confrontation. Police psychologists, in providing cogent consultation and robust training dynamics to specialized police crisis response teams, have made a dramatic contribution to reducing the risk of injury and death for all participants in these critical events.

Hostage and Crisis Negotiation

Within both federal and local law enforcement environments, a hostage situation has become defined as any situation in which individuals are being held via active coercion by another person or people and demands are being made by the hostage taker(s). These demands are by design established by the hostage taker(s) to gain compliance as well as establish an inherent power by the hostage taker(s) over the responding law enforcement agency. Typically, a hostage situation results from the interruption of a criminal act in which the perpetrators take hostages with an ultimate goal of forcing law enforcement to comply with their demands for escape. At the other end of the continuum are hostage situations initiated by a terrorist group whose goal is to communicate their political agenda via media exposure. The terrorists attempt to actualize this confrontation by using the hostages as political pawns, as the terrorists have the option of choosing martyrdom for themselves and/or death to the hostages if their demands are not met.

As hostage negotiation developed over the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, it was observed that the majority of negotiator incidents were either initiated by an individual or within some family dyad. As such, the typical negotiator intervention entailed interaction with a barricaded subject, a suicidal individual, or a couple who were engaged in a violent domestic confrontation. These incidents required the application of crisis-intervention techniques and active listening skills. The overall principle in crisis negotiation is that time is on the side of the negotiator in that the passage of time will provide a “cooling off” period for the individual who is seen as a victim rather than as a perpetrator. Over time, the emotional lability of the individual will dissipate, which allows for the introduction of active listening techniques by the negotiator. This system of communication provides a spectrum of responses that facilitate viable, objective problem-solving options to the individual in crisis.

Team Composition and Tactics

A hostage/crisis negotiation event is a complicated and potentially dangerous undertaking for any law enforcement agency. Almost all these situations demand the response of a two-pronged team, the special weapons and tactics team (SWAT). The SWAT team consists of a heavily armed and specially trained group of police officers, while the second component of the team is the group of police negotiators. The primary function of the tactical team is for the protection of the SWAT team, especially the negotiators, the victims of the event, the general public, hostages (if any), and, lastly, the subject(s). The tactical team is also responsible for initiating any proactive or reactive options during the progression of the event. The negotiator team is responsible for the acquisition of any on-scene information deemed relevant to both the tactical and negotiator teams. The second primary function of the negotiators is, obviously, the active negotiation process.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution