Introduction
The research study outlines the basic hostage negotiation strategies, which are employed the critical situations with an aim of inflicting certain psychological effects. Specifically, the work employs the method of literature analysis and discusses the practical implications of the strategic negotiation. As a result, the patient- and system-related concerns, which evolve in the course of hostage communication, are outlined.
Primarily, it is critical to give a consistent definition to hostage communication so that to be able to provide an adequate response to the described situation. The experts state that hostage crisis evolves under the circumstances of a tense clash between a person, who is determined to commit an evil act, or a manipulator, and law forces. Despite each hostage situation is subjective and can be estimated in contrastive ways, there is always one critical prerequisite element, which defines the nature of the crisis. Through this feature, the professionals differentiate between hostage and non-hostage confrontations. Mainly, if a manipulator demands some material reward from the authorities, one deals with hostage crisis (Vecchi, Hasselt, & Romano, 2005). In contrast to it, there are some cases, in which a schemer does not require anything from the law forces but is rather revealing strong emotional instability (Giles, 2002). In this situation, it is critical to find an appropriate approach to the predator so that not to deliver any harm to his mental health. Therefore, any act of crisis hostage negotiation has to include a professional psychologist or a nurse, who possesses an excellent understanding of intellectual abilities of a person as well as is an effective communicator. In this work, the foundation for training the medical specialists on hostage negotiation is developed.
Literature Review
The theoretical foundation for the research proposal is constituted by the employment of six academic resources. Specifically, two professional manuals on interpersonal crisis negotiation and four evidence-based articles are used.
The practical manual by Slatkin (2010). “Communication in crisis and hostage negotiations: Practical communication techniques, stratagems, and strategies for law enforcement, corrections and emergency service personnel in managing critical incidents,” represents a compilation of the incidents that describe clashes between manipulators and the experts as well as stratagems recommendations, which assist in developing the methods of hostage negotiation treatment. In this work, we employ the data from the book so that to draw the difference between hostage-related and psychology-driven situations. The second book by Giles (2002), “Law enforcement, communication, and community,” targets specifically strategic initiatives, which have to be projected by the specialists, who treat manipulators. Thus, this book serves as a source for the cross-dimensional analysis of communication between police structures and community. In this context, the association between medical workers and emotionally-instable patients is reviewed.
In this work, the strategic platform for hostage-related negotiation is developed. Therefore, it is important to review the evidence-based studies on communication methodology. The article by Donohue & Roberto (2006), “Relational development as negotiated order in hostage negotiation,” reviews ten cases of treatment, which involve emotionally-retarded individuals, who were previously engaged in hostage clashes. Through this work, we deduce the central patient-related concerns that should be taken into consideration in crisis negotiation. The articles by Miller (2005), “Hostage negotiation: Psychological principles and practices,” and Vecchi, Hasselt, & Romano (2005), “Crisis (hostage) negotiation: Current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution,” serve as the foundation for system implications, which are developed in this work. Finally, the practical by Taylor (2002), “A cylindrical model of communication behavior in crisis negotiations,” exemplifies a successful model of hostage treatment.
Patient-Related Factors in Hostage Communication
Crisis hostage communication evokes a range of implications, which relate to emotional and intellectual health of manipulative patients. According to the practical assessment of hostage conflict outcomes, the scenarios of conflict clashes may be quite contradictive, which depends on the character of the manipulators. In 45% of the similar situations, the villains suffer from various mental diseases or experience stresses and depressions. That is why, if the opposite side does not maintain safe negotiation contact, the ill person may reveal any unexpected reaction. Specifically, the statistics states that approximately 15 % of hostage clashes end up with a suicide of a manipulator (Donohue & Roberto, 2006). Therefore, in this sector we differentiate several strategic steps, which relate to the health of manipulators, who can be treated as patients. First, hostage crisis solution has to include mutual understanding. Thus, it is critical for psychology specialist to engage in active listening while communicating with a patient. Sometimes, such practice can be pretentious since the first consideration of every expert, in the situation, concerns saving one’s life. Second, the revelation of empathy and commiseration may positively influence the association between two sides. People, who provoke hostage crisis, often act out of despair and disappointment. Consequently, the medical workers of law representatives, who enter a dialogue with such individuals, should mind this concern, and their attitude must show that the experts understand their patients. Furthermore, in separate cases, primarily when a person reveals an inclination to suicidal behavior, it is important to embrace some tricks. For instance, a speaker may make a promise to a manipulator, according to which, the latter will not be punished for his actions. Alternatively, the experts might state that the requirements of a manipulator will be satisfied after he/she will surrender to police. This issue may be quite controversial since some psychologists argue that such unethical acts might impose some substantial threats to manipulators’ mentality. Still, the suggested approach assumes that, in critical situations, the experts are free to choose individual approaches to the patients, which depend on the harshness of the case (Miller, 2005). Third, the experts have to gain power over the patients’ behavior. This final stage implies a complete establishment of a mutual rapport with a manipulator and persuading the person that he/she should act in the outlined way. In this context, the expert becomes a trusted person for the patient and enters his comfort zone, which allows converting a threatening conduct of a person into a safe experience. Therefore, the developed approach to crisis hostage treatment is a three-level methodology, which includes such implications as trust, rapport, and feedback.
System-Related Factors
The system of crisis negotiation includes a range of implications, which come as the basic constituents of the developed approach. It is important to emphasize that the functioning of a successful hostage model can not be related to every emergency case since every manipulator is an individual, who must be treated in separation from the traditional strategies. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the medical worker or psychology specialist to be proficient in using a standard hostage approach. In contrast to it, the expert must be well-prepared to scheme alterations so that to align the specifications of the patient’s condition and the implied threats of his acts.
The settings of hostage clashes differ, according to the manipulator’s aims. Specifically, if a person threatens a particular person, the dwellers of a specific place or community since he focuses on drawing some financial profits, the opposing side is free to employ threatening as the means of controlling the villain’s behavior (Slatkin, 2010). However, this situation has one critical limitation. Mainly, threatening may be embraced if a person does not demonstrate any obvious emotional problems, stressful behavior, or the signs of alcohol- and drug-dependence since in such states a person can not act sanely. Moreover, threatening may engrave the condition of a patient. Secondly, the experts should note that the prospect of murder threatening, which comes from the side of a manipulator, must be approached with excessive deliberation. Specifically, the experts have to draw a plan of saving a person or a group of people, who are in danger, by keeping a distraction of the patient. The psychologists have to take the place of an opposing force so that to control the emotional stability of a person (Taylor, 2002). It is recommended to maintain a conversation between two sides as long as possible so that to distract a person from the implied act and to save a victim interim. Finally, if a patient speaks about his wounded emotions while entering a hostage clash, it is critical to embrace emotional labeling in the course of addressing this person since such acts often profess suicidal intentions.
Conclusion: Summarizing Hostage Negotiation Research
In this paper, the foundation of hostage negotiation is outlined. In the context of the existing theories, the system of emergency communication with an emphasis on “a manipulator as a patient” approach is developed. The methodology employs both patient-related and system-directed implications, which define the restrictions and specifications of the hostage doctrine.
References
Donohue, W., & Roberto, A. (2006). Relational development as negotiated order in hostage negotiation. Human Communication Research, 20(2), 175-198.
Giles, H. (2002). Law enforcement, communication, and community. Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing.
Miller, L. (2005). Hostage negotiation: Psychological principles and practices. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 7(4), 277-298.
Slatkin, A. (2010). Communication in crisis and hostage negotiations: Practical communication techniques, stratagems, and strategies for law enforcement, corrections and emergency service personnel in managing critical incidents. Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Taylor, P. (2002). A cylindrical model of communication behavior in crisis negotiations. Human Communication Research, 28(1), 7-48.
Vecchi, G., Hasselt, V., & Romano, S. (2005). Crisis (hostage) negotiation: Current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 533-551.