This paper examines a hostage crisis scenario from the perspective of a police psychologist serving on a metropolitan hostage negotiation team. A 42-year-old male has killed his neighbor, taken his family hostage, and issued demands including legal immunity, food, and beer. The paper analyzes the psychological typology of the hostage-taker, reviews relevant research on time frames and communication behavior in negotiations, and outlines tactical strategies — including open-ended questioning, the S.A.F.E. model, and high-probability request sequencing. The paper concludes with a hypothesis about the subject's psychological state and recommends a time-buying approach to stabilize the situation and protect civilian safety.
The crisis negotiation team will face a number of challenges in this situation that go well beyond what is encountered in day-to-day policing. This situation is particularly fragile because the subject has already killed and is undoubtedly in an unstable psychological and emotional state. Furthermore, the incident is unfolding in close proximity to a school and a library, which heightens the potential for innocent casualties if the situation is not brought under control quickly.
This analysis considers the scenario from multiple perspectives. First, the situation is analyzed in terms of the probabilities present in the crisis team's intervention. Next, different strategies that could represent an ideal response are presented to guide the team's actions. Finally, specific tactics that could prove useful in this situation are also discussed.
Two reasons are cited for the continuing popularity of hostage-taking: (1) the contagious factor in our interconnected society, which spurs imitative acts, and (2) the tactical effectiveness of taking hostages as long as human life is valued (Cooper, 1981). When a suspect does not have a hostage, the response team only needs to consider the loss of the suspect's life, their own safety, and the safety of the surrounding community. However, when a hostage is taken, the immediate potential for loss of life is elevated and the hostage-taker gains significant leverage in negotiations.
Furthermore, since popular media has fixated on these events, virtually everyone knows that a hostage can improve an individual's bargaining power and buy time to develop an escape strategy or have other demands met. Therefore, when criminal acts go wrong, the perpetrator intuitively already understands that a hostage can be a valuable asset in terms of negotiating position. In such situations, not only is the risk of loss of life greater, but there are also serious psychological implications for the victims. Although the resilience of individuals should never be underestimated, there is evidence that being taken hostage can have enduring effects, particularly on children. Individuals vary in how they cope with such an experience, both during and after it (Alexander & Klein, 2010). The crisis team must therefore consider not only physical harm to the innocent victims but also the psychological harm that results from a hostage situation — even if all hostages ultimately survive.
Despite the near-universal knowledge of the value of a hostage, the motivations of hostage-takers can differ substantially from one situation to the next. These motivations can be classified into three broad categories (Goldaber, 1979). The first is the psychologically disturbed individual, who is irrational and can be extremely difficult to deal with. The second is the criminal suspect who takes a hostage when a crime goes wrong and uses that hostage as negotiating leverage to preserve their own freedom. The third is the politically motivated individual who uses a hostage to further some political ambition — a category usually associated with domestic or international terrorism.
The suicidal category can be among the most complicated to negotiate with, since the subject is likely to be irrational and to present complex, disorganized demands. This category can be further broken down into three sub-categories: (1) the suicidal personality caught in a crisis lifestyle who sees no other escape; (2) the vengeance seeker who is extremely disturbed and stalks real or imaginary adversaries; and (3) the disturbed individual who is usually acting out a transitory outrage or frustration, though he may be seriously disturbed and must be handled with care (Goldaber, 1979). Despite these sub-categories being well defined, there is also potential for overlap among them.
In the present scenario, it is not entirely clear which type of hostage-taker this suspect represents, though it is evident from his actions and initial demands that he is psychologically motivated. He may have initially been seeking vengeance against his neighbor but is now caught between competing motivations. He could also be suicidal in the midst of his current instability. He has already demonstrated violent behavior through the homicide and could easily commit such an act again.
The suspect is clearly dangerous, but more information is needed to determine exactly which category of psychologically disturbed hostage-taker he represents. There is also a possibility that the hostage-taker falls into the criminal category — that is, he was caught in the act of murder and is now bargaining for his freedom. However, the available facts point strongly enough toward psychological disturbance that the criminally motivated model may tentatively be set aside. This could be conclusively ruled out with a few targeted questions early in the negotiation process.
Numerous studies have been conducted to identify patterns in communication behavior over time and their relationship to negotiation outcomes. One study examined a sample of 189 interaction episodes transcribed from nine resolved negotiations and coded according to differences in the degree and type of behavior; partial order scalogram analysis (POSAC) was used to produce a graphical representation of the similarities and differences among episodes while simultaneously uncovering the role of each behavior in shaping the negotiation process (Taylor, 2002). As negotiations developed over time, behavior alternated between periods of increasing cooperation and periods of increasing competition, with unsuccessful negotiations associated with a concluding trend of increasing competitive behavior. This suggests that time is a critical component, as is the communication behavior exhibited between the negotiating parties.
Other factors can also influence the importance of the time frame. One study investigated the cognitive capacities of negotiating parties to determine whether more closely matched cognitive abilities would lead to better outcomes. The goal was to better understand the dynamics that cause certain groupings to achieve greater success in negotiations. The findings point to a positive relationship between the level of homogeneity in cognitive complexity among decision-makers and the achievement of positive outcomes in crisis negotiations (Santmire et al., 2002). This also makes intuitive sense: if a suspect were highly intelligent, they would likely be dissatisfied negotiating with a crisis team member unable to match their intellectual abilities, and as a result would become less cooperative. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the lead negotiator in a crisis situation be of sufficient intelligence to communicate effectively with the hostage-taker.
"S.A.F.E. model, open-ended questions, and demand types"
"Recommended strategy based on subject's likely psychological state"
"Academic and professional references cited"
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.