Disarming People With Words: Strategies of Interactional Communication That Crisis (Hostage) Negotiators Share With Systemic Clinicians

Charlés, Laurie L.

doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00006.x

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, our understanding of suicide—from cause to prevention—has evolved in psychological and medical domains, often in overlap with the crisis negotiation literature. As Charlés () notes, “hostage incidents are not the primary type of critical incident with which crisis negotiators deal … Rather, negotiators often face people in the midst of an escalated personal crisis” (p. 52). In the UK and USA, police negotiators work and are trained from Hostage and Crisis Units, and their remit incorporates crisis communication in hostage, terrorism, and suicide situations.…”

Section: The Language Of Crisis Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Negotiators deal with crises of various kinds, including hostage‐taking and terrorism, as well as personal crises of the kind we examine in this paper. The latter is most common yet least studied (Charlés, ). We will also examine the limited body of work that examines how secondary parties intervene in conversations between a different primary party and their interlocutor (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The backstage work negotiators do when communicating with persons in crisis

Stokoe

Sikveland

2019

Journal of Sociolinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a person in crisis threatens suicide, police negotiators engage them in a conversation to prevent death. Working in small teams, the primary negotiator's role is to talk directly to the person in crisis. A secondary negotiator, working “behind the scenes,” supports the ongoing negotiation. Using 31 hours of audio‐recorded British negotiations, we uncover the backstage work of secondary negotiators. We use conversation analysis to identify the sequential position, linguistic form, and action of the secondary negotiator's interventions on (1) the delivery (e.g. “sound angry”) and (2) next actions (e.g. “say please,” “try asking them to move”) of the primary negotiator, and how the primary incorporates them into the negotiation. Our analysis shows that, while some suggestions were effective, others disrupted the flow of the negotiation as well as the alignment between primary negotiator and person in crisis. The paper augments current sociolinguistic understandings of the high‐stakes language activity of crisis negotiation and highlights the importance of attending to linguistic features of interaction when training negotiators to work better as a team.

show abstract

Section: The Language Of Crisis Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The backstage work negotiators do when communicating with persons in crisis

Stokoe

Sikveland

2019

Journal of Sociolinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In late 1980's, a turning point in literature occurred when Stevens and MacKenna (1988) published a Special Weapons and Tactic study. In concert with their scholarship, numerous publications addressing attributes correlated with successful hostage negotiators appeared (Tatar 1983;Gelbart 1997;Royce 2005;Miller and Clark 2006;Strentz 2006;Van Hasselt et al 2006;Charlés, 2007;Donohue and Taylor 2007;Van Hasselt, Romano, and Vecchi 2008). Scholarship from 1988 forward frequently provided descriptions of offender characteristics and incidents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-eight years after Stevens and MacKenna's 1988 findings, assessment tools for selection of Department of Defense Special Forces operators and Law Enforcement SWAT candidates had advanced including methods assessing reasoning ability and impulse control when stimulated with visual and auditory distractors in addition to escalating stress (Hirsch, 2017). Review of literature revealed numerous publications addressing attributes correlated with successful hostage negotiators (Charlés, 2007;Donohue & Taylor, 2007;Gelbart, 1997;Miller & Clark, 2006;Royce, 2005;Strentz, 2006;Tatar, 1983;Van Hasselt et al, 2006;Van Hasselt, Romano, and Vecchi, 2008). Stevens and MacKenna (1988) reported few SWAT members had skills in forensic laboratory analysis, handwriting analysis, bomb disposal, foreign language skills, intelligence analysis, and bomb detection.…”

Section: View Of Swatmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Case of Ditto Block: A Study of Special Weapons and Tactics, Antisocial Personality, Mental Illness and Barricade Offenders

Lichtenwald¹,

Perri²

2018

Int. J. Criminol. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comprehensive analysis of a repeat barricade offender as part of a Sanity at the Time of Offense evaluation is presented. Sources of information included law enforcement, legal, medical, mental health, and correctional documents from before, during, and after both barricades. Analysis included triangulation of validity interviews from multiple sources against multiple barricade offender databases and research. Incident and offender characteristics at time of barricade one is compared against barricade two.After the first barricade, the offender completed Fitness to Stand Trial restoration, found fit to stand for a jury trial, found not guilty and released. One year later, he was involuntarily admitted to a mental health hospital. Within one week after court-ordered release, the second barricade occurred. During barricade two, the Special Weapons and Tactics team had no intelligence regarding the first barricade. The offender foresaw negotiation strategies and cut off communication. He predicted Special Weapons and Tactic team tactics; he ambushed the team, stalled the entry, retreated, and created a standoff that concluded in a failed suicide by cop incident. Different Third-Party Intermediaries participated in both barricades. During barricade one, the Third-Party Intermediary (his sister) provided intelligence. During barricade two, the Third-Party Intermediary (ex-girlfriend) did not provide intelligence until after the dynamic entry failed, and a team member gathered intelligence from her. Mental health providers never provided intelligence to law enforcement.Analysis reveals Special Weapons and Tactical Teams cannot operate without behavioral specialists. Community leaders' continuous comprehensive oversight of Special Weapons and Tactical Teams is required for appropriate communication among professionals and policy decisions derived from pattern analysis of Post Incident Reports. Offender risk assessment require law enforcement, corrections, and mental health contributions. Repeat barricade offender scenarios are required components of professional development for Special Weapons and Tactics teams, mental health providers, attorneys, judges, and community leaders.

show abstract

“…I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Gale’s (this issue) comments regarding my study of hostage negotiation discourse, an excerpted version of which appears in this issue of JMFT (Charlés, this issue). I have studied Gale’s work for many years and, as a researcher and supervisor of marriage and family therapy (MFT), have found his methodological approaches to examining what therapy discourse looks like “in the room” extremely valuable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%