HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 2

Abstract
Hostage negotiation is a complex crisis as it involves trying to rescue lives of people who have
been taken captive by a person or persons in crisis. This paper explores the negotiation process in
a scenario where two correctional officers, male and female, have been taken hostage by two
inmates, Dave and Marshall. It explores how the crisis can be managed through the incorporation
of interventions aimed at resolving the crisis, dreaming the two inmates and saving the lives of
the two officers. The main challenge is that the two hostage takers are armed and locked in a
tower that cannot be opened from outside and one that is bullet-proof. The main approach is a
peaceful negotiation with a tactical approach not being preferable due to the possibility of losing
the lives of the two correctional officers. The communication tactics and persuasion techniques
to be used have been outlined. The paper also identifies the roles of the negotiation team, the
“bargaining chips” and goals to be achieved.
Keywords: Negotiation, Crisis, Resolution, Bargaining, Power, Hostages

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 3

Hostage Negotiation Case study

Introduction
The case study scenario described in week two takes the form of a hostage situation. The
hostage-takers, Dave and Marshall, have taken two correctional officers, one male and one
female, as hostages. They have taken the two officers captive, and in exchange, they want a few
demands met. They demand that they be allowed to talk to the Governor of the state, Warden
D’Jigillo Jones, and talk to their family members who reside in states across the country. They
also demand a helicopter with a radio, police scanner, guns, and money. In addition, they want to
be given the handcuff key. Dave and Marshall are using the two hostages as leverage to obtain
their stated goals. They have threatened to rape the female correctional officer and to start
chopping their fingers one by one if their demands are not met. Some of the demands are hard to
meet as they are non-negotiables, such as being given the handcuff key. The state policy does not
allow an inmate to be given the handcuff key no matter the circumstances. This paper explores
the appropriate communication tactics for this negotiation process, states the influence of
persuasion techniques on the negotiation process, outlines the most viable alternatives to
negotiation, and the goals of the bargaining chips that will be employed in the process.
Communication tactics
Communication is the vehicle used to deliver crisis intervention tactics and strategies.
The negotiator establishes communication with the hostage-taker and employs different tactics to
ensure that the crisis is resolved and the lives of the hostages are saved. Active listening is the
first communication tactic that is vital in building a relationship that is likely to lead to the
desired change in behavior and ultimate achievement of the goals (Vecchi, 2009). Active

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 4
listening skills form the foundation of intervention adopted when managing a crisis. They entail
the use of different tactics such as mirroring. This technique entails repeating a few statements of
the hostage taker. In this scenario, mirroring demonstrates to Dave and Marshall that the
negotiator is attentive to their demands and that their specific concerns are well understood. The
tactic helps focus on the subjects, in this case, Dave and Marshall, as opposed to the negotiator
and thus ensures that the communication remains in the subjects’ frame of reference.
Active listening also entails other tactics such as emotional labeling. In this scenario, I
would use this tactic to identify the emotions of both Dave and Marshall. The aim is to defuse
emotionality (Guszkowski & Van Hasselt, 2017). It is a useful tactic but is limited in the event
that the negotiator misidentifies the emotions of the subjects, thereby aggravating the situation by
making them furious that their demands and emotions are not being understood. Paraphrasing
will also help the negotiator reflect and take the perspective of the subjects. It is closely linked to
summarizing, which entails restating the content and emotions as expressed by the subjects. It is
a way of clarifying that the negotiator understands the situation and crisis being experienced by
the subjects. In this scenario, I will also use other tactics such as the ‘I’ statements. This will
work in helping establish a rapport with the hostage-takers and to connect emotionally with
them, and demonstrate that I understand their experience. I will also use effective pauses, which
are deliberate silences during communication used either before or after making meaningful
comments. Minimal encouragers are also supplemental active listening skills that are used as
verbal cues by the negotiator o show the subject that they are attentive and are making efforts to
understand their point of view (Vecchi, 2009). According to Vecchi (2003), supplemental active
listening skills are essential tactics that a negotiator should use to enhance the effectiveness of
their communication.

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 5
Another tactic will be to use voice tone to develop empathy. Romano (2002) states that
voice tone affects how a hostage-taker understands statements being made by the negotiator.
Perception of meaning counts greatly towards the success of crisis interventions (Guszkowski &
Van Hasselt, 2017). The tone of the negotiator, through pitch and inflection, is reflective of the
genuineness and concern of the speaker. It also expresses sincerity, demeanor and emotion.
Empathy is also considered a natural by-product of active listening. When the hostage-taker
realizes that there is empathy in the negotiator’s tone, they know that their concerns, situation,
feelings, and motives are well understood.
Further, as empathy is shown in communication, rapport is established. This lead to
mutual affinity and increased trust. In this scenario, Dave and Marshall are more likely to
cooperate with the negotiator when they are able to build confidence and develop shared affinity.
Once the affinity is established, the persons in crisis will be more likely to be able to listen and
even agree with the proposals being made by the negotiator. Thus, this tactic will work
successfully in this scenario because it will be easier to change Dave’s and Marshall’s attitudes
and behavior once a rapport has been built. Additionally, it is after the rapport is established that
it will be possible to give justifications aimed at “face-saving” or even “blending”, and these are
necessary precursors to resolving the crisis (Vecchi et al., 2005). at this point, I will contrive
rationales to excuse, justify, r minimize the effects of the faulty behavior. By positively
reframing the situation at hand, I will be addressing distorted thinking, and minimization will
help downplay the undesired behavior exhibited by both Dave and Marshall. These tactics will
be effective as they will help in ensuring that an agreement is reached without conceding, the
perceived or real differences are resolved, and that common ground is reached.

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 6
The communication tactics will most likely be effective during this scenario. However,
there are some exceptions and challenges that may limit their effectiveness. For instance,
communication will be most likely done over the phone. Lack of face-to-face interaction will
make it impossible for the hostage-takers to see some of the non-verbal cues employed by the
negotiator, and this is likely to affect the effectiveness of the tactics used (Kohlrieser, 2018).
Also, the time factor may be an issue. The hostage-takers have threatened to rape and even star
chopping fingers of the two hostages. Time is of the essence, and the negotiator may not have
ample time to build the required rapport to influence the subjects’ perception. However, the
tactics will be sufficient to help the negotiator resolve the conflict and achieve the set goals,
among them saving the lives of the two hostages.
Negotiation Process
The negotiation process will take place in four main stages. The first stage will entail
dealing with emotions. Marchand & Baroche (2021) note that volatile and intense emotions are
the hallmark of a crisis. Thus, a crisis negotiator needs to possess skills on how to deal with
emotions as they can impede the process of resolving the crisis. In this scenario, as the
negotiator, I will use emotive language to dilute the tension and help the two subjects know that I
can relate to their feelings. For instance, instead of using words such as “I know how you feel”, I
will tell Dave and Marshall, “I have not experienced a similar situation, but I imagine you must
be feeling very offended and oppressed”. Such a statement is safe, and it helps demonstrate that I
understand the intensity of the situation without necessarily making unbelievable and faulty
assumptions that will intensify the volatility of the emotions of the subject. The choice of words
is necessary for establishing communication and ensuring that the content is meaningful to the
process and is well understood.

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 7
The next stage will entail the identification of the precipitating events which triggered or
propelled Dave and Marshall into the crisis. Based on the demands being made by the hostage-
takers, it is evident that they have been denied an opportunity to communicate with their family
members. This explains why they demand an opportunity to talk to them. Another trigger, which
may be a non-negotiable based on the offences committed before incarceration, is a lack of
freedom. They want the keys to the handcuffs and a helicopter with guns and money so that they
can secure their freedom and get out of the facility. While the first trigger is negotiable and
realistic, the other triggers are not. However, it is important to identify the impact of the
precipitating events. They form the foundation of the crisis and thus must be addressed in the
process.
The crisis has high initial levels of emotionality, and there is a high likelihood that the
subject is confused about the effect of the triggering events. Dafonozo (2002) mentions that the
negotiator identifies such “hooks” and then capitalizes on them in reaching a solution to the
conflict. In this scenario, providing justification for the subject’s behavior and minimizing the
hostile intent for the behavior will help positively frame the actions of the subjects and help
defuse negative emotions. In this scenario, the “hook” is the expected loss of privileges and life
which is mentioned by the subjects. They are ready to die together with the correctional officers
if their demands are not met. A way of providing justification would entail the use of words such
as “you are not doing this because you want to hurt yourself; you are doing this out of your
concern and desire to have your freedom”. Such words aim at positively reframing the actions of
the subjects. It is useful to the negotiation process as it serves to defuse negative emotions,
alleviate internal conflict as well as set the stage for communication aimed at resolving the crisis.

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 8
Upon achieving control of the emotions, establishing communication and properly
identifying the precipitating events, the hostage-takers are more likely to respond positively to
the process of problem-solving. The real negotiation can start. It entails a multistep process of
problem-solving in which the negotiator tactfully helps the subject analyze available alternatives
and then arrives at concrete decisions. The first step entails defining the problem. The problem in
this scenario is that there are two hostages and demands to be met for them to be released. The
negotiator needs to make it clear that their safety is necessary to ensure that the demands are met.
Then after identifying the problem, then the negotiator leads the subjects in brainstorming for
possible solutions. In this scenario, the solutions will include allowing the subjects an
opportunity to talk to the family members, to the Governor of the state, as well as to Warden
D’Jigillo Jones.
The net step entails identifying unacceptable solutions. For instance, in this scenario, a
helicopter loaded with guns, a police scanner, and money is unacceptable. The Jones State policy
makes giving an inmate handcuff keys a non-negotiable. Thus, there is no way Dave and
Marshall will be given the key. Since these are unacceptable solutions and unrealistic demands,
the negotiator will effectively communicate this to the subjects. This process may be lengthy as
the subjects may be adamant about having all their demands met. However, the negotiable will
lead the process and help select a solution that is acceptable to both teams. The next step will
entail implementation. The implementation is done as agreed upon by the person in crisis and the
negotiator. For the scenario, they may be allowed to speak to the Governor on the condition that
they release one of the captives. Carrying out the plan may take a series of steps. The inmates
may also be promised not to be punished and to be allowed to reunite with other inmates without
being sent into solitary if they agree to release the other captive. The process of negotiation will

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 9
work out because it will follow a series of agreed-upon steps that will be driven towards
achieving the set goals.
Alternatives to Negotiation
In this scenario, the alternative to a negotiated resolution is a tactical resolution. A
tactical approach entails the involvement of SWAT to forcefully resolve the crisis. It is an option
when it becomes apparent that it is unlikely to reach a resolution through peaceful approaches as
the persons in crisis are resistive, noncompliant or have refused to talk with the negotiators. In
this case, this can only be the last option because SWAT has made it clear that due to the nature
of the construction of the tower, it is not possible to have a tactical approach and still expect to
rescue the captives alive. As such, though this is an alternative, it will most likely lead to the
death of the two correctional officers held as hostages.
Influence and Persuasion Techniques
The goal of the negotiating team is to have influence over the hostage-takers and resolve
the crisis with the hostages alive. Thus, it is necessary to make use of specific techniques aimed
at persuading the hostage-takers to relinquish some of their powers (Miller, 2007). This can be
done in a number of ways, such as by speaking slowly and calmly. This is a technique that is
founded on the view that people’s speech patterns are indicative of the tone of the party that is
dominant in a conversation. A slow and calm communication aims ate refraining from
provocation and frustration as this could have detrimental impacts on the process. Additionally,
the law of commitment and consistency, as explained by Caldini, ensures that people commit
themselves to something and consistently pursue it until the goal is achieved (Campisi et al.,
2017). This law will be followed in the negotiation to ensure that the negotiator consistently

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 10
persuades the hostage-takers until they release the captives. Additionally, through the law of
reciprocity, it will be possible to ensure that the hostage-takers also return favors extended to
them by the negotiator. For example, if they are allowed to speak to the Warden, then they
release a captive if that was the agreement. These persuasion techniques will help ensure that a
power balance is achieved. Allowing the hostage-takers to return a favor extended to them is in
accordance with the law of reciprocity, and it is necessary to ensure that the negotiation process
progresses well towards reaching a resolution.
An effective technique is to do the hostage-taker work for all the favors extended to them
by ensuring that the negotiator extracts a concession each time. The aim is to maintain the
bargaining position. If the negotiator agrees to a position, then they should make it known that
they expect something in return. Additionally, the negotiator should use deflections and
modifications appropriately (Poorboy, 2021). They should use a language that does not explicitly
say “no”, but one that deflects from the demand made or postpones as they get more information
or concessions. For example, in this scenario, the hostage-takers may be told, “you want to talk
to the governor, let me see what I can do”. Such a statement does not dismiss the request but
keeps the hostage-takers hopeful, and it is likely they will cooperate because they can see that the
negotiators are also cooperating.
Role Of the Team
The team will be tasked with leading the negotiation process tactfully to ensure that the
crisis is resolved, the two correctional officers are rescued and that the persons in crisis are
restrained again. The team will communicate with Dave and Marshall and reach a solution to the
crisis. They also have a role in building a relationship with the subjects, acquiring useful
information from the two that will help in resolving the crisis. The team will have experts who

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 11
will provide information in key areas, such as explain to the team policies and laws that will help
guide decisions made by the team. They will also provide expert opinions to the team to help in
the negotiations. They will ensure that communication levels are reached and assess the content
of statements being made to ensure that they are effective and driven towards reaching the goals.
The members of the team will work together to resolve the crisis.
Solutions, goals, and “bargaining chips.”
The solutions and goals of the crisis entail rescuing the two correctional officers held
captive by Dave and Marshall. Another solution is to disarm Dave and Marshall and take control
of the tower from them. Another goal is to gather intelligence and assess the situation to
understand the best ways to resolve the conflict. The team will use various bargaining chips to
help achieve their goals. For instance, they will use demands being made by the two subjects to
help resolve the problem. By promising to meet the demands and actually meeting the realistic
demands, the team will be moving towards a solution. For instance, one of the bargaining chips
is allowing the subjects to talk to the Governor of the state. The negotiator can trade this with an
offer from them. They can state that they will be allowed to talk to the Governor upon releasing
one of the captives or upon relinquishing one of the guns in their possession. Another bargaining
chip is to have the subjects talk to their family members. The negotiator can fulfil this demand in
exchange for an offer from the persons in crisis. Overall, the team will use these bargaining chips
to help resolve the conflict and arrive at an agreement.

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 12

References

Campisi, D. J., Winet, E. D., & Calvert, J. (2017). Undue Influence: The Gap Between Current
Law and Scientific Approaches to Decision-Making and Persuasion. ACTEC LJ, 43, 359.
Dalfonzo, V. (2002). National crisis negotiation course. Quantico, VA7 FBI Academy.
Guszkowski, K. N., & Van Hasselt, V. B. (2017). Crisis (hostage) negotiations. In Handbook of
Behavioral Criminology (pp. 591-610). Springer, Cham.
Kohlrieser, G. (2018). How To Manage Conflict: Six Essentials from Hostage Negotiations to
The Boardroom, These Tips Work. Perspectives for Managers, (195), 1-3.
Marchand, P., & Baroche, C. (2021). Emotional dynamics in police crisis negotiation. Le travail
humain, 84(2), 113-138.
Miller, L. (2007). Hostage negotiations: Psychological strategies for resolving crises safely.
Poorboy, D. A. (2021). Determining the Best Practices in Hostage/Crisis Negotiations.
Romano, S. J. (2002). Personal communication. Crisis Negotiation Unit, Critical Incident
Response Group.
Vecchi, G. M. (2003). Active listening: The key to effective crisis negotiation. ACR Crisis
Negotiation News, 1, 4-6.
Vecchi, G. M. (2009). Conflict and crisis communication: A methodology for influencing and
persuading behavioral change. Annals of American Psychotherapy 12(1), 34–42

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY 13
Vecchi, G. M., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Romano, S. J. (2005). Crisis (hostage) negotiation: Current
strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 10(5), 533-551.