ERIC EJ853206: A Pilot Study of Naturally Occurring High-Probability Request Sequences in Hostage Negotiations

2009·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2009, 42, 491–496 NUMBER2 (SUMMER2009)
A PILOT STUDY OF NATURALLY OCCURRING HIGH-PROBABILITY
REQUEST SEQUENCES IN HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS
JAMES HUGHES
YORKCENTRALHOSPITAL
Inthecurrentstudy,theaudiotapesfromthreehostage-takingsituationswereanalyzed.Hostage
negotiatorrequeststothehostagetakerwerecharacterizedaseitherhighorlowprobability.The
resultssuggestedthathostage-takercompliancetoahostagenegotiator’slow-probabilityrequest
was more likely when a series of complied-with high-probability requests preceded the low-
probability request. However, two of the three hostage-taking situations ended violently;
therefore,theimplicationsofthehigh-probabilityrequestsequenceforhostage-takingsituations
shouldbe assessed infutureresearch.
DESCRIPTORS: high-probability request sequence, hostage negotiation
_______________________________________________________________________________
A hostage negotiation can be defined as a situations (Fuselier, 1988; Wardlaw, 1984).
negotiation conducted between law enforcement Psychology has responded to this request with
agencies or diplomatic representatives for the extensive training of negotiators in traditional
release of persons held hostage against their counseling skills such as empathic and active
will by criminal, terrorist, or other elements listening (Van Hasselt et al.). This training has
(‘‘Hostage Negotiation.’’ Retrieved November developed negotiators’ skills in responding to
20, 2007, from http://www.negotiations.com/ demands made by a hostage taker. However, a
definition/hostage-negotiation). Hostage negoti- critical component of a successfully resolved
ation is estimated to be unsuccessful in 18% of hostage-taking situation is compliance by a
the over 10,000 estimated hostage-taking inci- hostage taker to requests made by a hostage
dentsannuallyintheUnitedStates(VanHasselt negotiator. Often the key requests are ones with
et al., 2006). Unsuccessful hostage negotiations which the hostage taker has demonstrated a
can result in loss of life and can have significant reluctance or refusal to comply. The critical
negative impact on economies and community aspectsofmakingsuchrequestsofahostagetaker
relations in instances of politically motivated have not been examined to date.
hostage takings. The hostage taking of 11 Israeli The current study examined the extent to
athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich which the behavior-analytic high-probability
marked a starting point for escalating interest by requestsequencemighthaverelevancetohostage
psychologists in hostage negotiating (Webster, negotiation, because hostage negotiators ulti-
2004).Despitetheabsenceofanydatatosuggest mately work toward hostage takers complying
why some hostage negotiations fail, law enforce- with a low-probability request (e.g., releasing
ment has appealed to psychology to provide hostages). Research on the high-probability
specific strategies for handling hostage-taking request sequence has demonstrated that compli-
ance can be enhanced by preceding a low-
IthankJamesCarrforhisgenerousguidance,feedback, probability request with a series of high-proba-
and encouragement; Maurice Feldman for his thoughtful bility requests (Belfiore, Lee, Vargas, & Skinner,
reviewoftheoriginalmanuscript;andLauriAngusforher
1997). This high-probability request sequence
careful anddiligent review ofthe data.
AddresscorrespondencetoJamesHughes,YorkCentral has shown to be effective in enhancing compli-
Hospital, 13311-115 Yonge Street, Richmond Hill, ance across a wide variety of target behaviors,
Ontario L4E-3L6, Canada (e-mail: behaviour.mgmt@
individual characteristics, and applied settings.
bellnet.ca).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-491 The current study hypothesized that a series of
491
492 JAMES HUGHES
hostage taker/hostage negotiator interactions three hostage-taking situations. Each of these
might represent high-probability and low-prob- 617 requests made by a hostage negotiator to a
ability requests and that a descriptive analysis hostage taker was separated into one of four
(Thompson&Iwata,2007)couldrevealwhether categories. Category 1 consisted solely of
hostage-taker compliance to low-probability requests to provide nonpersonal information,
requestswasenhancedinsituationsthatinvolved answers to clarification questions, and situa-
sequences adventitiously arranged according to a tional information regarding happenings in the
high-probability request sequence. immediate environment (e.g., ‘‘Please spell that
nameforme,’’and‘‘Youmeanyouhavepeople
METHOD calling the employees?’’). Category 2 consisted
solely of requests to provide personal informa-
Administrativestafffromacommunity-based
tion including thoughts and feelings (e.g.,
hospital created written transcripts from the
‘‘How can we contact your wife?’’ and ‘‘Are
audiotapesofthreeactualhostage-takingevents.
you hungry?’’). Category 3 consisted solely of
These events will be referred to as Brooklyn (a
requests to perform a behavior with the
robbery attempt in 1972), Sacramento (a
exception of behaviors in Category 4 (e.g.,
robbery attempt in 1991), and Atlanta (an
‘‘Why don’t you go ahead and send Sam out to
invasion of Federal Bureau of Investigation
pickupthefood?’’).Category4consistedsolely
offices in 1981). These hostage situations are
of requests to forfeit a negotiating item (e.g.,
included in the current study based on the
release of a hostage, surrender of a weapon,
availability of audiotapes of the events. (‘‘Ne-
surrender of the hostage taker).
gotiation Audio.’’ Retrieved June 14, 2006,
The initial rater was a behavior analyst in a
from http://www.hostagenegotiation.com/Audio.
community-based hospital. A second observer
asp). The three events involved 3, 41, and 9
independently read and scored 100% of the
hostages respectively, and 2, 4, and 1 armed
transcripts. This second rater was a police
hostage takers, respectively.
constable with 7 years of experience and formal
A trained observer read the transcripts and
training in crisis resolution. For each of the
used paper and pencil to identify requests made
hostage-taking situations, the point-by-point
by the hostage negotiator and compliance by
agreement method was used to calculate inter-
thehostagetakertothoserequests.Arequestwas
rater agreement by dividing the number of
defined as any demand to perform a behavior
agreements regarding the categorization of re-
(e.g., ‘‘Put Carol on the phone, let me talk to
her’’), to provide information (e.g., ‘‘How quests by the number of agreements plus
many people do you have with you?’’), to cease disagreements regarding the categorization of
performing a behavior (e.g., ‘‘Don’t put the requests;thisratiowasconvertedtoapercentage.
phone down’’), or to refrain from commencing Therewasaninterrateragreementof98%forthe
to perform a behavior (e.g., ‘‘Don’t shoot categorization of all requests across the four
anybody in the leg’’). Compliance was identi- categories.Duetothecriticalnatureofrequestsin
fied by information contained in the transcripts Category 4 and their impact on the potential
subsequent to the request being issued (e.g., resolutionofahostage-takingsituation,interrater
Carol was put on phone, the presence of nine agreement was calculated for all requests in
hostages was reported, the hostage taker Category4acrossthethreeevents.Theinterrater
remained on the phone, and no hostage was agreement for Category-4 requests was 100%.
shot in the leg). For each of the hostage-taking situations, the
There were a total of 617 requests made by a point-by-point agreement method was used to
hostage negotiator to a hostage taker across the calculate interrater agreement by dividing the
HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS 493
number of agreements regarding the occurrence high-probability requests preceding the low-
of compliance to a request by the number of probability request was 100%. The number of
agreements plus disagreements regarding the instances in which a low-probability request
occurrence of compliance to a request; this ratio immediately preceded a low-probability request
was converted to a percentage. Mean interrater was also determined for each of the three
agreement was 98% for the occurrence of situations.
compliance to all requests and 100% for the
occurrenceofcompliancetoCategory4requests.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Theprobabilityofcompliancewithineachof
The current study examined a total of 617
the request categories for each hostage-taking
requests made of hostage takers by hostage
situationwascalculatedbydividingthenumber
negotiators. This consisted of 273, 205, and
of requests to which there was compliance by
139 total requests for Brooklyn, Sacramento,
the total number of requests within that
and Atlanta, respectively. There were 22, 41,
category. For each of the three hostage-taking
and 7 low-probability requests for Brooklyn,
situations, Category 4 requests had the lowest
Sacramento, and Atlanta, respectively, for a
probability of compliance. The probabilities of
totalof70low-probabilityrequests.Ofthese70
compliance for Category 4 requests were 9%,
low-probability requests, there were four epi-
2%, and 14% for Brooklyn, Sacramento, and
sodes of compliance, two for Brooklyn and one
Atlanta, respectively. The probabilities of com-
each for Sacramento and Atlanta. Figure 1
pliance for Brooklyn, Sacramento, and Atlanta,
depicts the percentage of compliance to low-
respectively, were 77%, 58%, and 93% for
probability requests when the low-probability
Category 1 requests; 47%, 53%, and 62% for
request was not preceded by any high-proba-
Category 2 requests; and 33%, 43%, and 90%
bility requests or when the low-probability
for Category 3 requests.
request was not preceded by any high-proba-
Foreachhostage-takingsituation,allrequests
bility requests to which the hostage taker was
within the category with the lowest probability
compliant (n 5 49). Figure 1 also depicts the
of compliance (Category 4) were identified as
percentage of compliance to low-probability
low-probability requests. For each hostage-
requests when the low-probability request was
taking situation, all requests within the catego-
precededby1(n511),2(n55),3(n51),4
ries with the two highest probabilities of
(n50),5(n51),6(n50),7(n51),8(n5
compliance (Categories 1 and 2 for Brooklyn
0), or 9 (n 5 2) high-probability requests to
and Sacramento and Categories 1 and 3 for
which the hostage taker was compliant. The
Atlanta) were identified as high-probability
probability of compliance to the low-probabil-
requests. All requests for each situation were
ity request generally increased as the number of
chronologically arranged in table format. Low-
preceding high-probability requests to which
probability requests were highlighted, and the
thehostagetakerwascompliantincreased.That
number of high-probability requests immedi-
is, hostage-taker compliance with the low-
atelyprecedingeachlow-probabilityrequestwas probability request was 100% whenthe hostage
determined and recorded. The presence or negotiator issued three, five, or nine high-
absence of compliance to every request in the probability requests that resulted in compliance
table was also recorded. The interrater agree- prior to the low-probability request.
ment for the number of high-probability
requests that preceded each low-probability Brooklyn
request was 100%. The interrater agreement The first instance of compliance to a low-
forthepresenceorabsenceofcompliancetothe probabilityrequest,whichresultedintherelease
494 JAMES HUGHES
Figure 1. Probability ofcompliance tolow-probability requests following high-probability requests.
of one of the three hostages, followed a Sacramento
sequenceofthreehigh-probabilityrequestswith The only compliance to a low-probability
which the hostage taker complied. The second request, which resulted in the release of one
compliance to a low-probability request (‘‘Go hostage, followed a sequence of nine high-
right to the door … with your hands up’’) probabilityrequestswithwhichthehostagetaker
followed a sequence of nine high-probability was compliant. The hostage negotiator issued a
requestswithwhichthehostagetakercomplied. totalof40low-probabilityrequeststhatwerenot
Thiswasthelastof thelow-probabilityrequests precededbythreehigh-probabilityrequestswith
in this negotiation and culminated with the which the hostage taker was compliant. The
surrender of the hostage takers without casual- hostage taker was not compliant with any of
ties to the remaining hostages. The hostage these low-probability requests. The hostage
negotiator issued a total of 20 low-probability negotiator issued 16 low-probability requests
requestswithoutaminimumofthree preceding consecutively, and the hostage taker was not
high-probability requests with which the hos- compliant with any of these low-probability
tage taker complied. Compliance to the low- requests.Thehostagenegotiatoralsoissuedseven
probability requests did not occur in any of consecutive low-probability requests with which
these instances. On seven occasions the hostage the hostage taker was not compliant. The
negotiator issued low-probability requests con- Sacramento situation was ultimately resolved in
secutively, and the hostage taker was not a violent manner: Fourteen hostages were
compliant with any of these low-probability injured,andthreehostagesandthreeofthefour
requests. hostage takers died.
HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS 495
Atlanta data could not be achieved in a few brief
instances due to the poor quality of the
The hostage taker was compliant with one
audiotape of the hostage-taking situation.
low-probability request (which resulted in the
Second, the transcription of the audiotape to
release of three hostages) that followed a
written transcripts for analysis did not permit a
sequence of five high-probability requests with
considerationoftheamountoftimethatpassed
which the hostage taker was compliant. The
between verbal exchanges. The analysis of data
hostage negotiator issued a total of five low-
directly from the audio format and the
probability requests that were not preceded by
calculation of high- and low-probability re-
three high-probability requests with which the
questswithinspecifictimeframesmayrepresent
hostage taker was compliant. The hostage taker
an area for future research. Third, only three
was not compliant with any of these low-
hostage-taking situations were analyzed with
probability requests. The hostage negotiator
compliance to a total of four low-probability
made low-probability requests consecutively on
requests. Two of the three situations were
two occasions, and the hostage taker was not
ultimately resolved by violent means; thus,
compliant with these two low-probability
replications of this analysis might assist in the
requests. The situation culminated in the
determination of the reliability of the current
shooting and killing of the hostage taker. At
findings and their potential practical signifi-
the time of the shooting, the hostage taker had
cance.
complied with 15 consecutive high-probability
requests. In conclusion, the data from the current
analysis suggest that hostage negotiators issue
These data suggest that instances of the high-
many requests in hostage-taking situations.
probability request sequence naturally occur
Based on the current data, these requests can
during some hostage negotiations. There were
be categorized as high and low probability, and
70 low-probability requests delivered across the
high- and low-probability request sequences
three situations; of these, compliance occurred
occur infrequently during hostage negotiations.
four times, for an overall probability of compli-
Despite the infrequency with which these
ance of .057. However, all four instances of
sequencesoccur,therewasasignificantlygreater
compliance with a low-probability request fol-
likelihood that hostage takers would comply
lowedahigh-probabilitysequenceinwhichthree
with low-probability requests that were preced-
or more high-probability requests produced
ed byhigh-probabilityrequestswithwhichthey
compliance. In addition, there was only one
were compliant. Therefore, even though these
instance in which noncompliance with a low-
results are preliminary, given the potential
probabilityrequestfollowedasequenceinwhich
negative consequences of hostage-taking situa-
threeormorehigh-probabilityrequestsproduced
tions, even such preliminary results require
compliance.Thus,theconditionalprobability of
furtheranalysisiftheysuggestapotentialmeans
compliance with a low-probability request given
for improving the outcomes of hostage negoti-
prior compliance with a series of at least three
ations.
high-probabilityrequestswas.8(i.e.,fouroffive).
This difference between the conditional proba-
bilityofcompliancewithlow-probabilityrequests
REFERENCES
(.8) and the overall probability of compliance
withlow-probabilityrequests(.057)isstatistically Belfiore,P.J.,Lee,D.L.,Vargas,A.U.,&Skinner,C.H.
(1997). Effects of high-preference single-digit math-
significant (Z 5 7.16, p , .001).
ematicsproblemcompletiononmultiple-digitmath-
Thereareseveralacknowledgedlimitationsin
ematics problem performance. Journal of Applied
interpreting the present data. First, scoring of Behavior Analysis,30,327–330.
496 JAMES HUGHES
Fuselier, G. D. (1988). Hostage negotiation consultant: Wardlaw, G. (1984). The psychologist’s role in hostage
Emerging role for the clinical psychologist. Profes- negotiations. ThePolice Chief, 51,(5), 56–58.
sional Psychology,19, 175–179. Webster, M. (2004). Do crisis negotiators practice what
Thompson,R.H., &Iwata,B.A.(2007).A comparison they preach? The Canadian Review of Policing
ofoutcomesfromdescriptiveandfunctionalanalyses Research,1,1–8.
of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis,40,333–338.
Van Hasselt, V. B., Baker, M. T., Romano, S. J.,
Schlessinger, K. M., Zucker, M., Dragone, R., et al. Received May 24,2007
(2006). Crisis (hostage) negotiation training. Crimi- Final acceptance January10, 2008
nalJusticeand Behavior, 33,56–69. Action Editor,Mark Dixon