Kelln 2007

This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]
On: 23 September 2012, At: 07:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Journal of Police Crisis

Negotiations
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpcn20
STEPS–Structured Tactical
Engagement Process
a b
Brad Kelln PhD & C. Meghan McMurtry BA
c d
(Honours)
a
East Coast Forensic Hospital, Dartmouth, Nova
Scotia, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
b
Halifax Regional Police, 88 Gloria McCluskey
Avenue, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3B 2B8
c
Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
d
Centre for Research in Family Health, IWK Health
Centre
Version of record first published: 08 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Brad Kelln PhD & C. Meghan McMurtry BA (Honours) (2007):
STEPS–Structured Tactical Engagement Process, Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations,
7:2, 29-51
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J173v07n02_03
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:25 23 September 2012
STEPS–
Structured Tactical Engagement Process:
A Model for Crisis Negotiation
Brad Kelln, PhD
C. Meghan McMurtry, BA (Honours)
ABSTRACT. Crisis negotiation is the preferred tactic when law en-

forcement personnel are confronted with a barricaded, or hostage, situa-
tion. Police organizations across North America spend considerable
time and resources to ensure that officers are specially trained in ne-
gotiation techniques. However, given the complexity and variety of crises
situations, it is unrealistic to think crisis negotiators can learn specific
strategies for every situation. Instead, a good crisis negotiation model
must be flexible enough that it applies to virtually any situation regardless
of the context, subject state-of-mind, or other constraints. The present paper
presents a new theory of crisis negotiation called the Structured Tactical
Engagement Process (STEPS). This flexible model provides an overall
framework for both understanding and influencing a barricaded sub-
ject’s behavior in order to reach a peaceful resolution. The model is de-
signed to be easily translated into practice and facilitate training of
negotiators as well as on-site communication. doi:10.1300/J173v07n02_03
[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Ser-
Brad Kelln is a Forensic and Clinical Psychologist, East Coast Forensic Hospital,
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and Consultant to Halifax Regional Police, 88 Gloria
McCluskey Avenue, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3B 2B8.
C. Meghan McMurtry is affiliated with Department of Psychology, Dalhousie Uni-
versity, Halifax, Nova Scotia and Centre for Research in Family Health, IWK Health
Centre. Ms. McMurtry is supported by a Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Re-
search Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
The authors wish to thank Dr. Jason Doiron and Ms. Leanne ten Brinke for their
valuable contributions to this project.
Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, Vol. 7(2) 2007

Available online at http://jpcn.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J173v07n02_03 29
30 JOURNAL OF POLICE CRISIS NEGOTIATIONS
vice: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>

Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc.

All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Stage, negotiator, crisis intervention model, training,

hostage
Crisis negotiation is a complex verbal dance between the negotiator

and the subject. The scene shifts and changes over time with each con-
textual twist. Some situations involve hostages while others do not.
Some subjects are suicidal and others are homicidal. Some crisis sit-
uations are made even more difficult by the addition of weapons or explo-
sives while others seem unmanageable because of the physical con-
straints of the barricade location (e.g., inside a vehicle during rush
hour). Given the extraordinary complexity and variety of crises situa-
tions, it is unrealistic to think that negotiators can learn specific strate-
gies for each situation they might encounter. Instead, a good model of
crisis negotiation must be flexible enough that it applies to virtually any
situation regardless of the context, subject state-of-mind, or other con-
straints. A secondary function of an effective crisis negotiation model is
that it lends itself to education and training by providing an understand-
able, intuitive framework towards resolution. Finally, the crisis negotia-
tion model should also enhance communication among the tactical
teams. The language of the crisis negotiation team should be accessible
to all members of law enforcement (e.g., incident commanders, emer-
gency response team) so as to enhance rapid and effective dissemina-
tion of information. These are the main objectives of the Structured
Tactical Engagement Process (STEPS) proposed in this article.
The purpose of this article is to introduce STEPS as a new model of
barricaded subjects’ behavior and crisis negotiation. First, to orient
readers to the current theories and practice within the field of crisis ne-
gotiation, a brief review of the area will be offered followed by an over-
view of the current approaches to crisis negotiation. Next, the STEPS
model will be described including its theoretical underpinnings, stages
involved, strengths of the model, and future directions.
Historically, hostage and barricaded-person incidents were resolved
by brute force (Bahn, 2003). A major evolution in resolving crisis situa-
tions occurred with the formation of specialized equipment and person-
nel such as Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams and snipers
Brad Kelln and C. Meghan McMurtry 31
that facilitated containment of the situation. Effective containment re-

sulted in an increase in the length of standoffs, which ultimately made

negotiation possible (Bahn, 2003). Once engaged in negotiation, the
goal was to resolve the situation without violence or force (Rueth,
1993).
The work of detective and clinical psychologist Harvey Schlossberg
in New York City in the 1970s is frequently credited as the origin of
modern crisis negotiation (Butler, Leitenberg & Fuselier, 1993; Soskis,
1983). Schlossberg was one of the first to introduce negotiation and
problem-solving techniques into attempts to resolve crisis situations.
By 1973, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began a crisis nego-
tiation training program at its academy in Quantico, Virginia (McMains
& Mullins, 2001). The establishment of the FBI program helped solid-
ify negotiation versus brute force as a recognized strategy in resolving
crisis situations (McMains & Mullins, 2001).
There is little doubt that crisis negotiation is now the preferred tactic
when law enforcement personnel are confronted with a barricaded or
hostage situation. Police organizations across North America spend
considerable time and resources to ensure that officers are specially
trained in the techniques of negotiation (Fuselier, 1988). Departments
in larger urban areas may have entire divisions dedicated to crisis nego-
tiation. As a result, training programs based on a theoretical approach to
sound negotiation tactics are crucial.
Rueth (1993) describes the task facing negotiators as “using their
skills to suggest, convince and persuade . . . perpetrators into doing
something that initially they do not want to do” (p. 659). In other words,
the negotiation process involves change in the hostage taker or barri-
caded-person’s (herein referred to as the subject or perpetrator) behav-
ior (Miron & Goldstein, 1979). However, in the literature there is a
surprising dearth of information about how negotiators should bring
about change or what negotiation techniques are most appropriate.
Currently, there seem to be three broad approaches from which crisis
negotiation principles are taken: causal/explanatory theories, economic
and business models of negotiation, and an atheoretical view.
CAUSAL/EXPLANATORY THEORIES
Theories of crisis negotiation that fall into the causal/explanatory cat-

egory attempt to define the situation by motives of the perpetrator and/
or the unique characteristics of the situation. As a result, crisis situations
are commonly conceptualized as falling into one of two categories: in-

strumental or expressive (Miron & Goldstein, 1979). In an instrumental

crisis situation the subject is seeking a particular outcome and is using
hostages as bargaining chips. As a result, the subject frequently uses in-
timidation and threats with explicit conditions (e.g. “I’ll kill the hostage
if you don’t give me one million dollars”). Some authors hypothesize
that there may be reduced risk to the hostage since the threats to the vic-
tim are conditional and the perpetrator would rather have his or her
request met than hurt the hostage (McMains & Mullins, 2001).
In contrast, the subject’s motivation in an expressive crisis situation
stems from wanting to express his or her feelings rather than obtaining a
specific conclusion (Miron & Goldstein, 1979). If there are hostages in-
volved in an expressive incident they are generally people well known
to the subject and may even be the source of the perpetrator’s emotional
distress. Since the subject is expressing emotional upset, threats are
rarely accompanied by demands. For this reason there may be a rela-
tively higher probability of harm to the hostage in the expressive situa-
tion (McMains & Mullins, 2001). The subject does not need to keep the
hostages safe as they bargain with police. In other words, the expressive
subject is seen as more independent from the police negotiator. While
the instrumental subject wants something from the negotiator (i.e.,
money, transportation), the expressive perpetrator wants nothing. There-
fore, expressive situations are less optimal for traditional give and take
negotiation tactics as there are no obvious demands with which to bar-
gain.
In reality, crisis situations do not lend themselves neatly into the di-
chotomy of instrumental or expressive (Wesselius & DeSarno, 1983). A
subject’s motives can shift over time or be ambiguous from the begin-
ning (Miron & Goldstein, 1979). For example, a bank robbery might es-
calate into a crisis situation and thus initially appear to be instrumentally
based. However, negotiations might reveal the perpetrator is also se-
verely distraught about a recent divorce and unemployment. Thus, this
bank example can be viewed as simultaneously instrumental and ex-
pressive.
An alternate causal/explanatory approach identifies four types of
hostage takers. These types were generated through a review of the per-
petrators most commonly described in crisis negotiation literature and
include: emotionally disturbed subjects, trapped criminals, political
crusaders, and correctional services inmates (e.g., Butler et al., 1993;
Fuselier, 1988). In an extension of this type of approach, Greenstone
and colleagues (2000) detail the characteristics of mental disorders that
negotiators might encounter in subjects in crisis situations. In addition,

Greenstone et al. (2000) provide negotiation strategies based on par-

ticular disorders. However, within any particular syndrome there is
significant heterogeneity in the characteristics (e.g., paranoid versus dis-
organized schizophrenia). Thus it is difficult to reliably tie specific
negotiation strategies to a particular disorder. While it is imperative to
be aware of mental disorders, the characteristics of the barricaded sub-
ject do not dictate a clear method of negotiation–what is missing is an
overall framework for how to influence or change the subject’s behav-
ior.
BUSINESS MODELS OF NEGOTIATION
A less frequently cited source of models for crisis negotiation is

found in the academic areas of communication studies, conflict resolu-
tion, and industrial/organizational psychology. These “business” mod-
els tend to describe the negotiation process in a linear, ordered fashion
that does not provide the flexibility crucial to crisis negotiation. Addi-
tionally, business-based models do not directly indicate strategies that
would be useful to the crisis negotiator. For example, Giebels and
Noelanders (2004) discuss a conflict-resolution model that defines
three stages: the First Phase in which two parties meet and express their
wants; the Second Phase in which the parties shift their perspective
from self-interest to mutual interest; and the Third Phase in which indi-
viduals come together for mutually agreed-upon goals. Such a model
does not seem to immediately lend itself to the reality of crisis negotia-
tions as a barricaded subject rarely states goals in an orderly fashion and
then works to find common ground with law enforcement.
Donohue and colleagues (1991) propose a five-phase progression in
crisis negotiation. The emphasis of Donohue et al.’s model is on high-
lighting the important distinction between normative and crisis bargain-
ing and elaborating the factors involved in the transition from crisis to
normative negotiation. The model describes the following phases: intel-
ligence gathering, introduction and relationship development, problem
clarification and relationship development, problem-solving, and reso-
lution (Donohue, Ramesh, Kaufmann & Smith, 1991). The first phases
are characterized by intense conflict and competitive behavior followed
by a long phase of normative negotiation and finally the last phase
where crisis and fear leads to a resolution of the situation. The explicit
assumption made by the authors is that “individuals seek to remove
themselves from crisis bargaining and enter a phase of more normative

bargaining” (Donohue et al., 1991, p. 140). However, the present au-

thors contend that in many cases this assumption may characterize the
goal of the negotiators rather than the subject. Although Donohue and
colleagues’ model was based specifically on crisis situations it lacks
any immediate direction for the role of the crisis negotiator. Instead, the
model focuses on characterizing how a successful negotiation should
look rather than the understanding and managing the subject’s behavior
(with the exception of recommending active listening strategies). Nor
does the model provide specific strategies for how to achieve behavior
change from the subject.
In summary, business-based models and evolutions from this work
have led to vague three- to five-phase theories that are overly simplistic
and lack any immediate direction for the crisis negotiator. In addition,
such models offer nothing for improved training of negotiators or for
the efficiency of communication during the actual crisis incidents.
ATHEORETICAL VIEW
The atheoretical view of crisis negotiation appears to be the current

standard in negotiator training. The atheoretical approach consists of
providing a list of rules (e.g., the negotiator should defer decisions to a
higher authority, never say “no”) to be used during the application of
basic rapport building and active listening techniques (Miron &
Goldstein, 1979; Fuselier, 1981; Dolan & Fuselier, 1989). This method
of negotiation lacks an overarching framework and fails to provide ne-
gotiators with flexible guidance on how to resolve the situation. In fact,
the emphasis on obeying a list of rules may result in a stilted and anx-
ious negotiator who does not respond naturally to the subject but instead
worries about following a piecemeal set of rules.
Webster (1996, 1997; also see similar suggestions by McMains &
Mullins, 2001) claims that the psychology of influence can be used in
crisis negotiation. Using the psychology of influence does not rely on an
understanding of the dynamics of the crisis situation but focuses on a
straight application of techniques without regard to an overriding
framework. For example, Webster (1996) details how automatic behav-
ior can be combined with influence tactics (such as the norms of author-
ity, commitment, and consistency) to elicit desired responses in crisis
situations. This does not address questions of when to use a technique or
what the desired goal of using the technique might be. Although the
principles of social influence are sound and likely do apply in crisis ne-
gotiation, they would be more effective if encompassed by a compre-

hensive theory of the process of the negotiation.
Other Existing Models of Crisis Negotiation Process
McMains and Mullins (2001) detail four stages of a critical incident:
pre-crisis, crisis, accommodation/negotiation, and resolution. As con-
ceptualized by McMains and Mullins, the pre-crisis stage is character-
ized by “normal business”–everything is under control and everyone is
relatively calm. McMains and Mullins state that the crisis stage can set
the hostage taking in motion, or consist of a new crisis during the situa-
tion. For example, the perpetrator feeling out of control or realizing that
something did not occur as planned may initiate the crisis stage. The ac-
commodation/negotiation stage is said to occur when the subject is try-
ing to think of different solutions to his or her problem and may be open
to suggestions. Finally, the resolution stage is reached when the subject
selects a solution and reaches an emotional equilibrium (McMains &
Mullins, 2001).
Unfortunately, McMains and Mullins’ stages are so broad as to limit
the ability to provide guidance to the negotiator during crisis situations.
The authors devote a great deal of explanation to tangential information
in the pre-crisis and crisis stages and do not give sufficient information
regarding the third and fourth stages. In effect, the stages are not con-
nected, in any clear way, to the role of the negotiator. As a result,
McMains and Mullins’ (2001) stage model might accurately describe a
crisis situation but it does not translate well into a model that informs
negotiation tactics.
Vecchi, Van Hesselt, and Romano (2005) review the FBI Crisis Ne-
gotiation Unit’s Behavioral Change Stairway Model (BCSM). The
BCSM describes five stages (active listening, empathy, rapport, influ-
ence, and behavioral change) that must be sequentially passed through
in order to resolve a crisis situation. The model is based on the sequence
of events that negotiators presumably must accomplish to resolve the
situation. The authors engage in a useful but lengthy discussion of nu-
merous active listening skills, empathy, and rapport (Vecchi et al.,
2005). However, their discussion of Stage 4 and 5 (influence and behav-
ioral change) are not nearly as informative. In fact, the authors state that
in Stage 4 “ . . . the subject is willing to accept the suggestions of the ne-
gotiator as a prelude to behavior change” (Vecchi et al., 2005, p. 545).
In stage 5, “the key to behavior change . . . is achieving a positive rela-
tionship between the negotiator and subject . . . ” (p. 545). The present
authors contend that while an alliance between negotiator and subject is
a necessary component in resolving a crisis situation, it is not sufficient.
As discussed below, decades of research based in the addictions litera-

ture has described the necessary elements for behavioral change, which
are more complex than those offered with the BCSM model.
Transtheoretical Model of Change
Developing a process-oriented model of crisis negotiation which

lends itself to an intuitive understanding of the role of the negotiator as
well as providing an effective means of communication among police
personnel may seem impossible. However, a popular model of behav-
ioral change developed in the field of addiction recovery may provide
an answer.
Essentially, negotiating with a subject to peacefully exit a barricaded
crisis situation is an exercise in bringing about a very difficult behav-
ioral change. When crisis negotiation is reduced to its fundamental goal,
it eliminates almost all of the complexity around situations, individual
subject motivations, and other tangential factors. Simply put, the goal of
crisis negotiation is peaceful surrender by the subject.
The goal of the Transtheoretical Stages of Change model (Prochaska &
DiClemente, 1985, 1986) is to explain how and why people change. The
model examines the most difficult decisions people make and breaks
them down into the stages one must pass through in order to make a
change. The model is transtheoretical meaning that it is based on mul-
tiple psychological theories rather than rooted in one (Prochaska,
1979; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982). Thus, the model retains a gen-
eral applicability to virtually any problem behavior. The transtheo-
retical model has been extensively researched in the treatment and
management of many disorders and problem behaviors such as sub-
stance abuse (DiClemente, 2003), spousal abuse (Anderson, 2003),
smoking (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1985), weight control (Prochaska &
DiClemente, 1985), health education in the elderly (Lach, Everard,
Highstein & Brownson, 2004), and psychiatric distress (Prochaska &
DiClemente, 1985).
At the outset, the Transtheoretical Stages of Change model suggests
that there are certain fundamental things that must happen in order for
behavior change to be possible. These essential factors are the building
blocks of the theory. In order for meaningful behavioral change to be-
come a possibility, an individual must:
• become concerned about his/her current behavior

• become convinced that he/she needs to make a change
• develop a plan of action for making a change
• follow through on the plan and sustain the change
As a result, the Transtheoretical Stages of Change model details five

discrete stages through which an individual normally moves before

making real and substantial changes (e.g., quitting smoking).
The first stage is PreContemplation. In this stage the individual will
not, or cannot, recognize the need for change. A classic example is the
chronic cigarette smoker who refuses to acknowledge the health risks
associated with the behavior. The individual in PreContemplation does
not want to change and becomes defensive at any suggestion to the con-
trary, as he/she does not perceive there to be a problem.
The second stage is Contemplation. In this stage the individual is less
defensive and more willing to consider the need for change. However,
the person is far from being committed to implementing change. In-
stead, the person in Contemplation is weighing his/her options and the
advantages and disadvantages of remaining the same or changing the
behavior. An important distinction between Precontemplation and Con-
templation is that the individual in Contemplation is willing to hear
some of the arguments for change whereas the precontemplator cannot
tolerate this discussion.
The next stage is Preparation. At this stage the individual is reason-
ably committed to the idea of change but not entirely motivated to carry
it out. The person recognizes the importance of making a change but is
only ready to discuss options about how to achieve the behavior change.
In addition, the individual may make slight behavioral changes but the
changes are not meaningful (e.g., cutting down from 50 cigarettes per
day to 49).
The fourth stage is Action. After the individual has moved through
Preparation and developed a reasonable plan, Action is the stage when
that plan is carried out. It is not until this fourth stage that meaningful
behavior change actually occurs.
The final stage is Maintenance. Most behavior change is incredibly
difficult, as the individual must contend with numerous forces bent on
maintaining the status quo. After an individual successfully makes a
change he/she must be vigilant for relapses or slips back to old habits or
difficulties. The goal of Maintenance is to sustain the change.
The authors of the model caution that the stages are dynamic and bi-di-
rectional (Prochaska, DiClemente & Norcross, 1992). For example, an
individual can slip out of Preparation and fall back into PreContem-
plation. In the traditional use of the model within addictions and mental
health, the therapist must try to skillfully move with the patient back and
forth through the stages until the final goal is reached. The more successful
interactions are the ones where both the therapist and the patient are work-
ing within the same stage (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1986).
The Structured Tactical Engagement Process model (STEPS) of cri-

sis negotiation applies the Transtheoretical Model’s Stages of Change

to a crisis situation. The use of these generic stages provides an over-
arching model that is both intuitive and lends itself immediately to di-
recting the efforts of negotiation.
The STEPS Model
The goal of crisis negotiation virtually never changes: behavior

change in the subject leading to a peaceful surrender. Whether the situa-
tion involves a distraught husband holding his wife hostage or a botched
bank robbery with suspects barricaded in the vault, the goal of police in-
volvement is always the same. As the end goal of negotiation is behav-
ior change, which remains consistent across situations, the application
of the Transtheoretical Stages of Change model to crisis negotiation
makes perfect sense.
Essentially, STEPS views the crisis situation as a behavioral prob-
lem. The barricaded subject needs to develop the motivation and com-
mitment to peacefully surrender. The job of the crisis negotiator is to
assess what stage the subject is at and then work from that point to lead
him/her towards surrender. As a result, the contextual (e.g., barricade
on a bus or building) or personal (e.g., bank robber versus psychiatric
patient) characteristics of the incident do not affect the relevance of ap-
plying the STEPS model. The model applies whenever the goal of the
negotiator is to achieve a peaceful resolution. The STEPS model makes
the following assumptions about the crisis negotiation process:
1. each crisis situation shares a common behavioral goal: peaceful

surrender
2. barricaded subjects may be at different stages of readiness to
commit to the behavioral action of peaceful resolution
3. a crisis negotiator’s goal is to work with the subject to move him
or her through the stages of readiness to the final stage
4. a subject must move through the steps for a crisis to end in a
peaceful, voluntary fashion
The application of the Transtheoretical Stages of Change model re-

sults in four distinct steps, or stages, through which a barricaded sub-
ject moves. The stages are keyed to both psychological and behavioral
commitment and motivation to exit a situation peacefully. The stages
of the STEPS model are:
STEP 0: PRECONTEMPLATION
STEP 1: CONTEMPLATION
STEP 2: PREPARATION
STEP 3: ACTION
Once an individual has surrendered to police custody, the Mainte-

nance stage (from the original model) is not relevant, and is not in-
cluded here.
Please refer to Table 1 for a detailed account of suggested negotiation
strategies, flow of communication, and subject indicators for each step.
Within each Step below, examples are given from transcripts of actual
crisis situations with names and any identifying information removed.
Step 0: Pre-Contemplation
Based on the descriptions of numerous crisis situations, it is hypothe-

sized that most subjects start at this Step. Due to a variety of factors, a
subject in Step 0 is simply unwilling or unable to acknowledge that he/
she is in a barricaded situation beyond his/her control. It could be that
the individual’s narcissism or adrenaline rush prevents him/her from
recognizing he/she does not control the situation. It could be that the in-
dividual is so overwhelmed that it is pure fantasy driving the belief that
he/she can simply order the police to leave. Whatever the underlying
motive, the subject is uncooperative, argumentative, and totally unreal-
istic.
* Subject names and/or any crucial identifying information has been changed
40
TABLE 1. Description of Stages Including: Subject Indicators, Communication Direction, Negotiation Techniques, and
Goals.
41
An important marker of individuals at Step 0 is their reluctance, and

sometimes anger, toward discussions about resolving the situation.

Suggestions from the crisis negotiator are met with ridicule, derision, or
outright hostility. The subject at Step 0 is simply not ready to think
about peacefully resolving a situation. If the negotiator attempts to
move the discussion toward ending the situation, it is likely very un-
helpful and possibly detrimental.
Another essential feature of the individual at Step 0 is making unreal-

istic demands that are not intended to facilitate negotiation. The subject
might demand 100 million dollars and a helicopter or that all the police
in the area leave. Other perpetrators have insisted that the police supply
illegal drugs. Regardless of the specific demand, the interpretation is the
same: the subject is stuck and cannot see that he/she must work with law
enforcement to resolve the situation. As a result, there is little for the cri-
sis negotiator to actually do at this stage. Attempting to argue with the
subject, or debate with the individual about his/her position, will only
further entrench him/her in Step 0. The crisis negotiator must use his/
her skills to listen and gently move the individual towards Step 1–Con-
templation. It is hypothesized that the crisis negotiator will obtain
movement from Step 0 through developing rapport with the perpetrator.
As a connection between the subject and the negotiator grows, the indi-
vidual is less likely to be defensive and more open to suggestion. The
initial relational pattern formed between negotiator and perpetrator
(e.g., highly affiliative and cooperative or low in affiliation and compet-
itive) tends to be maintained throughout the rest of the negotiation
(Donohue & Roberto, 1993). Therefore, during this step in crisis negoti-
ation, it is important to focus on increasing affiliation and cooperation
between the negotiator and the subject.
Step 1: Contemplation
At Step 0 the subject is completely unable or unwilling to consider

the seriousness of his/her situation. The essential feature of movement
into Step 1 is that the subject is beginning to acknowledge that he/she is
in a situation that will require cooperation with law enforcement to re-
solve. The individual is not fully invested or committed to working on a
peaceful resolution but he/she is starting to see that simply asking the
law enforcement to leave is not a viable option. The anger and defen-
siveness of the subject in Step 0 give way to mounting anxiety and con-
cern in Step 1. This emotional shift might result in the subject offering
explanations for his/her behavior or apologizing. The perpetrator may
vacillate back and forth between acknowledging that he/she must work
with the police and asserting his/her independence. Alternately, the sub-
ject may begin lamenting about potential consequences as hopelessness
starts to set in.
In the language of the Transtheoretical Stages of Change Model, the

individual in Contemplation is one who is realizing he/she needs to
make a change but lacks the resources or confidence to take action.
Therefore, the crisis negotiator must gently affirm the need for a peace-
ful solution while bolstering the individual’s confidence to move into
Step 2. At this step it may be common to hear negotiators talk about “do-
ing the right thing” or note that the subject has not really committed a se-
rious crime yet. Such statements by the negotiator are intended to give
the subject hope and confidence that together they can resolve the situa-
tion. Once a subject is committed to working with law enforcement and
his/her motivation begins to increase, he/she is in Step 2.
Step 2: Preparation
At this stage the subject now agrees there is a problem and is begin-
ning to consider, and possibly commit to, a solution. A feature of this
step occurs when the individual tests various exit alternatives (e.g., “Do
you expect me just to walk out with my hands up?”) or different conse-
quences (e.g., “If I come out you’re going to throw me in jail for the rest
of my life!”). It would not be uncommon for the subject to try to save
face by making suggestions in a sarcastic or dismissive fashion but the
negotiator should be aware that it may be an attempt to gather informa-
tion just the same.
In contrast to the first two steps, the crisis negotiator must be far more
active and directive in Step 2. Essentially, this step must include exten-
sive problem-solving to develop an appropriate exit strategy. Signifi-
cant difficulties or problems that are encountered at this step could
bump a subject back into a lower step. The crisis negotiator must bal-
ance a delicate degree of motivation and commitment in the subject in
order to move him/her into the final step.
Some of the potential obstacles that should be explicitly addressed in
Step 2 include:
Does the perpetrator want a lawyer waiting?
Are there any barriers to exit? (e.g., door nailed shut)
If weapons are involved, how should they be handled?

If there are hostages, how should they be handled?
Once an acceptable plan has been determined and both parties agree
to it, the subject should move to Step 3.
Step 3: Action
In this final stage the subject should be following the agreed-upon

plan for a peaceful surrender. The crisis negotiator needs to remain
highly directive and supportive in leading the subject to an exit. Part of
the difficulty at this stage is if the subject gets “cold feet” and retreats to
a prior step. Such an event would not be uncommon. Part of the com-
plexity of moving a subject through the steps is managing potential
movement back and forth through until the final exit is achieved.
Flexibility of Movement Through the Steps
The STEPS model makes no assumption that the subject will always
start at Step 0 and progress through the stages in an orderly fashion. In-
stead, a negotiator may find that a subject begins at any step along the
continuum and during the process of negotiation the subject may move
up or down the steps until resolution is reached. Therefore, a negotiator
must be flexible in tracking the subject’s progress in the STEPS and ad-
just the negotiation approach accordingly. In essence, the core tenet of
the model is that the negotiator must use appropriate negotiation strate-
gies keyed to the current step in which the subject finds him/herself.
One potential problem occurs when the crisis negotiator becomes too
focused on Step 3 (i.e., a peaceful exit) and ignores other issues that
arise. If the subject is at an earlier step, a focus on Step 3 will damage
rapport and make movement through the initial stages more difficult.
Integrating STEPS into Existing Crisis Negotiation Training
Structured Tactical Engagement Process is a universal model that al-

lows negotiators, emergency response team members, incident com-
manders, and other police personnel an easy, effective, and useful way
to conceptualize a crisis situation and the motivational status of the per-
petrator. In addition, the STEPS model provides a powerful didactic
tool for crisis negotiation training. Because the model is broad and ap-
plies across a variety of crises situations, it serves as a foundation upon
which other negotiation rules and teaching can be applied. For example,
one management strategy often employed in an instrumental crisis situ-
ation involves creating fatigue in the subject through a prolonged nego-
tiation (Miron & Goldstein, 1979; Fuselier, 1981). The theory is that a
subject will tire of waiting for the sought-after outcome and come to re-
alize that it is futile. Police want to move a perpetrator psychologically
from believing he/she can win a situation to simply wanting to resolve
the situation. This tactic is not inconsistent with STEPS. In fact, the
STEPS model explains this trajectory in motivational terms. Initially,
the instrumental subject is stuck in Step 0–he/she is not able to recog-
nize that work with the police is required to resolve the situation.
Slowly, sometimes as a result of the passage of time, the subject begins
to consider giving in to the police (Fuselier, 1981). This is the move-
ment from Step 0 to Step 1 or 2. Finally, in a successful negotiation, the
individual commits to cooperating with the police and surrenders. Fur-
thermore, in contrast to other theories of crisis negotiation (e.g.,
Donohue et al., 1991), one contention made by STEPS is that a simple

lack of trust between the subject and negotiator is not the sole barrier to
resolution of the problem. Rather, the subject must be psychologically
ready to change his/her behavior–that is, to work with law enforcement
to exit the situation.
In a different example, the goal of the negotiators in an expressive in-
cident is to lower the arousal level of perpetrator to restore his or her
equilibrium and facilitate more effective problem-solving (Miron &
Goldstein, 1979). To this end, the negotiation team attempts to form an
atmosphere that is as non-threatening and supportive as possible. None
of these strategies must be abandoned but instead can be applied within
the scaffolding of STEPS. The initial emotional distraction of expres-
sive subjects simply roots them in Step 0–making it difficult for them to
recognize the seriousness of their situation. The negotiator’s job is to do
what it takes to move them along in the steps.
The STEPS model also uses many of the strategies and information
gathering approaches of traditional negotiation. For example, informa-
tion concerning the perpetrator’s mental health history remains pivotal
in STEPS. A mental health consultant trained in crisis negotiation (e.g.,
a clinical psychologist) has long been recognized as an important part of
the negotiation team (e.g., Fuselier, 1981). The determination of the
subject’s contact with reality is a particularly important issue to con-
sider when negotiating especially within the STEPS model. If a subject
has little contact with reality, a logical problem-solving approach will
be more difficult to successfully apply (Rueth, 1993) and equally affect
the use of the STEPS model. Negotiators must remain flexible in ap-
proaching subjects and be willing to adapt strategies to suit the situa-
tion.
Finally, as in traditional negotiation techniques, active listening re-
mains a vital ingredient of the negotiation process in STEPS. The skills
of active listening and paying attention to the whole message of the
subject are as vital to establishing rapport and encouraging movement
through the stages of the STEPS model as they are in traditional negotia-
tion. In addition, a technique called Motivational Interviewing (Miller &
Rollnick, 2002) may be useful in crisis negotiation. Motivational inter-
viewing (MI) is a style of counseling focused on helping an individual
change a problematic behavior. More specifically, MI emphasizes col-
laboration between the parties, evocation (rather than education by the
counselor), and autonomy in working through ambivalent feelings
(Miller & Rollnick, 2002). The four general principles of MI are to ex-
press empathy, develop discrepancy, roll with resistance, and support
self-efficacy (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). Donohue and colleagues (1991)

describe how subjects often focus on one alternative rather than give
consideration to the full array of possibilities. This is consistent with a
subject in Step 0 of STEPS. The techniques of MI may prove useful dur-
ing Step 0 as the purpose of MI is to help a person explore ambivalence
about both the current behavior and a possible change. Next in MI, dis-
crepancy is cultivated between the subject’s current behavior and his/
her desired goals so that the person is more motivated to change.
Summary of Strengths
The STEPS model provides an efficient and clear structure for under-
standing the route a subject must travel in order to peacefully surrender.
Vecchi and colleagues (2005) noted that a subject’s emotional state
must be addressed first in order for problem-solving strategies to be
successful. In STEPS, Step 0 and some of Step 1 are devoted to defusing
a subject’s emotions in order to more effectively problem-solve. STEPS
also provides immediate direction to the crisis negotiator on how to
move a subject through successive steps/stages to a successful outcome.
In addition, this new model offers a powerful and intuitive tool for fa-
cilitating instruction in crisis negotiation training. A major purpose of
STEPS is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of communication
among the various law enforcement team members during an actual cri-
sis situation. STEPS provides an understanding of the motivational sta-
tus of the subject (i.e., how ready the subject is to change his/her
behavior and resolve the situation). This understanding is then linked to
concrete negotiation strategies. For example, knowing a subject is at
Stage 0 immediately communicates a great deal about where negotia-
tions are and what needs to be done: a focus on active listening and
patience.
Future Directions
Presently, the STEPS model is proposed as a useful theory of the pro-

cess of crisis negotiation but is not supported through direct empirical
investigation. As a result, the next stage in theory development is to ex-
plore the numerous issues and questions that the model raises. Since the
model does not propose techniques of negotiation that are far removed
from what is currently used and highlights a general pathway, existing
negotiation transcripts could be studied to answer some of the prelimi-
nary hypotheses. For example, in future studies with a large number of

transcripts, qualitative coding could be undertaken to determine if

STEPS captures a significant proportion of the subject’s behavior. In
other words, can coders reliably classify a subject’s sequence of behav-
ior as indicative of particular step? In which step do subjects tend to
start? It was hypothesized earlier that most subjects seem to be in Step 0
when negotiators make contact but further research with more tran-
scripts should be undertaken to answer this question. In addition, more
support is needed for the behavioral and verbal markers that a subject is
moving from one step to the next. Such movement must also be tracked
as a subject progresses forward in negotiation but also as he/she might
regress.
Analysis of existing transcripts can help uncover specific techniques
of the negotiator that seem best suited to assisting a subject move
through the STEPS. Tactics of the negotiator might include both style
and content of approach as well as specifics around vocal intonation.
Training exercises involving role-playing could be used to examine
whether adherence versus non-adherence to the STEPS model by the
negotiator predict different reactions by the subject or perhaps different
outcomes overall. A fine-grained analysis of the interactions between
subjects and hostage negotiators could potentially be explored through
a technique such as discourse analysis.
The average length of time subjects (and therefore negotiators) spend
in each step is also important to examine in future research. Currently, it
is hypothesized that the majority of the negotiation time will be spent in
Step 0 (pre-contemplation) and the least amount of time in Step 3 (ac-
tion). However, future research is needed to clarify whether any pattern
truly exists in crisis negotiations.
Most importantly, preliminary research should also address the suit-
ability of the model to police work. Such an investigation might involve
presenting the STEPS model as an explanatory device in crisis situa-
tions and soliciting feedback about the usefulness, utility, and ease of
communication of the model. In keeping with this future goal, the pres-
ent model has been presented to forensic and law enforcement research
audiences, local and national police agencies, and mental health profes-
sionals working with law enforcement. All audiences have been very
receptive to the model.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of a stage-model of change in negotiation is to allow for

ease of prediction of behavior and selection of different negotiation
techniques, to facilitate a successful resolution of the situation. STEPS
was presented in this paper as a new model of crisis negotiation. The
model is unique in its focus on characterizing and influencing subjects’
behavior rather than detailing the traditional phases of bargaining.
STEPS should also facilitate crisis negotiator training by providing a
flexible and logical framework through which negotiation can be guided
rather than requiring negotiators to learn a list of guidelines by rote. In
addition, the use of the STEPS model of negotiation should allow for
more efficient and effective communication on-scene. Communication
is particularly important during a crisis as there are often multiple police
teams working in consort. In conclusion, STEPS is offered as a poten-
tially valuable new tool for crisis negotiations which requires further
validation through empirical research.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. (2003). Evolving out of violence: An application of the transtheoretical
model of behavioral change. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 17(3),
225-40.
Bahn, C. (2003). Sieges and their aftermath. In R. Rosner (Ed.), Principles and prac-
tice of forensic psychiatry (2nd ed., pp. 611-616). London: Arnold.
Butler, W.M., Leitenberg, H., & Fuselier, D.G. (1993). The use of mental health pro-
fessionals to police hostage negotiation teams. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 11,
213-221.
DiClemente, C. C. (2003). Addiction and change: How addictions develop and ad-
dicted people recover (Guilford Substance Abuse Series). New York: Guilford
Publications Inc.
DiClemente, C.C. & Prochaska, J.O. (1985). Processes and stages of self-change: Cop-
ing and competence in smoking behavior change. In S. Shiffman & T.A. Wills
(Eds.), Coping and substance use (pp. 319-343). Toronto: Academic Press Inc.
Dolan, J.T. & Fuselier, G.D. (1989). A guide for first responders to hostage situations.
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 58, 14-21.
Donohue, W.A., Ramesh, C., Kaufmann, G. & Smith, R. (1991). Crisis bargaining in
intense conflict situations. International Journal of Group Tensions, 21(2), 133-53.
Donohue, W.A. & Roberto, A.J. (1993). Relational development as negotiated order in
hostage negotiation. Human Communication Research, 20(2), 175-98.
Fuselier, G.D. (1981). A practical overview of hostage negotiations (conclusion). FBI
Law Enforcement Bulletin, 50, 10-15.
Fuselier, G.D. (1988). Hostage negotiation consultant: Emerging role for the clinical
psychologist. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 19(2), 175-179.

Giebels, E. & Noelanders (2004). Crisis negotiations: A multiparty perspective.
Veenendaal, Netherlands: Universal Press.
Greenstone, J.L., Kosson, D.S & Gacono, C.B. (2000). Psychopathy and hostage nego-
tiations: Some preliminary thoughts and findings. In I.B. Weiner (Ed.), Personality
and clinical psychology series: The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopa-
thy, a practitioner’s guide (pp. 385-403). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lach, H. W., Everard, K. M., Highstein, G., & Brownson, C. A. (2004). Application of
the Transtheoretical Model to health education for older adults. Health Promotion
Practice, 5(1), 88-93.
McMains, M.J. & Mullins, W.C. (2001). Crisis negotiations: Managing critical inci-
dents and hostage situations in law enforcement and corrections (2nd ed.).
Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.
Miller, W.R. & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing Second Edition–pre-
paring people for change. New York: Guilford Press.
Miron, M. & Goldstein, A. (1979). Hostage. New York: Pergamon Press.
Prochaska, J.O. (1979). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis. Home-
wood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Prochaska, J.O. & DiClemente, C.C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more
integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, research and practice, 19(3),
276-288.
Prochaska, J.O. & DiClemente, C.C. (1985). Common processes of self-change in
smoking, weight control and psychological distress. In S. Shiffman & T.A. Wills
(Eds.), Coping and substance use (pp. 345-363). Toronto: Academic Press Inc.
Prochaska, J.O. & DiClemente, C.C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of
change. In W. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors: Processes
of change (pp. 3-27). New York: Plenum Press.
Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., & Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people
change: Application to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-
1114.
Rueth, T.W. (1993). Onsite psychological evaluation of a hostage taker. Psychological
Reports, 73, 659-664.
Vecchi, G.M., Van Hasselt, V.B. & Romano, S.J. (2005). Crisis (hostage) negotiations:
Current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution. Aggression and Vio-
lent Behavior, 10, 533-51.
Webster, M. (1996). The role of influence in crisis management. RCMP Gazette, 58(2),
8-14.
Webster, M. (1997). The role of the psychological consultant in the management of
hostage/barricade incidents. RCMP Gazette, 59(12), 16-19.
Wesselius, C.L. & DeSarno, J.V. (1983). The anatomy of a hostage situation. Behav-
ioral Sciences & the Law, 1(2), 33-45.
RECEIVED: 12/29/07
REVISED: 01/12/07
ACCEPTED: 03/10/07
doi:10.1300/J173v07n02_03

Kelln 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kelln 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kelln 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]

On: 23 September 2012, At: 07:25

Journal of Police Crisis

Version of record first published: 08 Sep 2008.

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J173v07n02_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

ABSTRACT. Crisis negotiation is the preferred tactic when law en-

Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, Vol. 7(2) 2007

vice: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>

Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc.

KEYWORDS. Stage, negotiator, crisis intervention model, training,

Crisis negotiation is a complex verbal dance between the negotiator

that facilitated containment of the situation. Effective containment re-

sulted in an increase in the length of standoffs, which ultimately made

Theories of crisis negotiation that fall into the causal/explanatory cat-

are commonly conceptualized as falling into one of two categories: in-

strumental or expressive (Miron & Goldstein, 1979). In an instrumental

negotiators might encounter in subjects in crisis situations. In addition,

Greenstone et al. (2000) provide negotiation strategies based on par-

BUSINESS MODELS OF NEGOTIATION

A less frequently cited source of models for crisis negotiation is

themselves from crisis bargaining and enter a phase of more normative

bargaining” (Donohue et al., 1991, p. 140). However, the present au-

The atheoretical view of crisis negotiation appears to be the current

gotiation, they would be more effective if encompassed by a compre-

As discussed below, decades of research based in the addictions litera-

Transtheoretical Model of Change

Developing a process-oriented model of crisis negotiation which

• become concerned about his/her current behavior

As a result, the Transtheoretical Stages of Change model details five

discrete stages through which an individual normally moves before

The Structured Tactical Engagement Process model (STEPS) of cri-

sis negotiation applies the Transtheoretical Model’s Stages of Change

The STEPS Model

The goal of crisis negotiation virtually never changes: behavior

1. each crisis situation shares a common behavioral goal: peaceful

The application of the Transtheoretical Stages of Change model re-

Once an individual has surrendered to police custody, the Mainte-

Based on the descriptions of numerous crisis situations, it is hypothe-

An important marker of individuals at Step 0 is their reluctance, and

sometimes anger, toward discussions about resolving the situation.

Another essential feature of the individual at Step 0 is making unreal-

At Step 0 the subject is completely unable or unwilling to consider

In the language of the Transtheoretical Stages of Change Model, the

If weapons are involved, how should they be handled?

If there are hostages, how should they be handled?

In this final stage the subject should be following the agreed-upon

Flexibility of Movement Through the Steps

Integrating STEPS into Existing Crisis Negotiation Training

Structured Tactical Engagement Process is a universal model that al-

Donohue et al., 1991), one contention made by STEPS is that a simple

self-efficacy (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). Donohue and colleagues (1991)

Presently, the STEPS model is proposed as a useful theory of the pro-

nary hypotheses. For example, in future studies with a large number of

transcripts, qualitative coding could be undertaken to determine if

The purpose of a stage-model of change in negotiation is to allow for

psychologist. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 19(2), 175-179.

You might also like