NEED HELP NO PLAGARISM !!!!!!!!!

51

• 4 •

PROMOTE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR

People don’t change their behavior unless it makes a difference for them to do so.

—Fran Tarkenton

Regardless of how good we are at managing emotions or listening, we won’t be very effective at dealing with others unless we can gain their willing cooperation. Too often, officers believe it is their job to issue orders, and it is the job of others to follow those orders. As law enforce- ment professionals, we have tremendous authority, including the pow- ers to detain, search, and arrest. Nonetheless, our abilities to compel or coerce others are limited. To begin with, most of the people we encounter are not hardened criminals but honest, hardworking citizens, just like us. They might be emotional, they might be frustrated, they might be having a bad day, or they might be experiencing all of the above. In any case, our challenge is the same: to motivate and persuade others to do what we need them to do voluntarily, not to force compliance.

Gaining cooperation is not getting others to do what we want them to do. Rather, it is getting others to want to do what we want them to do. This is not a trivial point. In the first case, we can compel certain people under certain conditions to follow orders. Telling people what to do, however, has its limits. To begin with, most people (regardless of who they are) don’t like being told what to do. When people feel

•

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 . S A G E P u b l i c a t i o n s , I n c .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY AN: 2274124 ; Brian D. Fitch.; Law Enforcement Interpersonal Communication and Conflict Management : The IMPACT Model Account: strayer.main.eds-live

52 LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

pushed, they tend to push back. The harder we push, the harder they push back. If they decide to cooperate, they do so begrudgingly, doing only the minimum asked of them. Second, whenever we compel people to cooperate, we run the risk of creating anger and resentment. People who are angry at law enforcement can be quick to lodge complaints. Whether or not complaints lack merit, they become a permanent part of officers’ personnel records in most law enforcement agencies. Regard- less of the types or outcomes, complaints can have negative impacts on officers’ consideration for promotion, special assignments, and training. Angry, frustrated, and emotional people can also be dangerous people. In extreme cases, they may lash out physically, injuring officers, them- selves, or others.

It stands to reason that, despite our formal authority as peace officers, our ability to force compliance is limited. While we can com- pel some people to cooperate under some circumstances, we clearly lack the authority to compel everyone to cooperate under every circum- stance. We can, however, use a number of tactics to promote positive behavior and get others to do what we need without resorting to coer- cion. Throughout this book, I use the term positive behavior to refer to actions that are compliant and cooperative. In other words, peo- ple demonstrate positive behavior by cooperating willingly with our requests. By getting others to cooperate voluntarily, we not only make our jobs easier and reduce complaints but also improve our safety and effectiveness in virtually every aspect of our work.

CONFLICT STYLE

The first aspect of promoting positive behavior is our style of interact- ing with others. Our abilities to communicate and to connect effectively are critical to building trust and rapport. Saying the right words in the right way and at the right time can go a long way toward reducing ten- sion, soothing strong emotions, and securing cooperation. However, the reverse is also true: Saying the wrong words in the wrong way and at the wrong time can make an already bad situation even worse. Two critical aspects of communicating successfully with others are our conflict style and our words and language.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Promote Positive Behavior 53

Studies have identified three basic styles of conflict communication: passive, aggressive, and assertive. Each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. Understanding all of these styles allows us to approach our communication with others in the most productive ways possible.

Passive Style of Communication

Our goal when using a passive style is to avoid saying or doing anything that might offend the other person. We express our concerns indirectly. However, in doing so, we often fail to set appropriate limits. Because our goal is to not say or do anything offensive, we go along begrudgingly, dragging our feet while looking for ways to sabotage the agreement. The problem with passive communication is that our concerns go unrecognized and unmet. Over time, our resentment grows, and we end up blaming the other person for our failure to voice our concerns. When we have finally had enough, we go on the attack. While this approach may get us some of what we want, it can permanently damage the relationship.

Aggressive Style of Communication

In contrast to the passive style, our goal when using an aggressive style of communication is to dominate the other person and to get our way. We tell others in no uncertain terms just how wrong they are while pushing them to give us what we want. If they fail to give in, we push even harder. If they continue to hold out, we punish them. What we fail to realize is that the harder we push, the harder they push back. The more we blame others, the more they blame us. Even when they do give in, they do so reluctantly. While this tactic may get us some of what we want in the short term, the more we try to dominate others, the more their resentment grows. Over time, the relationship becomes increasingly dysfunctional, until it eventually fails completely, making meaningful communication virtually impossible.

Assertive Style of Communication

The passive and aggressive styles of communication are usually not well suited for law enforcement. We cannot wait passively for others

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

54 LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

to acknowledge our concerns. We need others to follow our directions, and we need them to do so promptly and voluntarily. On the other hand, being overly aggressive usually results in little more than resentment and resistance. People push back in an attempt to retain their freedom. They may refuse to follow simple directions, or they may refuse to cooperate altogether. Fortunately, there is a third alternative. An asser- tive style of communication allows us to express concerns, set limits, and motivate others in respectful ways. It provides a way of managing conflict and dealing with others without ignoring our own concerns or our safety, and without permanently damaging the relationship.

Assertive messages follow a three-part formula, referred to as a “D-E-R script”:

• Describe the behavior: The first step is to describe the facts as we per- ceive them. That is, we share our observations of the person’s behavior as clearly and factually as possible. We do not guess at the person’s motives or speculate about thoughts, feelings, or intentions. We sim- ply describe the behavior as factually and objectively as possible. The more objectively we describe the person’s behavior, the less likely we are to trigger defensiveness or resistance.

• Express the result: The second step is to express the effects of the person’s behavior. Again, we need to explain the results as factually and objectively as possible, without overdramatizing, blaming, or mind reading. In other words, what were the outcomes of the person’s behavior? For example, did the behavior result in an unnecessary delay? Did the behavior result in additional work? Did the behavior further aggravate someone who was already emotionally distressed?

• Request what you want: The final step is to request a specific change in behavior. We need to remember that we cannot change another person’s personality, values, or beliefs. Therefore, asking someone to change her attitude is pointless. It is simply too vague. “You need to have a better attitude,” we might say. “How do you know what my attitude is?” the person responds. “My attitude is fine!” Rather, we should focus on spe- cific, objective behaviors. The more explicit we are with our request, the better our chances of getting what we want.

The following scenario, involving an officer attempting to resolve a family dispute, provides an example of assertive communication. Each time the officer presents the wife with a set of options, she interrupts by yelling, “This is his fault!” The officer then describes

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Promote Positive Behavior 55

the wife’s behavior in specific, objective terms (the first step in the D-E-R script): “Ma’am, each time I offer a solution, you interrupt me by yelling.” Next, the officer outlines the result of her behavior (the second step): “By interrupting me, you make it more difficult to resolve this.” Finally, the officer describes the desired change in the woman’s behavior (the third step): “What I need from you is to let me finish speaking; otherwise, I cannot be of any help.”

Again, it is important to note that assertive communication includes specific requests for changes in behavior, rather than vague requests to modify attitudes or beliefs. Ambiguous statements like “I need you to be more helpful” are simply too fuzzy. The more specific the request, the more likely we are to get what we need.

Words and Language

In addition to selecting our style of communication carefully, we need to be sensitive about the words and language we choose. Words are powerful. The language that we choose can aggravate an already dif- ficult situation or help move us closer to agreement. This is especially true when we are interacting with people who are irate, frustrated, or emotional. Rather than attempt to coerce others to our way of thinking, we should strive for a balance of confidence and humility. This usually requires that we take a softer approach, such as changing our truths to perceptions and changing our conclusions to hypotheses. For example, we could soften “The fact of the matter is” to “If I understand correctly.” Or we might modify “It seems clear to me that” to “It appears that.” Tempering our language in this way can reduce defensiveness while making it safe for others to offer their views.

A second way we can increase our chances of communicating and connecting with others is to focus the discussion on our own thoughts and feelings rather than on their behaviors. As discussed in more depth in Chapter 7, we should avoid reading too much into others’ behaviors. Referring to our own thoughts and behaviors, however, can be an effec- tive way to facilitate a dialogue. We do this by replacing “you” statements with “I” statements (see Table 4.1). Because “you” statements express judgments about others, they often create resentment and resistance.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

56 LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

For example, statements such as “You are making me mad!” or “You obviously don’t get it!” are likely to provoke defensive responses. Most of us do not like to admit our mistakes, even when we are clearly wrong. “I” statements, on the other hand, allow us to communicate our thoughts and concerns without accusing the other person of wrongdoing.

“I” statements allow us to reframe a problem in a way that describes the impact of the person’s behavior without challenging his thoughts or feelings. Statements such as “I don’t understand” and “Perhaps I could have explained myself better” are nonaccusatory and, therefore, less likely to prompt defensive responses. One reason “I” statements are effective is that we are not telling the other person what to think, what to feel, or what to do. Rather, we are simply being honest about what we are thinking and feeling.

Even the best “I” statements, however, will not be very helpful unless they are delivered in the right way. “I” statements work best when our verbal and nonverbal messages are harmonious. If our words are neutral but our voice tone, facial expression, and body language all send accusatory messages, we are likely to promote resentment and resistance. To be successful in using “I” statements, we must describe our thoughts, feelings, and opinions while avoiding the appearance of judgment. Our goal is to explain the effects of the person’s behavior, not to evaluate the behavior’s worth.

While “I” statements can increase our chances of being heard, noth- ing works in every situation. None of us wants to hear how our behavior caused problems for others, regardless of how the message is delivered.

Table 4.1 “You” Statements Versus “I” Statements

“You” Statement “I” Statement

You are making me angry. I am feeling angry.

You obviously don’t get it. I am not making myself clear.

You need to listen. I need to better explain myself.

You only care about yourself. I need to better understand your perspective.

You are not explaining things very well.

I am not doing a good job of understanding.

SOURCE: Adapted from Adler, R. B., & Proctor, R. F., II. (2007). Looking out/looking in (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Promote Positive Behavior 57

In other cases, we are simply too entrenched or too emotionally invested to listen, regardless of the approach. Nonetheless, “I” statements will almost always improve our chances of success without making things worse.

REMOVE THE BARRIERS

Anytime we deal with irate, frustrated, or difficult people, we can expect to encounter a number of predictable barriers. In order to build rapport, gather information, and promote positive behavior, we need to recognize and remove these obstacles. Three of the most common problems are failing to meet the person’s basic needs, discounting the person’s involvement in the process, and disregarding the person’s need to save face.

Meet the Person’s Basic Needs

Despite our individual differences, all human beings share a num- ber of basic needs. We can increase our chances of promoting positive behavior and gaining voluntary cooperation by recognizing, acknowl- edging, and fulfilling these needs. The following are some of our most important needs:

• Safety and security • Status • Self-esteem • Recognition • Control • Sense of belonging • Sense of achievement

While each of these needs is important, this list fails to include one of the most basic, yet often overlooked, human motivations: the need for respect. Our need for respect runs through virtually every aspect of our personal and professional lives. Respect encompasses esteem, sta- tus, and recognition. It also involves our needs for fundamental fairness and equality. It is important to note that treating another with respect is

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

58 LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

unrelated to how we actually feel about the person. We can have positive feelings about a person without respecting his behavior. On the other hand, we can respect someone we do not like. We can respect someone for being honest, hardworking, or talented but also have no interest in getting to know the person better. When we fail to show respect for an individual, the conversation is no longer about the original problem. It is now about defending one’s self-worth. As history has demonstrated repeatedly, people will go to great lengths—including a willingness to die, in some cases—to defend their dignity and self-respect.

If we hope to establish a meaningful dialogue, we must continu- ously honor the other person’s basic humanity, including the needs for respect, dignity, and self-esteem, regardless of our personal feelings. Part of doing so is taking the person’s interests and ideas seriously. In almost every case, failing to honor a person’s basic needs is a surefire recipe for disaster.

Give the Person a Stake in the Outcome

It can be one thing to reach a resolution but another thing altogether to get a person’s buy-in. Too often we focus only on the outcome while ignoring the process. As discussed earlier, process matters. Others are interested not only in the outcome but also in the process that was used to arrive at the decision. One way to ensure a proper outcome is to give the other party a stake in the process—that is, involve the other person in the decision-making process. Involving the other person is more than a technical exercise. It is human nature to reject the decisions of oth- ers, regardless of how favorable the outcome, anytime we feel excluded from the process.

One way of involving the other person is to solicit advice. We might ask, for example, “How do you suggest we resolve things?” or “What advice can you offer on how to best solve this?” By asking for advice, we acknowledge the other person, her concerns, and her role in the process. This includes giving the person credit for any ideas wherever possible. A second tactic is to offer the person a choice. For instance, “It appears that we have two options, which one do you prefer?” Once the person selects an option, it becomes her idea. This increases the

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Promote Positive Behavior 59

person’s psychological and emotional investment. The simple truth of the matter is that we are always more willing to take ownership of a decision when we have invested in the process.

Allow the Person to Save Face

A third consideration when communicating with someone who is irate, frustrated, or emotional is that person’s need to save face—that is, to preserve his dignity, pride, or prestige. Sometimes we want so badly to save face that we agree to do something that is clearly against our best interests. Allowing a person to save face is not the same as making excuses for his bad behavior. Rather, it is about offering the person a way to maintain his self-respect and dignity. None of us like to admit when we are wrong, especially when we can avoid it. We allow others to save face by focusing on workable solutions rather than on assigning blame.

It is important to note that our interactions with others do not occur in a vacuum. There are almost always audiences of friends, neighbors, coworkers, or family members whose opinions we value. It is only nat- ural to want to avoid the appearance of being weak or backing down. In many cases, people will continue to hold out in a dispute simply to avoid the appearance of selling out. Our job is to frame a problem in a way that allows the person to save face while we ensure that our most important concerns are addressed.

ASK FOR A COMMITMENT

When people give their word, we expect them to follow through. That is, we expect consistency between what people tell us they are going to do and what they actually do. We often criticize people who say one thing and do something else, labeling them as liars or hypocrites, and we tend to view people whose words and behaviors are consistent as stable and honest. One way of motivating positive behavior and compli- ance is to secure a public commitment. This might include, for example, a person’s guarantee to respect others. When people go on record with a commitment, they have a natural tendency to maintain consistency between their words and their behaviors.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

60 LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

When we say one thing but do another, the disconnect produces psychological and emotional discomfort, something psychologists refer to as cognitive dissonance. For example, a person who talks about the importance of treating others with respect but behaves disrespectfully can experience feelings of dissonance. The person has two options to relieve the discomfort: He can either change his behavior by treating others respectfully or rationalize his actions by creating an excuse for his behavior.

The human tendency to maintain consistency provides us with a powerful tool for promoting positive behavior and gaining cooperation. If we can secure a person’s commitment to treat others respectfully, to listen while others speak, or to work collaboratively with others, we can motivate positive behavior by reminding the person of that com- mitment. It is worth noting, however, that this approach will work only when the person is forced to conclude that she is solely responsible for any disparity between her beliefs and her actions.

Techniques Based on Commitment and Consistency

Salespersons and other compliance professionals have developed a number of persuasive techniques based on the principles of commit- ment and consistency. Each of the methods described below relies on the idea that once people make a commitment, they feel both internal and external pressure to follow through.

Foot-in-the-Door Technique

The foot-in-the-door technique is named for the efforts of door-to- door salespeople to get “one foot in the door” as a tactic for getting into the house to make a sale. It is based on the idea that people who comply with small requests are more likely to do so with later, larger requests. For example, if we can persuade a difficult person to listen quietly for a few moments, this increases our likelihood of gaining his subsequent cooperation in other areas as well. The trick is to secure the person’s cooperation on a small matter in a way that does not threaten his freedom of choice. The reverse, however, is also true: A person who refuses an initial request is also less likely to grant a second request. Therefore, we should be careful about what we ask for, how we ask, and when we ask.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Promote Positive Behavior 61

Labeling Technique

The labeling technique of securing commitment involves, first, assign- ing the person a positive label and, second, requesting a favor consistent with the label. People are especially sensitive to positive labels, even when someone else assigns those labels arbitrarily. Positive labels provide people with positive reputations, which, in turn, increase the psychological pressure for them to behave in ways consistent with the labels. For example, people we label as helpful are more likely to assist us than are people we label as uncooperative. People are also more likely to comply with later requests after being labeled positively for cooperating with an earlier request.

Reciprocity

One of the most powerful, yet unspoken, rules of social behavior is reciprocity. Simply put, we have a tendency to treat others as they have treated us. We tend to respond to the positive actions of others with pos- itive actions toward those persons, and the reverse is also true. That is, we retaliate against the negative behaviors of others toward us with neg- ative behaviors toward them. For example, if someone speaks to us in a condescending tone, we respond in kind. On the other hand, reciprocity obligates us to repay the kind acts of others with similar kind acts of our own. Whenever people go out of their way to acknowledge us or to treat us kindly, we usually return the favor. The norm of reciprocity is the foundation of some of humankind’s best moral behavior, but it is also the source of some of the worst.

We can see the norm of reciprocity at work every time we go walk- ing or running in a public place. If we wave at other people who happen to be walking or running in the opposite direction, they will almost always wave back. If we fail to acknowledge other people, they will usually avoid acknowledging us as well. The reverse is also true: If other people acknowledge us with friendly greetings and waves, we feel compelled to return these gestures.

This means that if we want other people to treat us with respect and dignity, we should not wait to see how they behave. It is up to us, not them, to set the bar by proactively modeling positive behaviors. When we treat others with professionalism and courtesy, regardless of our personal feelings, they feel compelled to do the same.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

62 LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

An example of reciprocity might involve someone speaking rudely to an officer. If the officer has been courteous and respectful throughout the exchange, reciprocity allows the officer to highlight the person’s bad behavior. “Sir, I don’t understand why you feel it’s necessary to be rude,” the officer might explain. “Have I treated you with anything less than respect?” In many cases, simply pointing out a person’s behavior is enough to motivate a change. Because we have behaved courteously, the person is obligated to do the same. While the rules of reciprocity are usually left unspoken, they can, nonetheless, be powerful motivators.

Door-in-the-Face Technique

The door-in-the-face technique involves making an inflated request (one that will almost certainly be rejected) and following it with a smaller request. Starting with an unrealistic request increases the like- lihood that the person will accept the smaller (desired) request. For example, an officer might tell a person: “I have dozens of questions for you, but that seems like a lot to ask. So, let’s not worry about that right now. Is it okay if I ask you just a couple of simple questions?” It is important to note, however, that this technique does not usually work if the first request seems completely unreasonable. Again, we need to be careful about what we ask for, how we ask, and when we ask.

Psychological Reactance

While the techniques outlined above can enhance our abilities to per- suade others, each has its limits. People, especially those from individu- alistic cultures (such as the United States, Canada, and England), place a high value on their freedom. When a person feels his ability to choose is threatened, he will attempt to regain control, whether by simply refusing to comply or by doing exactly the opposite of what he has been asked to do. Our human tendency to resist attempts to control our freedom, known as psychological reactance, also explains why our attempts to control others often have the opposite effect. Therefore, to promote pos- itive behavior and gain voluntary cooperation, we should avoid restrict- ing people’s freedom of choice to the point where they feel compelled to resist. In the end, it is up to each person to decide whether or not to cooperate and, if willing to cooperate, to what degree and with whom.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Promote Positive Behavior 63

CLOSING THE DEAL

Thus far this chapter has addressed the importance of conflict style and language, meeting people’s basic needs, allowing them to save face, and securing a commitment. Three final strategies for promoting positive behavior and gaining voluntary cooperation are to make it easy on the person, deal with only one issue at a time, and reward positive behaviors.

Make It Easy

If we want others to accept our solutions, we should make it as easy as possible for them to do so. Rather than arguing with them, we want to make their decisions as painless as possible. This begins with a shift in our focus from problems to solutions. Rather than focusing on problems, we should concentrate on solutions that are easy to accept and easy to implement. One way of accomplishing this is by emphasizing the other person’s interests. Most people are simply too concerned with their own needs and interests to consider the needs of others. Framing the prob- lem in a way that places the other person’s interests first is one way of effectively removing obstacles and making it easier to reach agreement.

Less Is More

It is a fact that the more we ask for, the less we will receive. Before we ask someone to change her behavior, we should be clear (at least in our own minds) about what we want. As we have learned, we should make requests in clear, specific, behavioral terms that are easy to under- stand and easy to measure. We should also restrict our requests to no more than one behavior at a time. If we ask for too much, the person can become overwhelmed and may not understand what we expect from her. Simply put, the less we ask for and the more clear and specific we are with our request, the better our chances of getting what we need.

Offer Rewards

Human behavior is, at its core, the product of reinforcements and punishments. Anytime we are rewarded for performing a behavior, we are more likely to repeat the behavior in the future under similar

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

64 LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

circumstances. Conversely, if we are punished for performing an action, we are less likely to do it again. Because people are sensitive to outcomes, we should take every opportunity to reward them for appropriate behavior. If, for example, someone who is irate or emo- tional takes the time to listen, we should reward the effort, especially if we want the person to continue the behavior. This can be as sim- ple as saying, “Sir, thanks for your patience and thanks for listening.” Rewarding people for their efforts is one of the easiest and most effec- tive ways to shape behavior.

On the other hand, when a person behaves inappropriately, we should challenge that behavior in a positive way. For instance: “Sir, the only way that we can better understand each other is if one person speaks at a time.” Punishment, although effective under certain circumstances, should be used only as a last resort. Moreover, to be effective, we should warn the person ahead of time about the kinds of behaviors that are unaccept- able and ensure that the level of punishment is appropriate. Whenever we punish without warning or punish too severely, we run the risk of resentment and resistance.

It is important to note that when we use consequences to shape another’s behavior, we need to be patient. Shaping a person’s behavior can be a difficult process. We must also be consistent with our applica- tions of rewards and punishments. In other words, each time the person offers an appropriate response, we should reinforce the behavior. The same is true of punishment: It must be applied consistently and predict- ably. Contrary to popular belief, changing a person’s behavior is a dif- ficult and tedious undertaking. Dozens—in some cases hundreds—of applications are often required to change a person’s response. However, when used appropriately, rewards and punishments can significantly enhance positive behavior in ways that might not otherwise be possible, without creating unnecessary resistance or resentment.

SUMMARY

One of our primary goals when interacting with others, especially with people who are irate, frustrated, or difficult, is to gain voluntary cooper- ation. Fortunately, there are a number of techniques that can assist us in

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Promote Positive Behavior 65

achieving that goal. To begin with, we should adopt an assertive style of communication, including the use of D-E-R scripts. An assertive style allows us to express our concerns, set limits, and direct the actions of others in respectful ways. Next, we should monitor our words and lan- guage. Words are powerful. The right words spoken at the right time and in the right way can be especially effective. On the other hand, the wrong words spoken at the wrong time and in the wrong way can be disastrous. Promoting positive behavior also requires that we meet the person’s basic needs, give him a stake in the process, and allow him the opportunity to save face. Finally, we should ask the person for a commitment, because we all have a strong psychological drive to maintain consistency between our words and our actions. However, anytime we solicit a person’s com- mitment and cooperation, we should be careful not to limit his freedom to the point where he feels it necessary to attempt to regain control.

The next chapter outlines the fourth stage in the IMPACT model: Achieve rapport.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Why is gaining voluntary cooperation important in law enforcement?

2. Describe the three basic styles of conflict communication.

3. Explain the three components of a D-E-R script.

4. What are the differences between “you” statements and “I” statements?

5. Why is it important to honor a person’s need for respect?

6. What is psychological reactance?

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/10/2021 12:35 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use