Summaries of Crisis Negotiation

CRISIS NEGOTIATION

A. Definition of Crisis Negotiation

Negotiation is the process of unifying the thoughts of two or more parties who

previously had much different thoughts (Agustina, 2017). Negotiations will find

common ground from two different views more clearly about what both parties want

and how achieve these desires (Jackman, in Agustina, 2017). Zainal (2017) in his

textbook suggests that the two negotiating parties each have interests that are

interdependent on each other. Therefore, it is necessary to negotiate so that the interests

of both parties can be achieved. Furthermore, the definition of crisis, which is a critical

achieved is an agreement between the two parties in a crisis situation. To get agreement

in crisis negotiations, the competence of forensic psychologists in conducting crisis

negotiations is needed. The basic competencies needed in conducting crisis negotiation

practices are research skills in the clinical field and individual and group counseling

skills. Negotiation is needed so that the perpetrator does not do things that are out of

bounds and is willing to let go of the victim without coercion. Justice (win-win solution)

is the basic principle in conducting negotiations.

B. Theory of Crisis Negotiations

The types of incidents that need to be addressed with crisis negotiations are

divided into general crime incidents and terrorism crimes. The crime of terrorism

C. Dilemmas in Negotiating Decisions

The decision of whether to negotiate or not is an important thing to consider.

Flower (in Cringhton & Towl, 2015) states that there is an increased risk of captivity,

kidnapping, or hijacking as a result of negotiations. Some cases of kidnapping, captivity,

or hijacking often end in paying a ransom to the perpetrator in exchange for the return of

the victim or the goods he took. This will make the perpetrator feel successful in doing

his mission and instead try to do the same case massively. With this counter-productive

result, there are some circles who voice for the cessation of the negotiation process that

benefits the perpetrators. The consequence of the termination of the negotiation process is

the increasing threat of victims. Some cases end up trying to make tactical efforts in

- Distributive approach, that is, negotiations that aim to reach an agreement with the

opposing party, but the goals are contrary to each other. Therefore, if one party

achieves the goal, the other party will suffer losses.

- A lose-lose approach, where negotiations with one party cannot achieve its goals,

but on the other hand do not want the opposing party to win. The party that cannot

achieve its goal will try hard so that the opposing party cannot get the victory.

- Compromise approach, which is negotiating by making compromises because both

parties know that if they insist on their respective goals will not be achieved, then

both parties must lower their target goals

- Integrative approach, where negotiations conducted with both parties are able to

Crisis negotiation is a resolutive step for the impact of an inside crisis. As

mentioned earlier, the goal of crisis negotiations is to achieve a win-win solution ) not

just burdening one party or even making both parties equally lose (zero sum game).

Cringhton and Towl (2015) revealed that there are several principles that must be

carried out to achieve the objectives of crisis negotiations, including:

controlled. In some crisis cases, there is a threat of someone committing suicide if a

demand is not met. Other cases reveal emotional reactions arise in victims due to a

threat of a crisis nature. The following emotional states must be addressed

immediately so that the negotiation process can proceed as it should. The effort that

can be done is a counseling process that can explode emotions and then the parties

involved can feel calmer. In addition, calming emotional conditions can be by

showing empathy to the parties involved, so as to create a calm situation.

b) Negotiation process

If the effort to create a calm situation has found a bright spot, then the psychologist

must begin the process of negotiating the crisis. In general, the crisis negotiation

- Focus with interests not positions. Focusing on interests focuses on aligning

both parties to achieve their goals in negotiating, not just wanting

'victory' on one side.

- Generate options. Negotiations should be narrowed down to a practical

option that can then be chosen together.

- Set criteria. Strive to reach consensus through a number of predefined

options.

c) Communication

Communication is something that must be presented in the negotiation process.

Everything as detailed as anything needs to be communicated. The process of

communication in crisis situations is certainly not as easy as in general conditions.

The communication process in crisis negotiations must be made as comfortable as

negotiation process.

e) Show empathy

The process of active listening is a manifestation of the formation of empathy for

related parties. Empathy is a condition in which a person is able to reflect on the

feelings and psychological conditions experienced by the interlocutor. Showing

empathy will contribute to the course of negotiations, where by empathizing, the

parties involved will be more fluid and willing to show empathy Also, the other

party also needs understanding. Asking a kidnapper to imagine if it was his child

who was kidnapped and the victim's position might move the kidnapper's heart to

want to reconcile with his victim.

rapport that is built will help negotiators to convince the perpetrator not to do the

same thing in the future.

g) Develop influence.

Once practical options have been determined and decisions have been made, the

influence of negotiators can be developed. The decision is a positive indication that

the perpetrator can cooperate with the negotiator. Negotiators may develop influence

on a terrorist's accomplices to ask information about the whereabouts of the

influence and encourage actors to do what is suggested by negotiator, in order to

get the result the negotiator wants. The four stages cannot be skipped. Thus,

negotiators cannot get from stage 1 (active listening) to stage 4 (influence), without

developing empathy and building rapport (stages 2 and 3) first (Ireland, Fisher, &

Vecchi, 20 11)

F. Psychologist in crisis negotiation

The purpose and mission of crisis negotiation is to utilize verbal communication

to buy time and intervene in the perpetrator, so that emotions can be reduced and the

rationality of the perpetrator becomes increased (Hatcher, et al., 1998). Consultants, who

and in groups. Thus, psychological consultants must have adequate clinical training and

experience, be familiar with the application of forensics-based issues, understand the

organization and structure of law enforcement agencies, and be able to work in the law

enforcement system.

The existence of crisis negotiations is expected to release hostages safely and if

possible, can capture perpetrators without violence (Hatcher, et al., 1998). In this case,

psychologists will face perpetrators who commit hostage taking and terrorism. There are

6 types of hostage-takers, namely perpetrators who have emotional disorders, political

extremist religious fanatics, criminals, prisoners, and a combination of two or more types

(Hall, 2008).

In line with research by Miron and Goldstein (1979, in Grubb, 2010), that the

majority of perpetrators who carry out hostage taking are found to have

psychopathological disorders, namely paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar (depressed type),

antisocial personality, and "inadequate personality ". Perpetrators generally have mental

psychologists who already have adequate knowledge related to clinical psychology is

important to control negotiation situations (Jianqing, 2014).

Forensic psychologists can also help in knowing and understanding what the

perpetrator's motivation and purpose are in carrying out hostage taking and how

vulnerable it is (vulnerabilities), to suggest and implement appropriate strategies and

methods of dialogue to defuse the situation (Garrison &; Allen; Reiser; Reiser).

carry out security missions.

Negotiation is the main step, but if negotiations are seen as deadlocked, then

tactical measures are used. Tactical measures to create peace are more discussed in a

military perspective. Tactical efforts are essentially gradual. The first thing that needs to

be tried is the compliance of the perpetrator to follow the security instructions. Officers

will usually give verbal threats up to shots in the air to give fear to the perpetrators. If the

perpetrator does not give a positive response, then the next tactical step is an ambush.

This step will usually cost many parties and lives. However, this step must be taken if the

impact of terrorism that occurs in society has been seen as very massive.

To ensure a smooth crisis negotiation process, there are a number of processes

that can be carried out. The process was proposed by Fowler (in Cringhton &; Towl,

2015) as follows:

a) Try to have a positive relationship with the perpetrator, rather than immediately