CPS2822: Terrorism and Hostage Taking Incidents PDF

CPS2822: Terrorism and Hostage Taking Incidents Week 3 Dr. Eleni Vazakidou Psychology Department 1 Outline Terrorism Background informa...

CPS2822: Terrorism and Hostage Taking Incidents Week 3 Dr. Eleni Vazakidou Psychology Department 1 Outline Terrorism Background information and research issues The nature of terrorism Is There a Terrorist Personality or Psychopathology? What makes a terrorist Hostage negotiation incidents Underlying rules and approach Active listening skills Models of hostage negotiation Terrorism Brief Historical Review (Post et al., 2014) 4 distinct waves of (modern) terrorism starting at the end of the Victorian period 1. Anarchist wave in Russia in 1880s 2. Nationalist-separatist anti-colonialist movement which was dominant between WWI and WWII and beyond 3. Social-revolutionary new left which generally opposed their parent generation that began in the 1960s 4. Centered around religion and started in the 1980s  Differ from earlier ones ▪ Previously, terrorist groups frequently New Terrorist showed concern not to alienate the public by using non indiscriminate, Groups excessive, mass violence (e.g. give warnings) ▪ The growth of suicide terrorism Research on Terrorism Terrorism research has been quite intense over the past 40 years However, much of this research lacks scientific rigour (Borum, 2004) Data constitutes a consistent challenge – many of the basic methods of psychological research cannot be employed or are meaningless in this context Research on terrorism has largely been ignored by mainstream psychology and good psychological research sometimes stems out of other disciplines such as politics and sociology Although these comments remain true, terrorism research has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years  The Nature of Terrorism What is terrorism? Terrorism is generally understood to be the use of violence and intimidation to disrupt or coerce a government and/or an identifiable community. Terrorism has traditionally been distinguished from routine criminal violence because it is driven by a particular political and/or religious motivation. (Mythen and Walklate, 2005, p. 381) However, differentiating terrorist violence from other forms of criminal violence is hard because it depends on both the objective of the violence and its motivation– and who is making the judgement call. Crimes against the government? Is the government legitimate? Should we consider legitimacy as a criterion? There may not be international agreement about the government’s legitimacy ▪ Terrorist groups? Or freedom fighters?  The Nature of Terrorism Different types of terrorist attacks Terrorist attacks as threat: In this the 1. Terrorism 2. Terrorist terrorist organisation seeks to intimidate attacks as attacks as people and society. The intention is not threats means primarily to cause casualties. Terrorist attacks as means: The victim is used as a way of negotiating about the goal of the terrorist group. Terrorist attacks as violence: In this 3. Terrorist attacks as individuals or groups of people are violence targeted to be injured or killed. Yokota et al. (2007) Mental health and personality problem issues and terrorism Is There a Terrorist Personality or Psychopathology? Temptation to label out-of-the-ordinary actions as insane, since such a label seems to justify the behavior Danger of assuming that terrorists necessarily conform to a particular type given the characteristics of a particular terrorist episode There are other good reasons to question whether terrorists characteristically have extreme personality defects or a certain personality type Social psychological research has pointed to the rationality rather than irrationality of participants in extreme behaviours (e.g. Milgram’s experiment on obedience) The relationship between male sex and violence ▪ Surprisingly there is a large number of women suicide bombers Is There a Terrorist Personality or Psychopathology? There is a remarkable consensus in the research literature: 1. there is no such thing as a terrorist personality, and 2. that mental abnormality is simply not an important consideration when trying to understand terrorist attackers Characteristics of psychopaths do not make them good members of any sort of organization Terrorists are normal people but who commit acts of terrorism Corner, Taylor, Van Der Vegt et al. (2021) reviewed previous research on the relationship between psychopathy as well as personality on terrorist involvement and found that very few studies have investigated psychopathy as a clinical variable- most of them found no link We need more complex explanations of how psychological factors are involved in terrorism, contextual and situational aspects play also a role. Worldviews (Borum, 2014) Authoritarianism: an enduring learned attitude of hostility and anger towards out-groups, submissiveness to authority figures, and conventionality Fundamentalism: absolutistic religious thinking about right and wrong and how people are categorized morally Dogmatism: manifests a closed system of thought including beliefs and disbeliefs which are strongly held and resistant to change Apocalypticism: a belief in a future cataclysmic event such as a confrontation or massive change Only a few have been selected to be warned of this event and make preparation. What Makes a Terrorist? The psychological motivations of terrorist recruits tend to be the very human needs of 1) wanting to feel that one belongs and 2) the development of a satisfactory personal identification histories of childhood abuse, trauma, perceived injustice and humiliation are common Perception of injustice and the need for a sense of belonging and identity (these seem to be more important for some academics) Merari believes that suicide terrorism should be understood in terms of the consequences of terrorist organisation systems Indoctrination: throughout the process leading to the suicide mission, high-authority members of the group continue to indoctrinate the potential bomber in order to maintain the motivation to engage in the terrorist act and to prevent changes of mind Group commitment by mutually committing to carry out suicide attacks some of the consequences of doubts are dealt with and motivation for the suicide attacks is maximised Personal commitment this may take the form of a video-recording/farewell letters in which the terrorist describes his or her intention to engage in such a suicide mission. It is a way of getting the individual’s irrevocable commitment to the suicide mission. What Makes a Terrorist? Terrorists usually do not make a conscious decision that they wish to become a terrorist Instead, they gradually become involved in a process which socializes them towards their ultimate terrorist activities But it is difficult to understand the relevance of the idea of group processes Do we have a clear idea of what is meant by group processes in relation to terrorism and especially the violent incidents? Hostage - Taking Incidents Hostage Negotiation Hostage taking is a terrorist technique, but it is more likely to occur in domestic situations and robberies, among others ▪ Psychology addressed how to deal practically with such incidents, especially hostage crisis negotiations ▪ Even extreme situations may have a core of normality The behavior during hostage-taking situations is bound by 2 sets of rules: 1. rules about the ‘normal’ behavior that should be followed in hostage-taking situations and 2. rules about everyday behavior which act as a fallback if the specific rules cannot be applied Motivation:understand the motives of the hostage takers, there may be clues to motive in their behaviour in the situation (e.g. types of motive: personal, political, for the benefit of their organisation, ideology). Planning and resources: the amount of planning may indicate the determination of the terrorists. Their behaviour should be more predictable than in circumstances in which the incident occurred spontaneously. Resources (or the lack of them)may give other insights into the planning of the operation Hostage Negotiation In negotiations with hostage takers, the underlying rules are: ▪ Both parties should demonstrate a willingness to negotiate ▪ The parties should show willingness to demonstrate ‘negotiability’ by, for example, being willing to extend deadlines 82% of incidents were dealt with without injury or death to the hostages or the hostage takers (Flood, 2003) ▪ Partly due to modern crisis negotiation techniques introduced by Frank Bolz and Harvey Schlossberg of the New York Police Department in the early 1970s ▪ They worked together following the Munich Olympics massacre (where the policing tactics of a hostage incident had been disastrous- confrontational techniques ) Hostage Negotiation The fundamental approach of crisis negotiation is to: ▪ negotiate with the hostage taker while at the same time containing them within their immediate environment ▪ use whatever methods are available to establish the motivation of the hostage taker and the personality factors which may underlie the incident ▪ proceed at a deliberately slow pace, thus stretching the timescale of the negotiations.This is partly a way of dealing with the stretched emotions of the hostage takers by giving them the opportunity to express their feelings. As a consequence, the hostage taker may respond in a more rational way. Goal: buying time in order to facilitate a rational ending to the incident Active listening skills: strategies used in crisis negotiation Hostage Negotiation Noesner and Webster (1997) describe the different active listening skills used in crisis intervention negotiations, which include the following: ✓Minimal encouragements: verbal demonstrations, showing that the negotiators are listening carefully to the hostage taker’s words and that the hostage taker is understood. These are very ordinary, everyday responses such as ‘OK’ or ‘I see’. These keep the conversation going and eventually may help shift control of events to the crisis negotiator. ✓Paraphrasing: the hostage taker’s talk is repeated back to them by the negotiator in the negotiator’s own words. ✓Emotion labelling: the negotiator must deal with the hostage taker’s emotions in relation to the hostage taking situation. The negotiator gives a ‘tentative’ label to the emotions that the hostage taker is communicating. So the negotiator may say something like ‘It seems that you are angry with the way the Americans have treated Muslims all over the world.’ The response of the hostage taker to this emotion labelling further helps the negotiator understand his or her emotional state. Hostage Negotiation Noesner and Webster (1997) describe the different active listening skills used in crisis intervention negotiations, which include the following: ✓Mirroring: in this the negotiator repeats a few words of what has just been said by the hostage taker or the idea that has been expressed. For example, if the hostage taker says something like ‘There’s no way that I am going to be pushed around by Americans’ the mirrored response might be ‘You won’t be pushed around by Americans.’ Mirroring provides one way of avoiding confrontational exchanges between the hostage taker and the police. It may also lead to the disclosure of valuable information as well as allowing the hostage taker to vent his or her emotions ✓Open-ended questions:the negotiator cannot learn effectively from the hostage taker unless the hostage taker does most of the talking. So open-ended questions inviting the hostage taker to tell the negotiator more about something would be appropriate as these are known to promote lengthier replies. ✓“I” messages:these are non-confrontational personal comments by the negotiator expressing the way he or she feels in response to the hostage taker’s words or actions. Phrases suggesting that the negotiator feels frustrated at the lack of progress in the negotiations would be an example of this. Hostage Negotiation Hostage negotiation is a skill which can be taught and so is included in police training programs In such trainings, necessary psychological skills involved in active listening are developed through role-play and enactments of risky negotiation situations While it is clear that hostage negotiation skills can be taught, evidence suggests that active listening skills may not be commonly employed in practice Models of Hostage Negotiation There is a number of models related to negotiation processes These are predominantly theoretically rather than empirically based. Empirical work on terrorist processes is very difficult or impossible. The purpose of the models is to provide a degree of conceptual clarity to otherwise intrinsically complex and confusing situations, providing a shared framework of understanding is to officers as well as a basis for proceeding through the negotiation. These models should be used flexibly and that it may be appropriate to move back to an earlier stage in the negotiation process in appropriate circumstances. Models of Hostage Negotiation Madrigal et al. (2009) proposed the depicted model which focuses on the actions of the Phase 1: negotiator and indicates what style of language Phase 2: and talk should be used at each stage Establishing Building initial ▪ Phase 1 : e.g. weather, sports, but also ask about rapport the hostages dialogue ▪ Phase 2: build a personal relationship and trust- free exchange of personal information, including emotional information, if successful. Involves many active listening skills. Positive regard for the negotiator, even friendship Phase 3: Phase 4: ▪ Phase 3: persuade the hostage taker to free the hostages and end the incident peacefully- Influencing Surrender reassure the hostage taker(s) about their safety- make suggestions, promises ▪ Phase 4: give clear instructions about how to surrender in safety- very risky phase-needs care  ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU! RESOURCES: ITERATE (INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: ATTRIBUTES OF TERRORIST EVENTS) - HTTPS://DATAVERSE.SCHOLARSPORTAL.INFO/DATASET.XHTML?PERSISTENTI D=DOI:10.5683/SP/YRFU12 STOCKHOLM SYNDROME HTTPS://WWW.BBC.COM/NEWS/MAGAZINE-22447726 Alexander, D. A., & Klein, S. (2009). Kidnapping and hostage-taking: A review of effects, coping and resilience. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 102(1), 16-21. Galea, S., Ahern, J., Resnick, H., Kilpatrick, D., Bucuvalas, M., Gold, J., & Vlahov, D. (2002). Psychological sequelae of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(13), 982-987.