Psychological profiling of hostage takers in prison

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

Drawing on the author’s own experience as a psychologist in a correctional setting, this article examines the psychological profiles of hostage takers and their relevance to negotiation. Opening with an account of a hostage incident in a Special Housing Unit, the author notes that such events in prisons are rarer than commonly assumed, and traces the shift in the professional literature from situational typologies of hostage incidents toward the psychological characteristics of the individuals involved, on the evidence that response strategies succeed more often when they account for the latter. The article then sets out five profiles, antisocial personality, emotional instability, schizophrenia, depression and substance intoxication, with their characteristics and common behaviours, presented not as an exhaustive classification but as a practical aid to negotiation.

KEYWORDS *

Hostage negotiation, crisis negotiation, correctional psychology, hostage taker profiles, antisocial personality, emotional instability, schizophrenia, depression, substance intoxication, law enforcement, prisons

INTRODUCTION

When attempting to resolve the conflict between parties, it is important to understand the motivations and psychological characteristics of those involved. This article takes a brief look at the psychological profiles relevant to the law enforcement community: those of incarcerated individuals who engage in violent or otherwise disruptive behavior, namely, hostage-taking.

It was a sunny Tuesday morning when the call came over the two-way radio: “Special Housing to Dr. Smith.” “Go for Dr. Smith,” I replied. “Phone 20?” requested the voice over the radio. After providing my phone extension I received the call informing me that my presence was needed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) where an inmate had taken his cellmate hostage and was threatening to kill him unless he was placed in a cell by himself. The inmate had somehow managed to tie his cellmate up to the bunk bed frame with torn sheets and had several razor blades taken from disposable razors given to him to shave. As far as hostage negotiations go, this one was pretty straightforward. After demonstrating such proclivity for violence and extreme measures, this inmate would likely remain celled alone for the remainder of his time in SHU. The event was brought to a peaceful resolution with the inmate submitting to restraints.

MAIN CORPUS

In many ways, this event was typical of hostage situations. In other, it was not. Most hostage situations are spontaneous with the hostage-taker making an impulsive decision out of fear or frustration. Additionally, the majority of hostage situations are resolved within minutes to a few hours. While we don’t know whether the SHU incident was planned or spontaneous, where it does differ from the normal hostage situation in that it occurs in a secured correctional institution. Contrary to what the average person may believe based on limited knowledge of what really goes on inside prisons, the occurrence of inmates taking hostages, whether they be staff or other inmates, is quite rare. According to the FBI’s Hostage and Barricade Database System (HOBAS), a data collection research instrument, it is more likely that a hostage incident will occur in a barn than a prison.

Early literature focused on the situation profile of hostage events. In other words, training resources for negotiators discussed the situational context of the incident rather than the characteristics of the hostage-taker (HT). For example, the “psycho” HT included all mentally ill inmates who took hostages while in the midst of some delusional, psychotic, or emotionally unstable episode and those who pretend to be mentally ill to meet some desired end. Other contextual profiles included the “situational” HT in which an inmate impulsively takes a hostage in an attempt to solve a problem or escape some particular situation, the “grievance airer” who takes a hostage to call attention to some grievance, the “escape plan” HT who takes a hostage as part of a preplanned escape plot, the “riot-related” HT who takes a hostage in the violent upheaval of a riot, and the “terrorist” who takes hostage as part of a plot to create fear and disruption. (Prison Hostage Situations, 1983)

While recognizing the situational context that hostage situations are likely to occur in is important to the preparation and ultimate resolution of the crisis, much attention has to be paid to the psychological profiles of HTs. This has been the focus of more recent literature as over time it has been demonstrated that the strategies for responding in hostage situations are more successful when accounting for psychological characteristics of HTs than the situational context.

Expanding on the standard psychological profiles taught by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (and based on those taught by the FBI), a colleague and I proposed the following psychological profiles (Combs & Smith, 2009):

1. Antisocial Personality:

Characteristics

Tend to lack empathy Are cold, cynical, and arrogant Charming, well-groomed, and articulate Impulsive Irresponsible and exploitative in personal relationships May have spent many years in prison

Common Behaviors

In jail or prison often Cons others for profit Impulsive, irritable, and aggressive Displays reckless behavior Engages in high-risk sex and drug abuse Indifferent to having hurt, abused, or mistreating someone else

2. Emotionally Unstable

Characteristics

Undermine themselves as they near a goal The completion rate of suicide is higher than the general population History of self-inflicted injuries Experience psychotic-like behavior during times of stress Recurrent job losses interrupted education, and broken marriage are common Childhood histories may include physical and sexual abuse, neglect, early parental loss

Common Behaviors

Exhibit violent or agitated behaviors to avoid real or imagined abandonment A pattern of unstable relationships Undergo identity disturbances Impulsive in areas that can be self-damaging The mood is unstable and unpleasant Difficulty controlling their anger resulting in outbursts and physical fights Stress-related feelings and beliefs that they are being harassed or treated unfairly

3. Seriously Mentally Ill: Schizophrenia

Characteristics & Common Behaviors

Presence of hallucinations and delusions Social isolation or withdrawal Peculiar behavior Decrease in personal hygiene and grooming Unusual speech patterns May exhibit paranoia May have poor treatment (medication) compliance

4. Seriously Mentally Ill: Depression

Characteristics & Common Behaviors

Moods are depressed, sad, hopeless, or down in the dumps Loss of interest or pleasure in usual activities Reduction in sexual interest Mood may be irritable rather than sad in children or adolescents Weight loss and sleep problems Feels exhausted or lack energy Diminished ability to think, concentrate, or make decisions Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide are common More often barricade situation than hostage-taking

5. Substance Intoxication

Characteristics & Common Behaviors

Slurred speech Rapidly changing emotions May exhibit psychotic symptoms Impulsive Superman complex

SUMMARY

The above psychological profiles are by no means an exhaustive, one-size-fits-all collection. They are simply a means of developing a practical understanding and strategies for negotiating with HTs.

CONCLUSION *

The author’s argument, supported by the shift in the professional literature, is that what a negotiator most needs to know is not what kind of incident this is but what kind of person is on the other end of the line. Situational categories describe the circumstances; psychological profiles indicate what the individual can hear, what they fear and what may reach them. The five profiles set out here are offered as working orientation rather than diagnosis, and their value lies in the responses they suggest.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The profiles in this article become useful at the moment they are translated into conduct, and the translation runs in a consistent direction: each profile indicates what will fail as much as what may work.

With an antisocial presentation, appeals to conscience or to the welfare of the hostage carry little weight, while a transactional frame does. Such individuals respond to a clear account of costs and benefits, treat the negotiation as a contest of wits, and are quick to detect insincerity, so promises must be strictly limited to what can actually be delivered. Where instability and fear of abandonment predominate, the calculation inverts entirely: the person is not weighing advantage but is overwhelmed, and the negotiator’s steadiness and continued presence are themselves the intervention. Time works in favour of resolution, provided the relationship is not broken by a change of negotiator at the wrong moment.

Where psychotic symptoms are present, the familiar error is to argue with the content of the delusion. Neither confirming nor disputing it, while responding to the emotion beneath it, generally preserves contact, and simple, concrete, repeated language does more than persuasion. With depression, the article’s own observation that these situations more often take the form of barricade than of hostage taking carries the essential warning: the risk is directed inward, and the negotiation is in substance a suicide intervention, in which listening at length and without hurry matters more than any proposal. Intoxication limits what can be achieved in any register, and the practical objective narrows to containment and safety until the person is capable of a conversation.

Two cautions belong alongside these profiles. Any classification made at a distance, under pressure, on the basis of a voice and a file, is a hypothesis to be revised rather than a conclusion, and negotiators who commit early to a profile tend to hear only what confirms it. And profiles describe patterns, not people; the same individual may present differently under stress, medication or exhaustion, which is why the mental health professional’s role at the scene is continuous assessment rather than initial labelling.

Finally, the setting deserves the attention the article’s opening scene implicitly gives it. The incident described arose from a demand to be housed alone, which is to say from a condition of confinement rather than from a criminal design. Prisons that maintain accessible grievance procedures, mediation between cellmates, adequate mental health care and careful attention to housing decisions prevent incidents that no negotiator will otherwise be called to resolve. The rarity of prison hostage situations, which the author rightly emphasises, is itself evidence that conditions and management matter, and prevention remains the most effective form of negotiation.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

Bibliography

Combs, M. & Smith, J. (2009). Hostage Taker Profiles – Revised. Federal Correctional Complex, Beaumont, TX.

National Institute of Corrections. (1983). Corrections Information Series: Prison Hostage Situations.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crisis Negotiation Unit, Hostage Barricade Database System (HOBAS), Quantico, Virginia.

McMains, M. J., & Mullins, W. C. (2014). Crisis Negotiations: Managing Critical Incidents and Hostage Situations in Law Enforcement and Corrections (5th edition). Routledge, New York.

Vecchi, G. M., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Romano, S. J. (2005). Crisis (Hostage) Negotiation: Current Strategies and Issues in High Risk Conflict Resolution. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(5), 533 to 551.

Noesner, G. W., & Webster, M. (1997). Crisis Intervention: Using Active Listening Skills in Negotiations. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 66(8), 13 to 19.

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM 5). Arlington, Virginia.