Task 6 - What's left?

Question 1

Crisis negotiation

• What is the crisis?
• Types?
• Components of the negotiation?

Answer 1

• crisis negotiation can be applied in an array of different contexts: suicide threats, hostage-taking, terrorism
• the FBI differentiates between 2 types:
  1) instrumental = business-like, perpetrator have a particular goal, more likely to be planned
  
  • aerial hijack often want to bargain for a certain goal
  • terrorism connected to fundamentalist religious ideology includes more violence and less compromise compared to other less violent radical groups
    2) expressive = emotion driven, often lacks a substantive goal
    - suicide threats in prisons (ass. with aggression and frustration)
• high-context vs. low context cultural
  (implicit vs. direct communication)
  (Arabic, Japan vs. US, Germany)

4 main components:

1) first impression
2) rapport development
- -> emotions & mistrust
3) sense making
4) influence
- -> communicative content

Question 2

Crisis negotiation - First Impression

Answer 2

• this period is characterized by extreme emotion and mistrust –>
  needs to be start to overcome so that negotiation can happen
• diffusion of immanent threat of suicide or violence and get into a situation in which there is at least some willingness to communicate
  –> difficulty: perpetrator wants to keep dominance/save face or is in fight or flight mode (most intense phase)
• initial impressions (first 500ms) –> already important cause its impacts expectations and willingness to cooperate
  o smell, appearance, voice
• instant impression (e.g., first 30 seconds) and and opening gambit (e.g., 5-10 minutes) critical to how crisis unfolds
• begin with describing the situation without judgement or assumptions
• introduce yourself as “working with the police”
• propose a alternative peaceful solution
• try to ensure cooperation + look for warning signs of destructive behaviour:
  o thin slicing = ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations and people based on narrow experience –> bases for judgments of another’s trustworthiness
  > conversational engagement, prosodic emphasis, and vocal mirroring
  > don’t ask WHY?
  > don’t be aggressive, stay calm and empathetic

Question 3

Crisis negotiation - rapport development

Answer 3

• Aim = promote calm and good rapport (cooperation, respect, liking)
• Strategies:
  Active listening
• (always) paraphrase
  1) focused listening - close attention to the nature and content
  2) responsive listening - no interruption, person gets to say what they like to say
  3) communicative encourages - “uh” “oh”
  –> signals attention
  Con: laborious + redundant
  Pros: ensures that the negotiator understands the person correctly, helps to create respect and reconciliation (hostile situation needs to be somewhat overcome) between the parties

2nd - mimicry
= occasions when one matches speech patterns, facial expressions, postures, gestures, and mannerisms of another

• there are early and late mimicker..?
• Successful negotiation: greater coordination of turn taking, reciprocation of positive affect, and greater matching of language focused on the present rather than the past, and on alternatives rather than competition
• Unsuccessful negotiation: dramatic fluctuations in the degree of style matching across time, with negotiators and perpetrators periodically falling ‘out of sync.’
• study about language mimicry of 18 crisis negotiation shows that initially there is a concertation on mimicry of word choice and syntax before the higher level cooperation/matching begins (necessary for the actual negotiation)
• -> cooperation depends on bottom-up process of synchrony as much as it does on top-down coming together of cognitive representations

Question 4

Crisis negotiation - Sense making

Answer 4

= asses situation before going into the influencing phase –> assessment determines how influencing/negotiation process will be conducted = frame
- need to asses motivational goals, appropriate orientation and intensity

cylinder model:
(I think a spiral would actually be the better metaphor because on the top is the rational problem-solving situation but from there it could spiral into a crisis)

1)
motivational frame/goal: 
1) relational
2) identity
3) substantive
--> it is really important to determine the correct frame otherwise the situation could spiral

2)
- negotiators behavioural orientation can vary from:
1) cooperative orientation (calm, friendly –> close to the top = rational, problem-solving space)
2) competitive orientation (demands, threats –> re-establish power)
3) avoidant orientation (retraction –> if things go south or as strategic move)
–> negotiator choses orientation to reach a certain goal, but also to match the situation or the orientation of the perpetrator
–> goals are driven by substantive, identity, or relational concerns
> Main goal in hostage situation is always to get the hostages released unharmed
> but there can be sub-goals to reach the main goal: e.g. being friendly and show commonality to gain trust (cooperative orientation, relational frame/goal)
=> important to pursue each of these motivational goals while adopting an avoidant, competitive or cooperative orientation to dialogue, creating 9 communicative frames for understanding crisis interaction

3)
- high intensity needs to be resolved before moving on

How to identify?
- active listening, being sensitive to status and changes, being adaptable

ALSO

• -> don’t forget the cultural (and religious) context!!!
• -> type: instrumental vs. expressive

-

Question 5

Crisis negotiation - Influencing

Answer 5

= part when you actually try to get what you want: getting the hostages released, preventing the suicide

10 different strategies:

• 3 = relational -> being kind (liking), being equal (commonality), being credible (respect) -> relates to rapport building
• 7 = content-related -> emotional appeal, rational persuasion, pressure, intimidation, legitimization, exchanging, imposing restrictions
• -> not a lot studies, ergo not a lot is know about effectiveness of these strategies (difficult to study)

Studies:

• in initial and in problem-solving phase being equal used more and moving away or imposing a restriction was used less in effective negotiations
• in closure phase legitimizing was associated with effective negotiations
• in high-context hostage situation: persuasive arguments, being kind and intimidation is less useful
• -> cultural differences!!!
• siege, kidnap and extortion cases were dominated by Being kind, Direct pressure, and Rational persuasion (although extortion was more on the rough side while sieges more on the kind)

Question 6

What does (divorce) mediation look like?

Answer 6

• in the beginning: concentration on the factual but not on the emotional site
• more recently: balance between emotional expression and factual issues
  2 models:
  > their transformative model of mediation: shifting from self-centeredness to responsiveness
  > mediation = safe space: stating ground rules mediator is in charge
• turn-taking, hierarchy(mediator on top) = universal for mediation

study:
- aim: see how to reach and maintain cooperation in mediation
- method: analysed the transcripts of Norwegian mandatory mediation pre-trial “divorce-couples” (participation in study was voluntary)
- procedure: analysis of conversational flow with emphasis on points of change in emotional tone,
- -> balance point where emotional + factual matters can negotiated was identified = “mediation window”

-> mediators role + purpose:
- to keep “firm control” over the entirety of the conversation
- to balance factual and emotional exchange
- to direct the conversation to the “mediation window”
- to encourage participation during a “mediation window”
–> if this is done mediation can be successful
BUT
the success also depends on the parents/divorcees…
- their personality
- their motivation
-> for high-conflict or unruly couples it is not going to be successful because they are not willing to engage

Question 7

Does mediation for high-conflict couples in a divorce work?

Kjøs, P., Tjersland, O. A., & Roen, K. (2014). The mediation window: regulation of argumentation and affect in custody mediation.

Aim
Method
Results
Conclusion

Answer 7

• investigate the effect of mediation in divorce cases especially in high-conflict situation
• Norwegian couples got court-ordered mandatory mediation because of their divorce (custody and economic conflict)
• asked to participate in the study and got their mediation sessions recorded for analysis (voluntary)
• filled out a questionnaire
• mediator assets them (unaware of the questionnaire results)
• -> based on this out classified as high-conflict, medium- and low-conflict
• ca. 30% of high-conflict couples have a solution after the mediation vs. 80% of low/moderate-conflict couples
  (however, 40% of the low/moderate-conflict couples had a solution even before the mediation)
• after a 18 month follow up –> majority of high-conflict couples still no agreement
• those HC couples who reached an agreement spent more time in mediation –> recommended to identify HC couples and provide them more time
• -> generally could idea but needs improvement for HC couples specifically (more time)
• -> also needs to identify where it really does not work (asses willingness and motivation to participate and engage) -> otherwise just waste of resources

Question 8

Wood, W. R. (2015). Why restorative justice will not reduce incarceration.

• Legitimisation of RJ
• Why it does not work?

Answer 8

Legitimisation of RJ:
1) procedural justice = fairness within the system
2) ownership = victim and community play a part in process and outcome
3) instrumental influence/change …on a…
> micro-level: good for victim (satisfaction) and perpetrator (less recidivism - well?!)
> meso-level: citizen involvement in informal justice is good for community
> macro-level: reducing incarceration, less punitive justice
–> micro-level practice that changes meso- and macro-level
–> alternative to the use of incarceration => more social justice

Why it does not reduce incarceration?
1) Recidivism reduction does not effect incarceration
- low level crime
- does not tackle the important criminal-genic issues like poorness or unemployment
2) Not used as an alternative for incarceration
- only done with low-level crime with low probability of incarceration
3) RJ has not given significant attention to drivers of prison growth
- much more prominent issues e.g. in the US:
war against drugs, crime bill 90s, broken window theory –> drivers of mass incarceration
4) Micro-level practise can’t influence macro-level issues
- social inequality
- poorness
- racism and marginalisation

Is RJ beneficial? –> What does that mean? –> victim satisfaction? recidivism? incarceration? –> for incarceration => NOPE!!!

Question 9

Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2016). Can At-Risk Youth Be Diverted From Crime? A Meta-Analysis of Restorative Diversion Programs.

Aim
Method
Results

Answer 9

• investigate the effectiveness of RJ at reducing juvenile recidivism
• meta-analysis of 21 studies
• 15 suggested positive (12 significant) & 6 suggested negative effect (5 significant)
• -> overall, the pooled result was significant and positive

BUT but but
- studies using stronger research designs did not show evidence!!
- majority of studies were not peer-reviewed
- there is also an ethnic composition:
> for Caucasian youth programs worked and for ethnic minorities it did not (or mixed results)
–> RJ programs may not adequately address the needs of certain youths
–> also baseline may be different because difference through racial profiling and marginalisation in general

Question 10

Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice
practices:
A meta-analysis.

Answer 10

• 22 unique studies: compared RJ programs vs. other (court)
• mostly low-level crimes
• predominantly male (94%), young (74%) offenders
• 55% studies not yet published/peer-reviewed
• looked at different outcomes: victim satisfaction, offender satisfaction, recidivism, restitution compliance
• look at various moderators: entry points, type of RJ
• -> sign, higher victim satisfaction
• -> moderate-to-weak positive impact on offender satisfaction
• -> marginally higher compliance for people in PJ programs
• -> overall reduction for recidivism but effect weak for newer but not yet published studies
• -> moderators not influence

=> seemingly effective
BUT RJ = voluntary –> self-selection bias: especially for compliance (should check for motivation in the future)

=> its naïve to belief that one short program changes much
=> criminal-genic factor way more predictive: poorness, unemployment, substance abuse –> these issues should be addressed

Question 11

Bouffard, J., Cooper, M., & Bergseth, K. (2016). The Effectiveness of Various Restorative Justice Interventions on Recidivism Outcomes Among Juvenile Offenders.

Aim
Method
Results
Limitations

Answer 11

• examine effectiveness of several different RJ-type interventions
• 284 juveniles referred to RJ program vs. 267 juveniles referred to traditional juvenile court
• different types of RJ:
  o direct mediation (victim-offender)
  o RJ community panel (“victim-less crime”)
  o indirect mediation (no face to face)
  o no/minimal RJ interaction
• not randomly assigned
• measures:
  • Recidivism
  • Age, gender, race, residency, and criminal history
• recidivism highest-to-lowest: juvenile court, direct mediation, panel, no/minimal, indirect
  –> similar with time till re-offense shortest-to-longest
• older youth longer offense free
• more criminal history, more recidivism
  => recidivism for all RJ programs less than for courts
  => less intensive RJ programs more promising (maybe worth investigating since also less resources needed)
• self selection bias and confounding because not random
• not super generalizable (small community in US)

Question 12

Restorative Justice

Def.
Types
Theory

Answer 12

= focus primarily on the restoration of harms and relationship between the victim, the offender and the community

• -> often involves some kind of reparation (to victim or community in form of community service)
• more community and victim involvement
• should be voluntary and truthful
• offender can take responsibility (say sorry), but also explain their action

Types
A. Direct communication between the victim and offender
1. Victim–offender mediation
2. Family group conferencing
3. Circle sentencing
B. Community members serve as proxies for the victim
• most common in US in drunk-driving (without victims), cost-effective
C. Indirect mediation
D. RJ principles may sometimes be incorporated into other existing community service or restitution services

Theory
o Re-integrative shaming:
- allows expression of disapproval of the offender’s actions by the community, followed by re-acceptance of offender into community
–> avoids stigmatization and labelling of the offender, so hopefully becomes more prosocial and less criminal
o Procedural justice:
- emphasizes perception of legitimacy of criminal justice system (= should be perceived as fair)