Deëscalation tip #23

Deëscalation experts remind us to be aware of the "amygdala hijack," that is, the sudden dominance of the most primitive part of our brain when we feel suddenly threatened. It perhaps allows us to instantly avoid a mortal threat, such as an obviously enraged man suddenly lunging at us with a knife, but it can also shut down our prefrontal cortex, the portion of our brain most recently evolved into a logical, complex analytical human executive area. When we evade and avoid that amygdala hijack we can help others do the same. As always, deëscalating anyone else is accomplished by first deëscalating ourselves.

Deëscalation tip #22

Experiencing emotional outbursts from others is disconcerting for most of us. We tend to wonder a couple of things: 1) What did I do to deserve this and does this person hate me? and 2) How can I fix this, either by showing my empathy and figuring out how to fix it or by responding with my own outburst, thus establishing either dominance or such discomfort that the person won't do this again?

Conflict experts Bill Ury and Roger Fisher really try to help us understand that being the calm one is how the other person might tend to also become calm. Regarding an emotional outburst as a signal that the person is feeling radically misunderstood or completely unheard can help us self-regulate into the sort of probing response that can not only serve to deëscalate another but it can help us in our search to identify the other's interests. The emotional outburst is often a restatement of position, opening it to a logical question, "Okay, understood, and help me learn more about why you feel strongly about this." You are acknowledging the strong feeling, not agreeing with it, and in fact, since you seek an explanation, you show you are not buying the position, but since you ask, perhaps you could, if you get a logical, reasonable explanation. This helps the person feel heard, something so emotionally necessary that productive conflict management cannot continue without that minimal element. 

By showing genuine curiosity you also refrain from presenting yourself as The Fixer, which may be offered with excellent intentions but is often received as, "Now they think they can control me, even though they clearly don't understand what the hell I've been trying to say."

Reference

Fisher, Roger and William Ury (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In (3rd ed.). NYC: Penguin. 

Deëscalation tip #21

 Listen with humility. When you are actively listening, you are paraphrasing without assumptions. For instance, "Thanks for helping me understand your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong. What I hear you saying is¼"

Deëscalation tip #20

 Some 30 years ago, Neil Katz and Kevin McNulty wrote about one sort of listening that can be used to deëscalate: 

"Reflective listening is a special type of listening that involves paying respectful attention to the content and feeling expressed in another persons’ communication. Reflective listening is hearing and understanding, and then letting the other know that he or she is being heard and understood. It requires responding actively to another while keeping your attention focused completely on the speaker. In reflective listening, you do not offer your perspective by carefully keep the focus on the other’s need or problem. Thus reflective listening consists of a step beyond what is normally thought of as listening:

1. Hearing and understanding what the other person is communicating through words and 'body language' to the best of your ability.

2. Responding to the other person by reflecting the thoughts and feelings you heard in his or her words, tone of voice, body posture, and gestures."

Deëscalation tip #19

Listening with what Kwame Christian calls compassionate curiosity is a path to deëscalation.

Deëscalation tip #18

How can police get trained to manage escalated people more effectively? Does deëscalation training even help?

Doing or saying things that would tend to derail a maladaptive train of thought should be a tool in the mental belt of any officer. Failure to use that tool is a failure of either police training or police utilization of training. Research is increasingly bearing that out: 

·       Researchers examined 130 police interactions coded for a person in a mental health crisis and found the rates of the use of threats and physical compliance methods leading to injury and death of the subjects were far higher than when supportive police methods were used, e.g., reassurance, sympathy, empathy (Blais & LeClerc, 2023). 

·       Similarly, Engel, et al. (2022), in an empirical study on the Louisville KY police before and after receiving deëscalation training, found that, "Using a stepped‐wedge randomized controlled trial research design, the panel regression results demonstrated statistically significant reductions in use of force incidents (−28.1%), citizen injuries (−26.3%), and officer injuries (−36.0%) in the post‐training period" (p. 199). 

·       Again, Criminologist Li Sian Goh (2021) found a 40 percent reduction in "serious" force use in Camden, New Jersey police overall following de-escalation training, though noting that the findings may not be typical due to several unique situational factors.

References

Blais, E., & Leclerc, B. (2023). A Script Analysis of Successful Police Interventions Involving Individuals in Crisis. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 65(3), 92–125. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.3138/cjccj-2023-0018

Engel, R. S., Corsaro, N., Isaza, G. T., & McManus, H. D. (2022). Assessing the impact of de‐escalation training on police behavior: Reducing police use of force in the Louisville, KY Metro Police Department. Criminology & Public Policy, 21(2), 199–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12574

Goh, L. S. (2021). Did de‐escalation successfully reduce serious use of force in Camden County, New Jersey? A synthetic control analysis of force outcomes. Criminology & Public Policy, 20(2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12536

Deëscalation tip #17

 Two things that have no place in deëscalation: debate and argument.

Deëscalation first, then civil discussion, including argument and debate. If the discussion is already civil, no need for deëscalation.