Fuselier, G. D. (1988). Hostage negotiation consultant:
Emerging role for the clinical psychologist. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 19 , 175–179.
Hatcher, C., Mahondie, K., Turner, J., & Gelles, M. G.
(1998). The role of the psychologist in crisis/hostage
negotiations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16 ,
455–472.
Lancely, F. J. (1999). On-scene guide for crisis negotiators.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
McMains, M. J., & Mullins, W. C. (2000). Crisis
negotiations: Managing critical incidents and hostage
situations in law enforcement and corrections. Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson.CRITICALINCIDENTS
This entry examines the causes of critical incident
stress in law enforcement officers. It discusses how,
by identifying critical incident stressors and the per-
sonal, team, and organizational factors that render
them meaningful, law enforcement agencies can
proactively influence officers’ critical incident stress
outcomes. To appreciate how this can be accom-
plished, it is necessary to understand the role of men-
tal models in the etiology of critical incident stress.
Through their training and operational experiences,
officers develop mental models that determine their
ability to adapt to and impose meaning on the incidents
they attend. Furthermore, officers respond to incidents
as members of law enforcement organizations whose
culture (through interaction with colleagues, senior
officers, and organizational procedures) influences the
development and maintenance of mental models and
thus how challenging critical incident experiences are
made sense of. An incident becomes critical when its
characteristics fall outside expected operational param-
eters and officers’ mental models are unable to make
sense of and adapt to the novel, challenging circum-
stances that ensue.
Law enforcement officers experience critical inci-
dents regularly. These can range from multivehicle traf-
fic accidents and mass homicides to natural disasters
and acts of terrorism. While traditionally viewed as a
precursor to posttraumatic pathology (e.g., posttrau-
matic stress disorder [PTSD]), growing recognition of a
link with positive outcomes (e.g., posttraumatic growth)
have implications for how critical incident stress in law
enforcement is conceptualized and managed.Conceptualizations of critical incident stress must
encompass how officers’ mental models can either
increase vulnerability to adverse stress reactions or
increase their resilience and their capacity to experi-
ence posttraumatic growth, with each outcome being
influenced by prevailing approaches to critical incident
stress management. With regard to the latter, the domi-
nant approach has involved critical incident stress man-
agement or debriefing. In addition to issues regarding
the efficacy of debriefing, growing evidence for signif-
icant team and organizational influence on posttrauma
outcomes calls for more comprehensive and proactive
approaches to critical incident stress management.
Two approaches to managing critical incident
stress are discussed here. The first involves develop-
ing officers’ mental models to increase the range of
circumstances they can adapt to. Because officers will
continue to experience challenging incidents, the sec-
ond involves developing their capacity to render novel
experiences meaningful.Developing Mental Models
Incidents become critical when their circumstances
(e.g., deliberately flying a passenger aircraft into a
building) and associated levels of uncertainty (e.g.,
regarding the nature and duration of a threat, length of
involvement), personal danger (e.g., being secondary
targets of terrorist attacks, exposure to biological or
radiation hazards), or operational demands (e.g., per-
formance expectations, crisis decision making, intera-
gency role stress) fall outside the expected parameters
of officers’ operational mental models.
By incorporating these characteristics into train-
ing programs, it is possible to increase the range of
critical experiences officers can render meaningful,
reduce levels of posttrauma pathology, and contribute
to officers realizing a sense of personal and profes-
sional growth from critical incident work. Training
can also increase officers’ knowledge of stress reac-
tions and how to use support mechanisms to create
positive emotions.
Although training can reduce critical incident
stress risk, a need to prepare for the unexpected means
that critical incident stress management must also
proactively develop officers’ capacity to adapt to crit-
ical circumstances and reduce their vulnerability to
adverse reactions (e.g., PTSD). Research has identi-
fied several personal and team and organizational fac-
tors that inform how these goals can be accomplished.Critical Incidents——— 171C-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 171