Another look at Social Influence

Empathy, cooperation, fairness and reciprocity are embedded in our genes, and predates the human species.

Given that these are apart of our biology, the use of these influences in a behavioral crisis is the most practical and logical approach we can take. An empathetic response to anxiety or even aggression works not through social manipulation, but through social connection.

In this TED video Frans de Waal who studies primate social behavior -- how they fight and reconcile, share and cooperate, discusses the biological basis of morality.

Empathy, cooperation, fairness and reciprocity -- caring about the well-being of others seems like a very human trait. But Frans de Waal shares some surprising videos of behavioral tests, on primates and other mammals, that show how many of these moral traits all of us share.

Free De-escalation/Work Place Violence Education Resources: 2

This is the second in a series to of presentations that may be used for de-escalation/workplace violence education (best viewed full screen):

De-escalation and Management of Agressive Behaviors: Understanding Workplace Violence, An Introduction

View more presentations or Upload your own.

Free De-escalation/Work Place Violence Education Resources: 1

These online presentations are free to use for staff education (best viewed full screen):

De-escalation and Management of Aggressive Behaviors: Essential Concepts

View more presentations or Upload your own.

De-escalation and Communication-"But.."

Imagine someone-- a coworker, supervisor, or significant other-- approaches you as says, "You've been doing a great job, but..." What comes after the but? Most likely nothing good.

"But" is a trigger word for escalating anxiety. Additionally, there are a number of common "pre-but" phrases that can trigger escalation. For example, the customer service apology ("I'm sorry that you've had the wait so long...) followed by a "but" that negates the apology or precedes an excuse. Additionally, there is the but that follows "our policy.."

"But" is a perfectly useful word when used well. Here is the key to using "but": use it to expand options, not to limit them. For example, "You've been doing a great job, but..I wonder  if you been   given as much recognition as you deserve, " or "I'm sorry you've had to wait so long, but... is there anything I can do to make you wait more pleasant, such as a drink of water, something to read...?" In   these examples what follows the "but" opens new options.

What about situations where "but" is appropriate as a limiter? Leave it out. Instead of, "I'm sorry_____, but or policy______," a more acceptable way to state it is, "I'm sorry_____. [Pause] Unfortunately our policy________."

"But" is a small word, but it can make a big difference.

De-escalation and Social Influence- Reciprocity

When people receive something from others, they are naturally inclined to repay the act. This is true in all cultures. This is true even of  unsolicited gifts. Giving something increases compliance with future requests. Example: In one research study, a $5 check included with a survey produced more responses than the promise of $50 after responding.

Reciprocal Concessions: Rejection-Then-Retreat

The rule of reciprocity also applies to non-material gifts. So that if you make a large request, are refused, and then make a smaller request as a concession, you are three times more likely to get compliance than if you asked for what you wanted straight away.

Reciprocity can be initiated in a number of ways. The interaction with the agitated person can be framed as "giving time or attention." When de-escalating an aggressive situation concessions can be offered to the angry person in the form of time, or options.

Example:

A staff person  approaches an angry client.

"Mr Jones I can see that this is really an upsetting situation... Let me give you this (hands client his card) it has my number on it... hang on to it because, I'm going to do all I can to correct his situation...and I don't what I can do, but I will do all I can, and if you have to follow up with me you'll have my number."

The staff person establishes control over the situation and frames his role as an ally. He gives the angry person his card within an acceptable context. In a brief introduction he establishes reciprocity.

De-eescalation and Social Influence-- Social Proof

How do we know what to do? We often determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct. This is especially true when there is uncertainty. We are particularly prone to follow the lead of people we perceive as similar to us.

Uncertainty is often a component of escalating aggression. The aggressive person is at a loss of what to do next. It is the uncertainty, and accompanying frustration, that leads to greater agitation. 

Application

We can "normalize" the emotional response of the agitated person. If we communnicate to the agitated person that his or her emotional response is understandable given the circumstances, that they are expected--in other words, that they are normal--we can begin the defuse the situation. We can also define the normal behavioral response to the circumstance.

"Of course you're upset with all that's going on...this doesn't happen very often, but when it does, of course people get upset...and we're always able to come to a better situation when we take some time to talk about  how it is I can help you."

Ethic Concerns for De-escalation Training

If an organization requires employees to respond to violent situations, but provides inadequate training to respond safely that is negligence.

All hospitals (that except insurance) are required to have plan for responding to potentially violent situations. The plan must include, among many other things,  who is trained, what is the content of the training and the response when a situation of violence or potential violence occurs. The typically there will be an overhead announcement, such as "Code Gray" or "Dr. Strong" summoning people to the scene.

Those responding place themselves in harm's way if they do not have the skills to adequately respond to physical aggression. A staff member can easily be injured because he or she is not prepared to exercise personal safety techniques. The aggressive person is placed in harm's way if staff members do not have the skills to respond appropriately. An aggressive person can easily be injured because improperly trained staff members are more likely to use excessive force.

What is the role of the trainer who recognizes the inadequacy of training that certifies people to respond? The trainer trains staff in the organizations approved curriculum, knowing that the methods taught (or omitted from training) are not enough for the safety of staff or clientele.  The organization has defined a certain course as meeting the requirements for safe response. The trainer knows the course is inadequate, and places people in danger. What is the proper ethical response?

Of course the question can be much broader. You know your training is inadequate (constraints of time and $), but it is deemed as sufficient by the larger organization, and that the inadequacy of training places people in harm's way? Is better than nothing okay? What is a little knowledge is more dangerous than none at all?