pressive acts. Following this, we argue that a communication-based negotiation
approach, grounded in communication theory and which differs in significant
ways from the traditional approaches, can significantly increase understanding of
negotiation dynamics in crisis situations. A communication-based negotiation
approach which simultaneously focuses on instrumental, relational, and identity
(face) message behavior in crisis escalation and deescalation is then presented.
The chapter concludes with an illustrative analysis of instrumental, relational,
and identity message behavior in a suicide incident.

The initial classification of instrumental and expressive acts has given rise to
two dominant approaches to crisis negotiation. One negotiation framework that
has been employed by crisis negotiators is the bargaining approach. This model
conceptualizes crisis negotiation in terms of the instrumental issues present dur-
ing negotiation. Instrumental issues, from this perspective, refer to those situa-
tionally related, substantive, objective wants or demands of each party (i.e., the
commodity goals of each interactant; Roloff & Jordan, 1992). From this ap-
proach, negotiation is viewed in terms of efforts by each party to dictate or clar-
ify the terms of an exchange or distribution of resources ( Wall, 1985).

The bargaining negotiation approach, derived from social exchange theory
( Roloff, 1981; Thibaut & Kelly, 1959), has two basic premises: (1) conflicts in-
volve people who are interdependent (i.e., each party cannot accomplish its own
goals without agreement from the other), and (2) conflicts involve rewards and
costs for each party ( Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 1993). Social exchange theory
posits that people's primary motivation in negotiation is self-interest, and their
negotiation behavior involves the exchange of some object or commodity in re-
turn for other objects or commodities ( Roloff, 1981). This framework assumes
that parties generally know their options and their associated outcomes and make
decisions regarding negotiation strategies based on a weighing of relative costs
and benefits associated with each outcome. In this sense, social exchange theory
posits a rational actor model of negotiation which characterizes effective nego-
tiation as the result of rational discourse between contending parties (i.e., where
each party focuses on instrumental, substantive issues and makes logical
cost/benefit choices). The primary communication approach to achieve instru-
mental issue agreement involves bargaining, (i.e., the exchange of one set of re-
sources for others) or what some authors characterize as problem solving ( Bush
& Folger, 1994) or constructive conflict management ( Boardman & Horowitz,
1994).

One useful extension of this approach to hostage negotiation has been the de-
lineation of substantive and nonsubstantive instrumental demands (FBI crisis
[hostage] negotiation in-service training program, 1996). Substantive demands
are situationally related and objective. For instance, a hostage taker caught in the
act of robbing a bank may demand a getaway car. In contrast, nonsubstantive in-

-10-