De-escalation refers to the methods and actions taken to decrease the severity of a conflict, whether of physical, verbal or another nature. It is the opposite of escalation. De-escalation may also refer to approaches in conflict resolution, by which specific measures are taken to avoid behaviours that escalate conflict. De-escalation can be modelled with game theory.
Contents
Psychology
Verbal de-escalation in psychiatric settings
In psychiatric settings, de-escalation is aimed at calmly communicating with an agitated client in order to understand, manage, and resolve their concerns. Ultimately, these actions are intended to reduce the client's agitation and potential for present or future aggression or violence. An insufficient or overdue intervention may leave staff needing to use coercive measures to manage an aggressive or violent client. Coercive measures, such as chemical or mechanical restraints, or seclusion, are damaging to the therapeutic relationship and harmful to clients and staff.
As of 2016, there are 19 articles in literature that define or provide a model of de-escalation. Articles converge on a number of themes (i.e. de-escalation should involve safely, calmly, and empathetically supporting the client with their concerns).
Hankin et al.'s (2011) review of four de-escalation studies reflects the somewhat unclear state of de-escalation research. Their review settles on eight goals, seven elements, 15 general techniques, and 15 other techniques divided into three subheadings.
Price & Baker (2012) identify seven themes across relevant papers: three related to staff skills (e.g. empathetic concern, calm appearance and gentle tone of voice) and four related to the process of intervention (e.g. establishing rapport, maintaining safety, problem solving and setting limits).
The available literature provides clinical descriptions of effective de-escalation based on qualitative data and professional observations. However, these thematic analyses need to be supported by more objective data; one hallmark of such objectivity would be an empirical scale or quantitative measure of de-escalation.
De-Escalating Aggressive Behaviour Scale (DABS)
An English modified version of the De-Escalating Aggressive Behaviour Scale (DABS) identifies seven qualities necessary for de-escalation:
Valuing the client: Provides genuine acknowledgement that the client's concerns are valid, important and will be addressed in a meaningful way.
Reducing fear: Listens actively to the client and offers genuine empathy while suggesting that the client's situation has the potential for positive future change.
Inquiring about client's queries and anxiety: Can communicate a thorough understanding of the client's concerns, and works to uncover the root of the issue.
Providing guidance to the client: Suggests multiple ways to help the client with their current concerns and recommends preventive measures.
Working out possible agreements: Takes responsibility for the client's care and concludes the encounter with an agreed-upon short-term solution and a long-term action plan.
Remaining calm: Maintains a calm tone of voice and steady pace that is appropriate to the client's feelings and behaviour.
Risk taking: Maintains a moderate distance from the client to ensure safety, but does not appear guarded and fearful.
Law enforcement
United States
Starting around 2015, after facing criticism after numerous high-profile killings of civilians by police officers, police forces in the US, including the Los Angeles Police Department and the Tempe Police Department (Arizona), adopted de-escalation training, designed to reduce the risk of confrontations turning violent or deadly for anyone involved.
The FIRST STEP Act prison reform bill, passed under the Trump administration, mandates de-escalation training, especially for "incidents that involve the unique needs of individuals who have a mental illness or cognitive deficit." Across U.S. law enforcement departments, de-escalation primarily involves slowing down encounters with offenders as well as avoiding force wherever possible, with a focus on creating distance with the offender.
Richards (2007) states that de-escalation is the act of moving from a state of high tension to a state of reduced tension. Bell (2018) points out that the reason there is heightened tension in law enforcement today than ever before is due to technology. Media reports on the use of force, racial unrest, riots and injustice make it seem like conflicts between police and citizens are happening every day. Bell notes that because people can so readily view these conflicts between police and citizens through technology, people have become resistant to or challenging of law enforcement. In response, the police have had to become engaged in social media, ethics training, diversity training and de-escalation programs.
Bell notes that police are different from average citizens. He states that citizens have a "duty to retreat" while trained officers are expected to pursue and make arrests if need be. Sometimes officers have some discretion in how they will handle a situation such as when an encounter has the potential to become violent. It is at these times that "officers can turn to de-escalation tactics and still complete their mission to protect and serve." Oliva et al. note, "As the role of police officers continues to expand from exclusively crime fighting to encompass other service-oriented functions, they must be able to recognize the characteristics of individuals in crisis in order to provide an effective and helpful resolution to the situation while reducing liability and risk of injury" (p. 16.) Hence the need for de-escalation tactics on the part of law enforcement officers.
De-escalation tactics predominantly revolved around securing the scene at hand and attempting to calmly communicate with the citizen involved. Andrew Bell describes several de-escalation practices to assist in a potentially violent situation:
International relations
In the military, de-escalation is a way to prevent military conflict escalation. A historic example is the teaching harvested from the Proud Prophet war simulation of a conflict between the US and the USSR, which took place in 1983. In war-time diplomacy, de-escalation is used as an exit strategy, sometimes called an "off-ramp" or "slip road". In such cases, an alternative peaceful resolution is offered to a belligerent (i.e. nation or person engaged in war or conflict) in order to avoid further bloodshed. Restraint or appeasement against interventionism can in some cases lead to escalation instead of de-escalation. Deterrence is one strategy to decrease conflict severity. Prevention of casualties, for example through air defense, can have de-escalatory effects. In asymmetric conflicts a probabilistic escalation might be rational for one side in some situations, resulting in challenges for de-escalation. "De-escalation through escalation" strategy hopes for increased probability of a diplomatic deal or further de-escalation.