CRITICAL INCIDENTS: DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF UNDERSTANDING

Abstract

This PhD program of work aimed to enhance understanding of the factors that influence engagement in critical incidents in forensic contexts, drawing on perceptions of forensic
psychiatric patients, trained crisis negotiators, media perspectives, and findings from the literature. Study one involved qualitative analysis of perpetrator perspectives of critical
incidents. Thirteen identified perpetrators of critical incidents from a high secure psychiatric sample completed a SORC functional assessment (Goldfried and Sprafkin, 1976) pertaining to a critical incident they had engaged in. Qualitative data from these SORC assessments were coded and subsequently qualitatively analysed using Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Seven main themes related to individual background factors were identified: (1) coping related factors, (2) personality factors, (3) criminal background, (4) mental health factors, (5) unhelpful beliefs, (6) prior experience of critical incidents, and (7) substance misuse. Five main themes related to events or stimuli occurring prior to a critical incident were identified: (1) environmental factors, (2) experience of difficult emotion, (3) feeling challenged/disempowered, (4) a significant event, and (5) use of substances/intoxication. Finally, six main themes related to the functions of critical incidents were identified: (1) to achieve a specific goal, (2) to cope with or remove difficult emotions/symptoms, (3) to make others listen, (4) to gain a positive experience and/or emotions, (5) to seek a sense of belonging/affinity with others, and (6) to establish sense of power/control. These findings highlighted a range of factors that appear relevant to the perpetration of a critical incident. The findings also revealed that the factors can co-exist and vary across both individual and situation, thus highlighting a need for an individualised approach to case formulation.

Study two explored the perspectives of negotiation staff in relation to the motivations for critical incidents, also capturing perceived protective mechanisms and environmental
factors. 20 professionals with active experience of critical incident negotiation completed semi-structured interviews. Four main themes related to functions of critical incidents were identified using thematic analysis, these included: (1) to seek deliberate isolation from others (2) to achieve goals/get needs met, (3) to gain control, and (4) to fulfil a need to communicate or to be listened to. Protective factors included: (1) the presence of inhibitory thoughts, (2) perception of a valued and pro-social support network, (3) pro-social problem solving and coping skills, and (4) self-belief and self-efficacy. The findings revealed that environmental factors were relevant to both functions and protective factors, thus highlighting the need for further exploration.

Study three further investigated the motivating factors for engagement in critical incidents, as documented in media/public enquiry publications. This enabled further exploration of
events and stimuli that occurred prior to the event and from an additional source. A review of media publications and public enquiries led to the identification of 165 suitable media and public enquiry publications relating to 24 critical incidents. SORC assessments (Goldfried and Sprafkin, 1976) were completed for each critical incident and thematic analysis was completed. Four main themes related to motivating factors were identified. These included: (1) criminal motivation, (2) achieving goals/getting needs met, (3) to gain control, and (4) a need to communicate or be listened to. Four main themes related to contributory factors for critical incidents were also identified. These included: (1) mental health factors, (2) criminal background, (3) experience of acute emotion, and (4) relationship difficulties. The findings of this study suggested that there are several individual characteristics and background factors relevant to engagement in critical incidents that have yet to be fully captured within existing literature, thus warranting further exploration.

The final study included an exploration of the impact of personality styles/domains, personality traits, personality functioning, social problem-solving style, protective factors, and resilience on critical incident engagement. Several questionnaires were completed by males residing within high and medium secure forensic psychiatric settings. Comparisons were made between those who had a history of critical incident engagement and those who did not. Extraversion and dissocial tendencies were found to predict critical incident engagement. Neuroticism, impairment of interpersonal functioning, an impulsive/careless problem-solving approach, a positive problem orientation, and resilience were not found to predict likelihood of critical incident engagement. Finally, internal and external protective factors were found to significantly predict non-engagement in critical incidents. As such, the findings highlighted the importance of the role of protective factors in further understanding critical incident engagement.

The findings of this thesis indicates that engagement in critical incidents is multifaceted, yet there are a range of identifiable vulnerability and protective factors, relevant to both the individual and the environment, across a range of forensic contexts. This research suggests that in order to target, address, and effectively manage critical incidents, specialist support and intervention should view critical incident engagement primarily as a maladaptive or dysfunctional means of coping or meeting individual need(s). Moreover, there should be more attention to key external socioenvironmental considerations. This is pivotal in addressing the current and arguably reductionist perceptions of why individuals engage in critical incidents, and the current overfocus on consequences or systemic outcomes of critical incidents. This thesis proposes a preliminary integrated model of understanding that accounts for vulnerability factors, protective factors, socio-environmental factors, and motivations related to the perpetration of critical incidents within a forensic context.