WMU J Marit Affairs (2017) 16:53–72

DOI 10.1007/s13437-016-0101-0
A RT I C L E

Coping with Captivity in a maritime hijacking situation

Lisa Loloma Froholdt 1

Received: 1 August 2014 / Accepted: 19 April 2016 / Published online: 19 May 2016
# World Maritime University 2016

Abstract Piracy has unfortunately become a health and safety risk for seafarers in the
maritime industry today. However, little do we know about the impact of a pirate
hijacking situation and how seafarers cope. Focusing on negotiation communication,
the analysis debouches in a discussion of the dynamics of coping strategies, by
investigating 173 authentic audio recordings of communication sequences recorded
during a pirate hijacking situation that were donated voluntarily by a shipping compa-
ny. The Captain assessed and reflected on the course of events in the situation, to which
the negotiator responded appropriately, with acknowledging brief responses or psycho-
logical aid. This is similar to other highly dynamic decision-making settings, where
decision-makers tend to continuously reflect and revise their view of the situation (Eraut
2000). The data is also consistent with the Breflection-in-action^ concept by Schön
(1983) used by van den Heuvel et al. (Cogn Technol Work 16: 25–45, 2014) in their
investigation of communication of police officers in hostage situations. However, the
coping dynamics changed when the negotiator’s responses became too minimal. This
shows how the context and the individual’s cognitive appraisal of the encounter co-
shapes the coping dynamics in the situation. It is urged that pre-piracy care and seafarer
training involves practical examples and information about roles and coping dynamics in
negotiation communication as part of an orchestrated approach to the scourge of piracy.

Keywords Coping strategies . Piracy . Seafarers . Negotiation . Occupational health and

safety risk

1 Introduction

Piracy has unfortunately become a health and safety risk for seafarers in the maritime
industry today. Contrary to more traditional risks that shipping companies must attend

* Lisa Loloma Froholdt

lf@wmu.se

1
World Maritime University, Fiskehamnsgatan 1, 20124 Malmo, Sweden
54 L.L. Froholdt

to, piracy is intentional and involves the act of a person or persons attempting to board a
ship in order to commit theft or use force to accomplish this (IMO 2005). It can be
argued that the preparation for such a risk or the provision of psychological aid in the
event of a pirate attack calls for a response that goes beyond the individual core
competencies of a shipping company (Mitropoulos 2001, Bueger 2013). This risk is
under-researched which makes it difficult to orchestrate a fully informed response
(Mannov 2015). However, there has been some response, which has resulted in the
development of post-piracy care for seafarers.
One response that has sought to provide psychological aid to traumatized victims of
piracy comes from the Disaster Psychiatry Outreach and the New York
Psychoanalytical Society and Institute who have together with the Seamen’s Church
Institute initiated a research project in 2010 that focused on investigating the clinical
assessment and treatment of piracy attack survivors (Lloyds List 2011). The project has
compiled a guideline for BPost-piracy care for seafarers^ (Garfinkle 2010). Another
response that has investigated the psychological welfare of seafarers is the Maritime
Piracy Humanitarian Response Programme (MPHRP), which is funded by the
International Transport Workers’ Federation and the TK Foundation and was
launched in September, 2011. This project has also attempted to provide treatment
guidelines for seafarers. Froholdt (2010a) investigated the psychological impact of the
hijacking of a ship on the shipping company’s emergency response team from the
Danish shipping company, Clipper Group, who were subjected to a pirate attack on
their vessel CEC Future on 7 November, 2008. The study shed light on a range of
psychological symptoms that the response team experienced, such as sleep deprivation,
frustration and feelings of lack of control over the negotiation process. These symptoms
are in line with symptoms that can be experienced by persons in direct contact with a
stressful event, and research has also shown that witnessing a traumatic event can leave
a person with the same Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms as a person
who experienced the event directly (Silva et al. 2000). However, the trauma and
psychological impact from direct participation in a pirate hijacking seafarers leaves
its own scars. Ziello et al. (2013) discovered PTSD in three of the four seafarers they
evaluated 5 months after release from a pirate hijacking between 7 and 10 months of
captivity. Symptoms of anxiety, emotional instability and sleeping disorders were also
among the problems that these seafarers had to deal with. Ziello et al. (2013) argued for
resilience training as pre-piracy care and quality care interventions as post-piracy care
for seafarers.
Garfinkle (2010) has also proposed ‘anticipatory training’ in his post-piracy care
guidelines, a set of guidelines that aim at preventing severe consequences and post-
event health problems for survivors, such as PTSD. The abovementioned studies, all
draw on testimonials, self-reports and interviews with seafarers as their method of
inquiry. These studies also take place after the event of hijackings, and they capture
how seafarers experienced and evaluated the way in which they dealt with the
situation, in order to ascertain what kind of pre-piracy care seafarers need.
However, little do we know about the impact of a pirate hijacking situation in real
time and how seafarers actually cope with piracy hijacking. Such a study could
provide new insights that could be a contribution to the ‘anticipatory training’ and
resilience training that Ziello et al. (2013) and Garfinkel (2010) have proposed in the
form of pre-piracy care for seafarers.
Coping with captivity in a maritime hijacking situation. 55

The objective of this article is therefore to contribute with an analysis of how seafarers
cope in a hijacking situation, but unlike the data used in the studies mentioned above, the
article at hand investigates coping strategies that are used in real-time data. This can
provide a strong kind of analysis, due to the fact that the analysis is not of what seafarers
subjectively perceive to be how they coped with capture, but more of how seafarers cope,
as this takes place ‘in situ’ in the course of a hijacking. This choice of data collection also
ensures the avoidance of hostages reliving the hijacking situation and possibly re-
traumatizing the respondents which could be the case if qualitative interviews or clinical
assessments had been undertaken. It is also the objective of the article to show if and how,
the context of a negotiation communication plays a role, and to provide a detailed
analysis of how seafarers cope with the dynamics of events in a pirate hijacking. This
knowledge can shed light on how seafarers cope with captivity during a pirate hijacking
and possibly indicate directions for seafarer training in pre-piracy care.

1.1 Defining Coping

In order to conduct the analysis, it is appropriate to define the concept of coping. The
most frequently quoted definition of the concept, coping, and the definition used in this
article is the view of Lazarus (1999; 110): Bthe constantly changing cognitive and
behavioural efforts a person makes to manage specific external and/or internal
demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of a person^.
Drawing on Lazarus’s central premise, cognitive appraisal, the task is thus to identify
when an encounter has been appraised as stressful by an individual, and which coping
strategies the individual draws on to manage the disturbance.

2 Coping literature

Coping has essentially two major functions, emotion-focused and problem-focused

coping. The first involves the regulation of stressful emotions, and the latter to how a
person alters the troubled person-environment relation that is causing the stress
(Folkman et al. 1986). However, despite the high frequency of quotes, this definition
does receive some criticism. This criticism involves the discussion of how to interpret
the two functions of coping and how to define the concepts of intention and adaptation.
For Lazarus, these concepts are defined contextually. However, some researchers have
argued that coping in itself is a specific kind of adaptation (Costa et al. 1996).
Researchers continue to discuss how the concept of coping can be defined, and this
discussion is further complicated by the debate about how to measure and study coping.
The study of coping derives from the recognition that there are differences in how
individuals react to stress. Stress is commonly considered as the result of a relationship with
the environment that an individual appraises as significant for the individuals wellbeing and
in which the demands exceed available coping resources (Carotenuto et al. 2012). Stress
can be defined as Bthat quality of experience, produced through a person-environment
transaction which through either over-arousal or under-arousal, results in psychological or
physiological distress^ (Aldwin 2007; 24) and can have different effects on different
individuals. Stress is part of the normal process of adaptation to the environment and
consists of adaptive behavioural responses (coping). It has been established that stress is
56 L.L. Froholdt

associated with negative health outcomes, ranging from headaches to heart disease (Aldwin
and Gilmer 2004; Krantz and McCeney 2002; Turner and Wheaton 1995). The purpose of
investigating how individuals cope with stress then is to understand how they differ in
coping and how different coping strategies relate to well-being.
From the early 1970s and motivated by the works of Lazarus (1966), coping has
become an individual field of psychological inquiry. This development is generally
referred to as involving three perspectives. The first perspective grew out of the psycho-
dynamic tradition, explaining coping in terms of defence mechanisms. This is seen as the
reductionist perspective (Aldwin 2007). The second perspective refers to a common base
between personality and coping, and is viewed as the interactionist perspective which
incorporates both personal and environmental stimuli. The third perspective has gone
beyond personality and defence mechanisms, to include cognitive and behavioural
responses that people use to manage distress (Aldwin 2007; 2–9). Examining only single
stressful events is viewed as the transactionist perspective, and it sets the scene for
understanding coping as a process (Aldwin 2007). A transaction infers a process where
stress is neither present in the context nor in the individual, but in the transaction between
them (Lazarus 1990). The analytical task then lies in exploring the cognitive processes that
link the individual to the context. The transactionist perspective places weight on the
impact of the physical and social environment as having a much more extensive role in
shaping the choice of coping strategies and the impact of those strategies (de Ridder 1997;
Mechanic 1978). Coping is understood as contextual, hereby viewing both context and the
individual’s appraisal of the encounter as co-shaping one another (Folkman et al. 1986).
There are new developments in coping research, including the introduction of
positive psychology and how this concept can be used in coping, the effectiveness of
coping and also developments of how the appraisal concept can be understood. These
developments encompass the acknowledgement of the fact that full significance of a
stressor cannot be understood without understanding how individuals place meaning on
the stressor (Dewe and Cooper 2007), which is in line of the appraisal concept by
Lazarus. It is thus of vital importance how a stressor is defined by individuals, be this as
a hindrance or a challenge (Lepine et al. 2006). For stress researchers, it is clear that the
locus of the stress and coping process is the concept of meaning and appraisal, and it is
advised that new research studies focus on the roles that meaning plays in this process,
in order to understand the dynamics of coping (Dewe et al. 2010).
Looking to other research areas involving studies of coping strategies in hostage
situations, a recent study has focused on the coping strategies that police officers use in
hostage situations (van de Heuvel et al. 2014). As pointed out, studies of police officers
in highly dynamic and uncertain environments show that, despite the situation, the
officers are able to implement strategic decisions (van den Heuvel et al. 2011). These
environments include extreme uncertainty, limited and incomplete information,
significant time pressure and difficult decisions. The study has drawn on an extended
RAWFs heuristic, including the Schön (1983) Breflection in action^ concept, using real-
time quotes from a simulated hostage situation as a means of analysing police officers
coping strategies in the case of uncertainty as data material.
The van den Heuvel et al. study is an advancement of the ideas deriving from the
work by Lipshitz and Strauss (1997), and the analyses consist of single extracted quotes
from the communication that took place during the simulation, which are then classi-
fied according to the Schön (1983) and the van den Heuvel et al. (2014) concepts. The
Coping with captivity in a maritime hijacking situation. 57

idea of analysing communication in order to understand the meaning of events and how
they take place is not novel, however, extracting singular quotes from a context can run
the risk of disembodiment of both analysis and data. Such a disembodiment fails to
explicate the sequential and dynamic reasoning that takes place in interaction. Finally,
inserting these quotes in a pre-defined scheme can inhibit the detection of the rich and
complex dynamics of coping strategies that are being asked for, and how cognitive
processes such as emotion are managed (Aldwin 2007).
An increasing amount of research is being conducted in both Healthcare and
Aviation settings with a focus on how communication shapes the outcome of interac-
tions (Perakyla and Sorjonen 2012). This article thus seeks to build on the research by
van den Heuval et al. (2011, 2014) by drawing on psychological and sociological
methodology that focuses on context and how this plays out action for action. This
article positions itself between Zajonc (1984) and Lazarus (1982, 1984) as to whether
cognitive or emotional reactions are primary in stressful situations, positioning
cognition as visible in social interaction (Froholdt 2010a, b, 2012, 2014, 2015).

3 Methods

There have been a range of methods that have generally been used when analysing the nature
of coping, namely, clinical interviews, laboratory stressors or self-reporting questionnaires or
checklists. This type of data has however produced analyses that are somewhat self-evident
and can be difficult to interpret. This has led to an openness towards alternative methods. This
is due to the fact that although there is an amount of studies that have been conducted, coping
research is not closer to understanding the richness and complexity of coping.
In order to contribute to this development, a micro-analytical method is used which
draws on Discursive Psychology (DP) (Edwards and Potter 1992), informed by
Conversation Analysis (CA) (Sacks et al. 1974). CA is a sociological method, which
by way of detailed verbatim transcripts, is used to investigate how respondents
sequentially organize their rich and complex ways of taking turns at talk by orienting
towards specific phenomena in the context. The choice of DP calls upon a focus on
psychological themes and displays that respondents express in context, communica-
tively. The notion of context is central in micro-analytical studies and communication is
viewed doubly contextual, as communication must be understood in the context in
which it takes place (Heritage 1989). This is also Bthe ‘reflexive’ aspect of social action
that when we communicate, we produce utterances which perform actions, which in
turn invite next kinds of action^ (Wooffitt 2005; 8). The focus on context with these
methods provides the opportunity to understand the local premise for interaction, and
through this understanding, shed light on context and real time coping strategies.
Lazarus defines two different kinds of appraisal, primary and secondary. Primary
appraisal involves the initiation of the coping process and occurs when the individual
evaluates and gives meaning to an encounter by recognizing that something of signif-
icance is at stake. The appraisal is appraised in terms of harm, threat, loss or challenge
(Lazarus 2001). Secondary appraisal focuses on what can be done. This will drive the
focus of the analysis, thus firstly on when individuals give meaning to an account by
recognizing that something significant is at stake. Secondly, the analysis will then focus
on how the individuals focus on what can be done.
58 L.L. Froholdt

3.1 Data

The data that is used is part of a larger data corpus of 173 transcripts of recorded
telephone calls that were donated voluntarily by a shipping company to the author. The
recordings were transcribed firstly by the shipping company, and then in more detail by
the author according to the intricate transcription key initially developed by Jefferson
(1983) and further elaborated on by Atkinson and Heritage (1984). All transcriptions
were analysed, focusing on instances where the interaction showed how the participants
use primary and secondary appraisals—or how an individual chooses to cope with a
situation. The appraisals were then grouped according to time segments in the hijacking
process and frequency within the time segments. The analysis was discussed and
reviewed by several researchers working in this field of research. The data excerpts
that were selected for this article are selected due to several reasons. Firstly, they
represent interaction that took place within the same time segment. Secondly, the
primary and secondary appraisals were most frequent in this time segment in compar-
ison to any other time segment in the data corpus, and they are the most appropriate for
the purposes of this article. The excerpts all derive from the same hostage event, which
is in line with the conditions of the theory of cognitive appraisal (Lazarus 1999). The
underlined text in the excerpts indicates the focus of the analysis.

3.2 The participants

Before the presentation of the data and the analysis takes place, the context will be
presented. Figure 1 below depicts the communication flow between the involved
parties in the hostage situation. As can be seen, the seafarers are not in direct contact
with their shipowner or company emergency response team. They communicate to the
pirates and the pirate’s negotiator, and to the shipowners negotiator—both negotiators
involved in the hostage negotiation situation have no knowledge about shipping or
seafarers and have never met each other before.

Fig. 1 Communication flow between involved parties in the hostage situation. Parties in blue are respondents
in the data
Coping with captivity in a maritime hijacking situation. 59

The communication flow analysed in this article, involves three respondents that are
entitled in the shadowed boxes; a seafarer, the Captain (C), the shipping company’s
negotiator Howard (H) and the pirate’s negotiator, Elias (E).

4 Analysis

The analysis is driven by the identification of appraisals, both primary and second-
ary (in italics), thus, when the respondent appraises harm or disturbance and then
which coping strategies are initiated by the respondent in order to manage the
disturbance.
Excerpt 1 contains the first mention of required medical information for crew
members, some weeks into the hijacking situation. This had been attended to by
the crew’s crewing agency. The excerpt shows how the Captain appraises harm
describing a sick crew member and how he copes with this and in response, it is
seen how the company’s negotiator Howard offers psychological aid to the
Captain.

4.1 Excerpt 1: 2008,21,12-1659—BA person can be stroked by things like this^

Lines omitted

1. C:Yeah and another point about the seaman we told you and eeh eeh and eeh I
tried to explain to
2. the crewing agency but it was not enough time eeh slightly just slightly (.) I don’t
know how
3. to say correct but generally might might go mad.
4. H: okay sorry to hear that sorry to hear that
5. C: and eeh (.) for example for example one of the symptoms eeh (.) he cannot be
alone eeh
6. (.) he need some company close with him and eeh. .of cause we try to talk with
him all the
7. time and eeh we try to to to save him and eeh (.) sometimes of course its very
difficult he
8. looks like he not understand whats happen and eeh (.) sometimes I try to keep him
on a
9. watch we don’t need and now we are staying (.) at the watch eeh two by two eeh
I’m staying together
10. with the third mate and the chief mate staying together with the second.
11. H: okay
12. C: we stay six on six off and eeh (.) during watch he is talking all the time with the
second
13. mate and night time also he is talking.
14. H: okay that’s good
15. C: and before he fell to his knee and eeh (.) I really I don’t know how serious (.)
but sometimes what I
16. talk when I spoken with him eeh pretty normal.
60 L.L. Froholdt

17. H: yeah
18. C: doesn’t result in result in any deviations
19. H: yep
20. C: but sometimes really Im afraid because the deviations and unlogical eeh things
and so on
21. and so on maybe I don’t know
22. H: I fully understand its its normal in a situation like this captain that that a person
can be stroked
23. by eeh (.) >things like this<.
24. C: yeah yeah I know

Lines omitted

1. H: okay (.) well eeh as long as you stick together and help each other that is most
important thing you can do captain
2. C: Sorry you interrupted eeh and echo is coming eeh you are talking very fast
3. H: Okay as long as you stick together and help each other that is the best way you
can get get out of this (.)
4. Okay
5. C: yea yea
6. H: Thank you

4.1.1 Lines omitted

In lines 2–3, the Captain provides a primary appraisal as he describes a sanity

account for one of the crew members, who Bmight go mad^(line 3). The response to
this is BI am sorry to hear that^. Although this response can be consoling for the
Captain in the Bsorry^ utterance, there is no effort on Howard’s part to offer
concrete advice as to how the Captain can cope with the problem of the crew
member’s sanity. The Captain’s response to Howard is to provide a description of
the symptoms that lie behind the sanity account. BHe cannot be alone^ (line 5) and
Bhe looks not like he understand what happen to him^ (lines 7–8). The Captain then
moves on to inform Howard how the crew copes with this behaviour – Bwe try to
talk to him^ (line 6) and Bwe try to save him^ (line 7), Bsometimes I try to keep him
on a watch we don’t need^ (lines 8–9). This is responded to by Howard with an
acknowledging Bokay^ in line 11.
Howard provides fairly brief responses in the form of continuers to the Captain
in line 14, 17 and 19, and the Captain in turn proceeds with detailing symptoms.
These continuers and tokens of acknowledgement can function as ways of enticing
the Captain to continue to elaborate. It is apparent in highly dynamic decision-
making settings, that decision-makers have a need to continuously reflect on and
revise their understanding of the situation as a way of coping with a rapidly
changing situation (Eraut 2000). This excerpt shows how the Captain reflects on
the situation and his decisions relating to the different tasks that arise. Howard
provides room for this by not giving lengthy responses, but only brief responses
such as continuers and tokens of acknowledgement. It is not until the Captain
Coping with captivity in a maritime hijacking situation. 61

provides the appraisal Bbut sometimes really I’m afraid…^ in line 20, that Howard
provides a lengthy response in line 22. This response from Howard changes the
dynamics of the conversation in that the Captain ceases to provide further de-
scriptions about the condition of the crew.
This excerpt shows how the company’s negotiator Howard provides psychological
aid to the Captain in lines 22–23; BI fully understand its its normal in a situation like
this captain that that a person can be stroked by eeh (.) >things like this<^, and also in
lines 25–26; Bokay (.) well eeh as long as you stick together and help each other that is
most important thing you can do captain^, which is repeated again in lines 27–28. The
excerpt shows how an extended psychological aid alters the behaviour of the Captain.
The Captain then ends his reflection on the condition of the crew.
The next excerpt takes place approximately a week after excerpt 1. The conversation
is between the Captain and Howard, and shows how the Captain provides lengthy
descriptions of the condition of four of the crew members.

4.2 Excerpt 2: 2008.26.12_09 15/03:14—05:40 ^Some psychic problems slightly

in progress^

The captain is called to the phone

1. C: okay Howard I listen good morning

2. H: good morning captain how are you
3. C: aah (.) unfortunately not so good eeh (.) because eeh (.) the AB, (.) the AB
breathing feel
4. errh not (.) not >not not quite strong enough<
5. H: all right
6. C: and now so just like I told you already before, eeh the private medicine of the
sick
7. AB is finished and eeh (.) was strong pain pain painful (.) in his lungs (voices
8. in the background) and eeh present moment I have four guys who have eeh my
9. recommendations to be on the bed (.) of cause (.) they haha they are they are bad
but
10. walking overelse anyhow Im afraid for these four guys condition (.) and also eeh
(.) the
11. engineer brain is err also some psychic problems meaning psychic slightly in
progress (.) he is
12. slightly slightly going mad now
13. H: okay
14. C: and I’m really I’m really afraid for him (.) because if somebody condition of
AB or engineer (.)
15. we we tried to trade but I don’t know what to do with engineer
16. don’t know what to do and he is sitting here now with the engineer now and he is
staying on watch together
17. with him and we divided the watch by two and two instead of six on and six off (.)
especially to keep
18. the engineer company with the second mate because I will stay with the first mate
and secondly the engineer
62 L.L. Froholdt

19. now is very very difficult due to tell you err what what really happen with him.
20. H: okay

4.2.1 Lines omitted

This excerpt provides insight into the kind of problems that the Captain has
attended to during the hijacking. The Captain has now four crew members (line
10, 21) with physiological and psychological problems and who are in a Bnot so
good condition^ (line 21). The Captain unfolds the symptoms of these conditions;
One crew member whose Bprivate medicine of the sick AB is finished private
medicine is finished^ (lines 6–7) and who has a Bstrong pain pain painful (.) in his
lungs^ (line 7) and his Bbreathing^ (line 3) is not quite strong enough^ (lines 3–4).
Another crew member with Bpsychic problems^ (line 11) and who is Bslightly
going mad now^ (line 12). Finally, in line 19, the Captain places emphasis on the
difficulty in being able to tell Howard what is really happening with the engineer.
This could be that with the pirates standing around him, the Captain feels
intimidated by the many pirates and cannot say how ill the engineer is.
However, Howard’s response is brief, he does not inquire as to why it is difficult.
This is left hanging.
The Captain’s reflections and assessments of the situation have amplified in severity
in this excerpt compared to the previous excerpt. The response to the Captain’s
physiological and psychological descriptions of the crew’s condition from Howard is
brief and seemingly minimal when one considers the gravity of the descriptions, such
as, Ballright^ (line 5) and Bokay^ (line 13 and 21).
The next excerpt takes place 4 days after excerpt 2. The Captain informs Howard
that the food provisions are low. The responses to this are again brief and minimal.
However, what is different about this excerpt is the absence of fluency in the Captains
turns at talk, with pauses and inconsistencies which indicates some disturbance in the
communication.

4.3 Excerpt 3: 2008.30.12-15.26/00.56-03.37 BWe are almost already not eating^

There are many voices in the background that sound like a large group of pirates talking
and discussing something.

Omitted lines

1. C: hello Howard
2. H: hello captain how are you
3. C: (word) yes (word) thank you thank you preciate but just err I would like to
inform you (.) eeh (.) first of all
4. have you received err message from technical department
5. H: err I haven’t seen [ it haven’t seen it
6. C: [ err the whole would be the err would would would be right there we knows
ourself
7. H: yah
Coping with captivity in a maritime hijacking situation. 63

8. C: we don’t know errr the real situation what is here for example we cannot travel
with full speed (.) reduced
9. H: No
10. C: err reduced speed of course we have all of these problems .hhh one (.) err
consumption a lot of rich
11. consumption absolutely ten eleven tons as usually eeh third one eeh I cannot send
you message fax with err
12. with err answers for technical questions and last one eeh (word) err pay attention
that for present moment
13. we have on board the provision maximum for five days (.) all provision already
almost is finish now we have a
14. little bit (word) and eeh and the bread (.) no anymore (.) we have not any meal
anymore and not abilities to
15. deliver from shop or so (2.6) you understooding
16. H: I understand and I fully understand
17. (5.3)
18. C: hello
19. H: yes I I hear you loud and clear captain you go on
20. C: just I I finished (words) just aah I eerr (.) and also eeh (.) please eer inform the
technical department every
21. morning (words) was eeh (word) (.) both switched off and be repaired (words)
about (words) later eight
22. pm oclock (words)
23. H: okay
24. C: and we cant we have we have not anymore and provision that’s (word)
maximum three days
25. but we are almost already no not eating
26. (2.4)
27. H: right
28. C: please pay attention for that okay
29. H: we will do that
30. C: thanks eeh I cannot tell you anymore just that Elias will will talk

4.3.1 Omitted lines

Captain’s turn at talk in line 6 begins in an overlap (when a person begins his or
her turn at talk by talking at the same time as someone else is talking) and is a turn
that is difficult to analytically make sense of. The turn is noticeably disruptive
with repetition of words and perturbations compared to Captain’s previous utter-
ances, both in this article, but compared to all other excerpts in the data corpus.
The Captain’s fluency improves however in line 8, with only few disturbances. In
line 10, the Captain begins a longer turn where he informs Howard of a three-part
list of problems of which he terms Bone^ (line 10), Bthird^ (line 11), and Blast
one^ (line 12). It is the problem termed Blast one^ in line 12 that the Captain gives
emphasis, as he requests that Howard Bpay attention^ (line 12), and moves on to
inform that Bon board the provision maximum for five days^ which is later
64 L.L. Froholdt

reduced to Bmaximum three days^ in line 24. The crew does not Bhave any meal
anymore^ (line 14) which infers that the crew does not have any hot dinner meal
with vegetables and meat. It is also informed that it is not possible to deliver new
provisions to the ship.
After this utterance there is a pause of 2.6 seconds (s) where Howard could have taken
the turn but does not. The Captain then asks Howard if he has understood the problems
Byou understooding^ (line 15). Howard responds promptly with his answer that
BI understand and I fully understand^ (line 16). This is followed again by a 5.3 s
long pause and the Captain then takes the turn and asks hello, as if he is unsure if
Howard is still connected to the telephone line. Howard takes the turn in line 19, Byes I
hear you loud and clear captain you go on^. Captain’s response to this is full of disruptive
communication and pauses, as if to indicate that the response that Howard provides is not
what he expected.
The issue of a lack of provisions surfaces in line 25 Bbut we are almost already no
not eating^ which is again followed by a pause of 2.4 s and a minimal response from
Howard; Bright^ (line 27). The Captain asks Howard once more to Bpay attention to^
this in line 28. Howard does not comment on this Blast^ problem, nor does he comment
on the Bone^ or Bthird^ problems that the captain also mentioned. The Captain presses
to close the communication in line 30, BI cannot tell you anymore just that Elias will,
will talk^. Howard’s responses contain no comment on the appraisals of harm and
disturbance from the Captain, nor any support as to how the Captain could cope with
the challenges involved as Howard did in earlier in excerpt 1. Howard’s responses are
seemingly confusing for the Captain.
The following excerpt is very different from the previous excerpts, as it does
not involve the captain’s reflections or revisions of the situation. This excerpt
also shows how the pirate negotiator Elias seeks to create mistrust between the
crew and the shipping company. Just before the conversation takes place, it is
audible on the sound file that Elias is talking to the Captain in the background.
Elias says, Bthey don’t give a fuck about you guys because they don’t want to
deal with me (word) you talk to the Captain^. Elias then passes the phone to the
Captain.

4.4 Excerpt 4: 2008.30.12-15.26/09.23-10.45 BYou like to say me something^

1. C: Howard
2. H: yes
3. C: (words) you like to tell me
4. H: say again captain
5. C: (words) would you like to t (word)
6. H: say again captain there is a bad connection
7. C: hello
8. H: yeah captain (.) hello
9. C: yes Howard I read you I read you
10. H: okay good say again please
11. C: I read you
12. H: right
13. C: you like to say me something
Coping with captivity in a maritime hijacking situation. 65

14. H: oh wo oh say oh no no I don’t have any message for you no other that we are
waiting for the pirates
15. (3.5)
16. C: yes but err Elias give me err the the phone err and I understand that (.) you like
to tell me something
17. H: yeah well no I don’t have
18. C: [to me and to my crew]
19. H: I don’t have any information for you and your crew
20. (3.6)
21. C: thank you very much thanks for your promises for you promised me eeh
22. (.) four days ago regarding forty-eight hours maybe little bit more (.) thanks for
everything
23. H: you’re welcome
24. E: why are you lying to him why you lying to him (word) telling him empty
promises
25. H: Elias
26. E: [Why you lying to him]
27. (a sniffling sound)
28. H: Elias elias
29. (1.8)
30. E: Yes Im here
31. H: Okay (.) Now (.) this conversation is going to stop (.) okay

4.4.1 Lines omitted—the conversation closes

The Captain begins in this excerpt by asking Howard if he would Blike to tell^
something in line 3. Howard responds to this with a single word, Bright^ in line 12.
Again in line 13 the Captain repeats his question from line 3, Byou like to say me
something^. Howard refuses to play along with Elias’s game, and after some disruption
in the flow of the talk, Howard claims that BI don’t have any message^ and, further-
more, Howard inserts the account that Bwe are waiting for the pirates^ (line 14). This
account differs from Elias’s account of the situation Bthey won’t deal with me^, which
was uttered in the preliminary conversation to this excerpt. The response to Howard’s
claim in line 15 is a pause of 3.5 s, upon which the Captain again repeats his question
from lines 3 and 13. This time the question is elaborated on, by saying that Elias had
given him the phone, that BI understand that (.) you like to tell me something^ and the
utterance is given a final emphasis in an overlap in line 18, Bto me and my crew^. This
is a strong statement, where the pronoun ‘my’ crew portrays Captain’s responsibility for
the crew.
Howard answers by saying that he does not have information (line 19). It seems
natural that Captain takes the next turn, however this is not the case and instead there is
a pause of 3.6 s. After this pause, the Captain takes the turn and thanks Howard for all
of the promises in an elevated voice (In an except not part of this article, Howard had
said that Bhopefully we can find a solution within the next 48 hours, but don’t get your
hope too high okay captain^) that Howard had made him four days before. Howard
promptly replies with an appreciative, Byour welcome^. Elias picks up on the statement
66 L.L. Froholdt

from the Captain and takes the phone and asks Howard Bwhy are you lying to him^
(line 24) and refers to the ‘promises that the Captain was talking about in line 21 as
Bempty promises^ (line 24).
Again in line 26, Elias mentions Howard’s lies to the Captain. With these accounts,
Elias creates trouble between the Captain and Howard. The Captain is still in hearing
range and can therefore hear Elias’ question to Howard that seemingly places Howard
in a bad light. Elias’ accounts refer to the Captain’s acknowledgement of Bpromises^
(line 21) given, and indicate that the Captain’s acknowledgements thus are ironic in
nature. The Captain is thus criticizing Howard for not keeping his promises of release,
and Elias uses this to create further trouble between Howard and the Captain. The
excerpt ends when Howard takes initiative and announces that the conversation
will end.
This excerpt shows how Elias manages to create a situation where the Captain can
doubt the intentions of the company and Howard’s trustworthiness as a negotiator.
When Elias and Howard both have different opinions of the status of the situation, this
can make it difficult for the Captain to ascertain who in fact is telling the truth. Is it the
company or is it the pirates who are speaking the truth? Elias succeeds in creating doubt
and the Captain has difficulty in coping with the mistrust that has been created.
The last excerpt is one of the final conversations between the ship and the company,
as the crew was released only days after. There is a lot of background noise and the
voices of many pirates talking can be heard. The appraisals given display how the
condition of the crew is deteriorating.

4.5 Excerpt 5: 2009.01.08-1027—BThe crew is close to panic^

Lines omitted

1. H: ooh that’s great that’s very good errr and how is eeh how is the the crew and
you yourself.
2. C: howard (.) I can tell you (.) yesterday what I told (.) it was a true (.) .hh and we
are not so
3. good (.) we are not well.
4. H: right
5. C: the crew is like animals now we have no meal (.) and eeh (.) really really the
situation is
6. too too too difficult it’s dangerous
7. H: right .hh
8. C: its not good its not great
9. H: no Okay eeh (.)
10. C: and yeah the crew is close to panic (.) and we are really really we are look like
animals already
11. H: okay .hh
12. C:.hh I don’t know I don’t know what to say
13. H: no
14. C: additionally but eeh .hh really so long time already it’s too much
15. H: Yeah
16. C: it’s too much
Coping with captivity in a maritime hijacking situation. 67

17. H: okay captain thank you very much do you think that I can speak to Elias.
18. C: to elias yes
19. H: yes
20. C: one moment please

This excerpt takes place 9 days after the Captain had informed Howard that there
was only 3–5 days of provision left. Now, the situation of the crew is Bnot so good^—
they are not well (lines 2–3). In line 5, the Captain appraises the behaviour of the crew
as Bwe are like animals^ and with emphasis, Breally really the situation is too too too
difficult its dangerous^ (lines 5–6). The Captain further informs that Bthe crew is close
to panic^ (line 10) and with emphasis, he specifies that Breally really Bwe are look like
animals already^ (line 10). The Captain concludes by adding that Bits too much^ (line
14). All of these appraisals from the Captain are responded to by Howard with
continuers and acknowledgements, which are not aligned with the severity of the
crew’s condition. Howard provides no psychological aid as he did in the first excerpt,
no suggestions to how the crew should cope with the situation and no promises of
release. The Captain does not make Howard accountable for his somewhat minimal
responses to descriptions of the crew as looking like animals and being close to panic,
and Howard presses to close the communication in a request to talk with Elias again in
line 17. The conversation then comes to an end.
In order to sum up on the analyses above, the following section will draw up the
main findings.

4.6 Concluding analysis

This article presents data that displays how negotiator Howard, the Captain and the
Pirate negotiator Elias, interacted during a hijacking negotiation. The data presents the
dynamics of this interaction and as this played out in real-time. The focus of the
analysis has been on identifying the primary and secondary cognitive appraisals that
are displayed in the excerpts and how these are responded to. This section provides first
an analysis of how the Captain coped in the communication, followed by an analysis of
how the Captain coped with the situation.
The Captain of the hijacked ship and the negotiator Howard work well together over
the course of the negotiation communication, where the Captain displayed his reflec-
tions and assessments of the situation as a way of coping. Howard aligned his response
to this, by not asking new questions or providing lengthy responses, but providing short
responses. However, this dynamic changes and it be concluded that the data collection
shows three predominant patterns of sequential structure in the communication.
The first structure is where the Captain delivers a range of technical reviews and
reflections, physiological or psychological appraisals, to which the company negotiator
Howard responds with continuers acknowledgements such as Bokay^ (excerpt 2, lines
13, 20), variations of Bright^ (excerpt 5, lines 4, 7) and variations of Byeah^ (excerpt 1,
lines 17, 19).
The second structure is where the company negotiator responds with psychological
aid in the form of sympathetic responses and suggestions such as, Bits normal in a
situation like this^ (excerpt 1, line 22) or Bas long as you stick together and help each
other that is the most important thing you can do^ (excerpt 1, line 25), and Bhe think we
68 L.L. Froholdt

can find a solution within forty-eight hours^ (excerpt 2, lines 26–27), and these
responses changed the trajectory of the conversation.
The third structure can be seen in excerpts 3 and 4, and is difficult. There is trouble
in the Captain’s utterances, as they show disruption in the flow of the talk and lengthy
pauses. Here the minimal responses from Howard do not suffice and the Captain makes
Howard accountable for this by asking Howard if he understands what has been said
(excerpt 3, line 15) and requests that Howard pays attention to what is said (excerpt 3,
lines 12, 28). These utterances indicate a misalignment in the way that Howard
responds to the Captain. However, trouble in the sequential structure of the communi-
cation is most overt in excerpt 4, where the phenomenon of mistrust is made salient.
There is a confrontation between the Captain and Howard which is initiated by Elias
with Bthe company doesn’t give a fuck about you^ (pre-text excerpt 4) and this is
fuelled by Elias in Bwhy are you lying to him^ and Btelling him empty promises^
(excerpt 4, line 24). The Captain then makes public how he has experienced Howard’s
promises of an upcoming solution. Howard’s reactions and the provocative contribu-
tions made by Elias created a context that did not enable the Captain to bounce back to,
contributing to the Captain’s inability to cope with the situation.
As well as showing how the Captain copes with these three structures in the
negotiation communication, the data provides insight into the way that the Captain
copes with the situation and the deteriorating condition of his crew. Firstly he maintains
the standard operating procedures of the ship, such as officer-on-watch. He also
initiates practical solutions to the psychological stress of the crew member who ‘is
slightly going mad’ (excerpt 2). For example the Captain sets up an extra watch
procedure to keep an eye on the crew member and by ensuring that the respective
crew member is never left alone. The Captain also sustains the maintenance of the
technical condition of the ship which is also a standard operating procedure, and a task
that will heighten the probability of being able to sail away from the pirates when the
release has been negotiated.
However, the Captain must also attend to tasks that are not related to the typical
standard procedures, such as ensuring that the crew consumes less food in order to
stretch the supplies. He also attempts to trade with the pirates for some medicine
supplies for the chronic medical condition of one of the crew members. The
Captain’s attends to all of these tasks, as well as having to attend to his own emotions
and anxiety; BI’m really I’m really afraid for him^, (excerpt 2, line 14); Bit’s we are not
so good (.) we are not well^ (excerpt 5, lines 2–3); BIt’s too much^ (except 5, line 14
and 16). The data thus reveals the Captain’s resilience and leadership skills, which both
enhance the performance of the crew to take part in watches that do not exist and talk
with the crew member who needs company. This is in line with findings from other
studies (Weick and Sutcliffe 2007; Zohar 2000). The focus on assisting the crew
members who are not well can divert focus and create a common goal for the crew,
while at the same time, enhancing team performance (Zohar 2000).

5 Concluding remarks

Negotiations with pirates are a part of a pirate hijacking situation and have not received
a lot of attention as a resource to better the pre-piracy care for seafarers sailing in pirate
Coping with captivity in a maritime hijacking situation. 69

high-risk areas. Previous responses to pirate hijackings have drawn on testimonials and
interviews and the gathering of data after a hijacking has taken place. This article draws
on a unique data corpus that is audio recordings of an authentic hijacking negotiation as
it takes place in real time, and seeks to show if and how, negotiation plays a role, and
how seafarers cope with captivity.
The analysis of the negotiation was twofold, firstly debouching in a discussion of the
psychological dynamics of the negotiation communication and secondly discussing
how the Captain copes as a victim in a hostage situation. The analysis shows that the
context of the negotiation communication plays an important role over the course of
captivity, and it does so in three different structural ways.
A positive dynamics between the Captain and the negotiator is evident throughout
the data collection of negotiation communication, and this can be seen in the excerpts
when the Captain assesses and reflects on his technical views of the situation or through
physiological or psychological appraisals to which the negotiator provides minimal
responses or psychological aid in more lengthy responses. This is similar to other
highly dynamic decision-making settings, where decision makers tend to continuously
reflect and revise their view of the situation (Eraut 2000). The data is also consistent
with the ‘reflection-in-action’ concept by Schön (1983) used by van den Heuvel et al.
(2014) in their investigation of communication of police officers in hostage situations.
However, the dynamics in the communication changed and became very difficult, as
the negotiator did not provide responses that were in line with the severity of the
situation, and this had an impact on the way that the Captain responded. The pirates’
negotiator capitalized on the negative dynamics and succeeded in creating mistrust
between the Captain and the negotiator.
The negotiator’s response strategy played a role in the mistrust that surfaced in
excerpt 4, and this mistrust was later used to create more mistrust between the
negotiator and the Captain by the pirate’s translator. Howards choice of response
became a stressor for the Captain (Dewe and Cooper 2007), and affected the
Captain’s ability to cope. The Captain did not continue his assessment and reflection
as he had done before, but began to display rage as seen in the utterance in lines 21–22
(excerpt 4). This shows how the individual can place meaning on the stressor as a
hindrance to solving a crisis situation (Dewe and Cooper 2007; Lepine et al. 2006), and
how the context and the individual’s cognitive appraisal of the encounter co-shapes the
coping dynamics in the situation (Folkman et al. 1986). It is also evident that the
negotiation communication provides a means for extending psychological aid to the
crew and the Captain, and this should be used by negotiators whenever possible.
It can be argued that a shipping company must prepare its organization for the
unlikely event of a pirate hijacking, in order to help seafarers to cope with the
physiological and psychological stress of being a hostage. This is also what was
informed by Clipper Group (Froholdt 2010a), and what is urged in the BMP4
(2011). However, it is argued on the basis of the findings here, that seafarers are
forewarned that negotiators can seemingly provide responses that are not always
aligned with the severity of the situation. Such a response from a negotiator can be
difficult for a seafarer to manage under such a high level of stress as a hostage situation
can be. It is also important to convey to seafarers that pirates can seek to find holes in
the communication between ship and company in order to create mistrust and find an
opportunity where they can turn events around to their own advantage.
70 L.L. Froholdt

The data provided unique and detailed insight into how the crew and the Captain in
particular coped with the situation. The Captain upheld standard operation procedures
as a coping strategy, such as keeping the watch and maintaining the technical mainte-
nance of the ship. He also provided practical solutions to problems relating to the well-
being of one the seafarers, and tried to negotiate with the pirates in order to get
medicine for his crew. The Captain showed great resilience and strong leadership for
his crew, coping well with his capture, showing that such a dire situation can be
handled. The data is in line with the findings by van den Heuvel et al. (2011), that
highly dynamic and uncertain environments are manageable. However, the appraisal
Bwe are like animals now^ (excerpt 5) portrays the crew’s exhaustion and instinctive
behaviour, fear and anxiety, and the hopelessness that they experience. These reactions
are similar to hostage reactions seen in other types of hostage situations (Alexander and
Klein 2005). A total panic amongst the crew is emergent due to the level of psycho-
logical stress, the many days of capture make it difficult to cope, which is seen in the
Bit’s too long^ (excerpt 5, line 14 and 16) and Bthe situation is dangerous^ (excerpt 5,
line 5–6). It was evident that the crew was released very shortly after these descriptions.
This article argues that pre-piracy care and seafarer training involves practical
examples, case studies, information about roles in negotiation communication and the
impact of coping dynamics in communication in a hostage situation. It is important that
seafarers receive training in resilience before sailing in high-risk areas as the compe-
tencies acquired in pre-piracy care can have a great influence on the abilities of a crew
to cope with a crisis situation such as a pirate hijacking (Lagadec 1993).
This article provides a unique database of authentic negotiation communication and
new knowledge of the dynamics of coping strategies and how they are played out.
Micro-analytical methods are being increasingly used in healthcare and aviation sectors
to draw out knowledge from non-routine situations that can be used prophylactically,
and it is strongly suggested that they be used in the maritime industry to draw out
knowledge that can be used as part of an orchestrated approach to the scourge of piracy.

References

Aldwin CM (2007) Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective, Second edn. The Guilford
Press, New York
Aldwin CM, Gilmer DF (2004) Health, illness, and optimal aging: Biological and psychosocial perspectives.
Sage, Thousand Oaks CA
Alexander DA, Klein S (2005) The psychological aspects of terrorism from denial to hyperbole. J R Soc Med
98:557–562
Atkinson JM, Heritage J (1984) Structures of social interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis, vii-ix. In:
Atkinson JM, Heritage J (eds) Transcript notation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
BMP4 (2011) Best management practices for protection against Somalia Based piracy. Version 4. Witherby
Seaman International, Edinburgh
Bueger C (2013) Orchestrating the Response: Somali Piracy and Ontological Complexity. Global Policy 4(1):
86–93
Carotenuto A, Molino I, Fasanaro AM, Amenta F (2012) Psychological stress in seafarers. A review. Int Marit
Health 2012 63(4):188–194 Copyright © 2012 Via Medica ISSN 1641–9251
Costa PT, Somerfield MR, McCrae R (1996) Personality and coping: a literature relating to coronary heart
disease and mental ill-health. J Occup Psychol 49:11–26
De Ridder D (1997) What is wrong with coping assessment?: A review of conceptual and methodological
issues. Psychol Health 12:417–431
Coping with captivity in a maritime hijacking situation. 71

Dewe PJ, Cooper C (2007) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 22. In:
Hodgkinson G, Ford K (eds) Coping research and measurement in the context of work related stress.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, pp. 141–191
Dewe PJ, O’Driscoll, Cooper CL (2010) Coping with work stress: A review and a critique. Wiley-Blackwell,
West Sussex
Edwards D, Potter J (1992) Discursive Psychology. Sage, London
Eraut M (2000) The intuitive practitioner: a critical overview. In: Atkinson T, Claxton G (eds) The intuitive
practitioner. Open University Press, Buckingham
Folkman S, Lazarus RS, Dunkel-Schetter C, DeLongis A, Gruen R (1986) Dynamics of a stressful encounter:
Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol 82:642–662
Froholdt LL (2010a) A year after CEC Future—reflection and retrospect from a Shipowner’s perspective.
Mercator, March ‘10, pp. 173–181.
Froholdt LL (2010b) Getting closer to context: a case study of communication between ship and shore in an
emergency situation. Text Talk 30-4(2010):385–402
Froholdt LL (2012) Vol. 5 Maritime Logistics. In: Lemper B, Pawlik T, Neumann S (eds) Pirate negotiation
communication—whose risk? Whose responsibility? The Human Element in Container Shipping. Institute
of Shipping Economics and Logistics. Peter Lang GmbH; Frankfurt am Main, Germany, pp. 139–161
Froholdt LL (2014) We are like animals. A case study of coping strategies in an authentic pirate hijacking
situation. Book of Abstracts. The 12th International Maritime Health Symposium, Brest, France, June,
2013
Froholdt LL (2015) “I see you on my radar”: displays of the confirmatory form in maritime technologically
mediated interaction. The Sociological Review. Wiley-Blackwell. First published online 20 AUG 2015 I
doi:10.1111/1467-954X.12333
Garfinkle MS (2010) Preliminary Guidelines for Post-Piracy Care. Working paper, the Seamen’s Church
Institute, Center for Seafarers’ Rights, New York. Version 2.0.
Heritage J (1989) Current developments in conversation analysis. In: Roger D, Bull P (eds) Conversation: an
interdisciplinary perspective. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 21–47
International Maritime Organisation (2005) Reports on Acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships.
MSC.4/Circ. 69, 27th May, 2005. IMO
Jefferson G (1983) Issues in the transcript of naturally-occurring talk: caricature versus capturing
pronounciational particulars. Tilburg: Tilburg University (Tilburg papers in language and literature 34)
Krantz DS, McCeney MK (2002) Effects of psychological and social factors on organic disease: a critical
assessment of research on coronary heart disease. Annu Rev Psychol 53:341–369
Lagadec P (1993) Preventing chaos in a crisis. McGraw-Hill, London
Lazarus RS (1966) Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill, London
Lazarus RS (1982) Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. Am Psychol 37:1019–1024
Lazarus RS (1984) On the primacy of cognition. Am Psychol 39:124–129
Lazarus RS (1990) Theory-based stress measurement. Psychol Inq 1:3–13
Lazarus RS (1996) Handbook of emotion, adult development, and aging. In: Magai C, McFadden SH (eds)
The role of coping in the emotions and how coping changes over the life course. Academic Press, San
Diego CA, pp. 289–306
Lazarus RS (1999) Stress and emotion a new synthesis. Free Association Books, London
Lazarus RS (2001) Appraisal Processes in emotion. In: Scherer KR, Schorr A, Johnstone T (eds) Relational
meaning and discrete emotions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 37–67
Lepine JA, Podasakoff NP, Lepine MA (2006) A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor
framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad Manag J
48:764–775
Lipshitz R, Strauss O (1997) Coping with uncertainty: a naturalistic decision making analysis. Organ Behav
Hum Decis-making Process 69:149–163
Lloyd’s List (2011) BSeafarer’s late night call that revealed human cost of piracy^. Tuesday, April 19
Mannov A (2015) Perspectives from the Invisible Workforce: Lessons Learned for the CGPCS. Cardiff
University, Cardiff
Mechanic D (1978) Students under stress: a study in the social psychology of adaptation. University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison
Mitropoulos EE (2001) The year of the seafarer and the impacts of piracy. WMU J Marit Aff 10:1–5
Peräkylä A, Marja-Leena Sorjonen ML (2012) Emotion in interaction. Oxford University Press, Oxford
studies in sociolinguistics
Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation. Language 50(4):696–735
72 L.L. Froholdt

Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Temple Smith, London
Silva RR, Munoz M, Singh DM, Matzner F, Dummitt S (2000) Stress and vulnerability to post traumatic stress
disorder in children and adolescents. Am J Psychiatr 157:1229–1235
Turner RJ, Wheaton B (1995) Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists. In: Cohen S, Kessler RC,
Gordon LU (eds) Checklist measurement of stressful life events. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 29–58
van den Heuvel C, Alison L, Crego J (2011) How uncertainty and accountability can derail strategic ‘save life’
decisions in counter-terrorism simulations: a descriptive model of choice deferral and omission bias. J
Behav Decis Making. doi:10.1002/bdm.723
van den Heuvel C, Alison L, Power N (2014) Coping with uncertainty: police strategies for resilient decision-
making and action implementation. Cogn Technol Work 16:25–45
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2007) Managing the unexpected. Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty. 2nd
edition. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Wooffitt R (2005) Conversation analysis and discourse analysis. A comparative and critical introduction.
Cornwall: Sage.
Zajonc RB (1984) On the primacy of affect. Am Psychol 39(2):117–123
Ziello AR, Degli Angioli R, Fasanaro AM, Amenta F (2013) Psychological consequences in victims of
maritime piracy: the Italian experience. Int Marit Health 64(3):136–141
Zohar D (2000) A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on micro-accidents
in manufacturing jobs. J Appl Psychol 85:587–596