This is the first of two posts that break down my critical review of Hooks and Triggers as an approach to crisis intervention, crisis negotiaiton, and de-escalation in law enforcement contexts. The corresponding, peer-reviewed paper has been accepted as a Practice Guidelines article by the Jounral of Community Safety and Well-Being (the original text is embedded below as an accepted pre-print, currently undergoing copy-editing).
Part 1: Why Intuitive Doesn’t Mean Effective
“Hooks and Triggers” have gained popularity in law enforcement as a go-to method for de-escalating tense or crisis situations. The approach is simple: identify a person’s “hooks” (often referred to as topics or interests they are comfortable discussing) and focus on them, while avoiding “triggers” (typically understood as stressors or sensitivities) that can escalate the person. It appears to be a simple, memorable, and especially in high-stress situations easy-to-apply approach to effectively build rapport and reduce emotional intensity.
But here’s the catch: there is no empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness. A thorough review of peer-reviewed and grey literature reveals no rigorous evaluation or empirical footing of the framework, raising concerns about its increasingly widespread use in training and practice (details in the pre-print embedded below).
In addition, despite its intuitive appeal, Hooks and Triggers carry significant and underacknowledged drawbacks. Their simplicity masks the complexity of human emotions and communication. The approach often boils down to the assumption that hooks are mostly positive and triggers always negative. This ignores the fact that context, relationship dynamics, and timing all shape how conversation topics are received. Here are three specific pitfalls that can lead to unintended consequences, including breakdowns in trust, failed rapport-building, and even emotional escalation rather than de-escalation.
Oversimplification
Steering towards hooks and away from triggers appears as intuitive as logical: focusing on enjoyable topics should ease cognitive strain and de-escalate emotions, while avoiding sensitive topics reduces the likelihood of escalation. However, this simplicity poses a significant risk. The same topic can act as a hook or a trigger depending on factors like relationships, context, or emotional state. For example, someone might openly discuss personal struggles with a friend but shut down when talking to a police officer. Similarly, a person may confide in a crisis worker about past trauma but hesitate if a family member is present, or a veteran might feel comfortable sharing deployment experiences with fellow service members but become defensive if engaged by a civilian.
Static assumptions
Another pitfall arises from the assumption that Hooks and Triggers that have been identified during previous encounters remain static over time or across contexts. This assumption disregards the fluid nature of human preferences and emotional states. Topics that served as hooks during past calls may no longer apply due to shifts in personal relationships, developmental changes, or evolving interests. For instance, a young person who previously found comfort in discussing the Pokémon universe may no longer relate to that topic as their interests shift over time. A client might be known to first responders to respond well to mentions of their psychotherapist (a hook), yet only until funding for the therapy expires or the therapist ends the relationship (now a trigger). Such a reliance, often fostered by software programs and local records providing first responders with “pre-response safety briefings”, including “de-escalation techniques, any known triggers, and contextual information compiled from previous contact”, can set the de-escalation effort up for failure.
Self-centricity and social projection
A further complication involves social projection, wherein individuals project their own Hooks and Triggers onto others based on their personal frame of reference. Even experienced crisis negotiators and mental health professionals are susceptible to this bias, potentially leading to miscommunication and reduced or compromised rapport and escalation. Examples include calling on persons experiencing suicide crisis to think of their children or parents as a hook, without prior exploration of the nature of the corresponding relationship, or avoiding the graphic discussion of potential suicide methods out of one’s own discomfort and/or fear of giving others ideas of self-harming behaviors.
How to make it work
The complexities and dynamics discussed above reveal that Hooks and Triggers can only function effectively when specific conditions are met, which current education and training have to stress both when it comes to collecting corresponding information in local records and databases as well as for the actual conversational de-escalation and crisis intervention:
1. Awareness of the limitations: First responders need to be educated on the caveats at both levels, as discussed above, to better understand the possibilities and the limitations of using Hooks and Triggers as an approach to de-escalation and crisis intervention, especially when relying on previously captured and stored information as well as entering corresponding information into local records or other databases for future use.
2. Direct engagement for first-hand identification of Hooks and Triggers: Because Hooks and Triggers are inherently dynamic and context-dependent, they must be identified, negotiated, and/or verified (if retrieved from local records, other databases, or passed on between first responders) in real-time through direct, empathetic conversation with the person in crisis. This ensures that the topics addressed resonate authentically with the individual and are not based on generalized assumptions or secondhand reports.
3. Other- (as in patient-/client-) centricity: Instead of drawing from their own reasoning in assessing what might seem reasonable conversational avenues of intervention or de-escalation, first responders must explore the other person’s frame of reference, along with their current emotional and the context of the encounter. This is a commitment to curiosity and openness beyond the mere exercising of a list of active listening skills, with the responder continuously adjusting their approach based on verbal and nonverbal cues to make their best guess of the subject’s experience and needs. When first responders’ own frame reference, i.e., experiences, values, beliefs, and worldviews, informs their determination of another person’s Hooks and Triggers, they reflect the responders’ assumptions rather than the individual’s lived experience. This self-centric approach runs counter to overwhelming evidence emphasizing that rapport-building requires subject-centricity (Epley, 2015; Kirschenbaum & Jourdan, 2005; Roberts, 2005; Rogers, 1951; Zaiser, 2023).
Training and education can teach accordingly within existing formats through scenario-based training, role-plays, and modular sessions that fit easily into current crisis intervention, use-of-force, or annual requalification training, reinforced in practice through coaching and field integration, with supervisors and field training officers using simple debrief prompts to embed the skills into everyday policing without adding extra classroom hours. These approaches address the usual objections of time and resource constraints while giving officers repeated opportunities to practise and reinforce the skills in realistic settings, regardless of agency size or geographical location (urban/rural).
Conclusion: consider evidence-based alternatives
Hooks and Triggers may feel like a smart, intuitive shortcut to building rapport in crisis situations, but their apparent simplicity conceals serious risks. As shown, the framework lacks empirical validation, oversimplifies complex emotional dynamics, and can easily backfire. Until it is rigorously studied and refined, relying on it as a primary method risks undermining the outcomes it aims to achieve: connection, safety, and de-escalation.
In contrast, a growing evidence base supports more effective, humanizing communication strategies such as demonstrating unconditional respect, sincere curiosity, open-ended questioning, and an other/subject-centered focus. These approaches have been validated in fields like healthcare and counseling and have proven adaptable to law enforcement contexts, with an emerging evidence-base in policing.
If we are serious about equipping first responders with effective tools, we must prioritize evidence-based strategies that reflect the complexity of real-world interactions and human behavior.
Major Takeaways
- Hooks and Triggers lack an evidence base: no rigorous studies confirm their effectiveness in crisis intervention, negotiation, or de-escalation for law enforcement.
- Oversimplification risks missteps: assuming all “positive” topics help and all “negative” ones harm ignores relational/contextual nuance.
- Hooks and Triggers are not static: effectiveness varies by moment; relying on past data can be risky.
- Social projection harms application: responders may project their own Hooks/Triggers, causing miscommunication and escalation.
- Proper use requires awareness of risks and limits: engage directly with individuals, avoid third-party assumptions, and center the other person to prevent projection.
- For approaches rooted in evidence, look for humanizing communication strategies, such as demonstrating unconditional respect, genuine curiosity, open-ended questions, and an other-centered focus.
Coming Soon: Part 2: Why Non-Evidence-Based Solutions Persist
If Hooks and Triggers have so many documented drawbacks, why do they remain so popular in training and practice? In Part 2, we’ll explore how a set of cognitive biases, including processing fluency, confirmation bias, and availability bias, makes oversimplified approaches like this sticky and seductive. Understanding these psychological traps is crucial for moving the field toward more scientifically grounded and ethically sound practices. Stay tuned.
