# Considerations for Developing Robot-Assisted Crisis De-Escalation Practices
## 4 Integrating the De-Escalation Process into Human-Robot Interactions
### Planning the Response: Making Decisions about What to Do Next  
As illustrated in Figure 1, de-escalation is not linear, but rather a flexible and iterative process that may manifest in numerous ways. To maximize the likelihood of a favourable response from agitated individuals, it would be beneficial for robots to select intervention strategies according to the stage of escalation and emotions that agitated individuals are exhibiting. Furthermore, some intervention strategies may have a higher likelihood of achieving successful de-escalation with individuals, both across and within stages of escalation. Thus, it would be advisable for the robot to begin with these strategies, assess their effectiveness with the agitated individual at hand, and shift to a new strategy if unsuccessful. Some characteristics of agitated individuals (e.g., gender, age, reason for agitation, current emotional presentation) may make them more or less likely to respond well to specific de-escalation strategies. For example, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [24] found that when a robot's head is oriented toward a person's face, the minimum comfortable distance from the robot increases for women but decreases for men. They also found that the personality trait of agreeableness was associated with decreased personal space when people approach robots, while neuroticism was associated with increased personal space. The determination of relevant factors to guide optimal decision making for robots engaged in de-escalation remains an open empirical question. In addition to between-person differences in optimal robot decision making, there can exist within-person considerations. That is to say, the same individual may have varied reactions to robots depending on their current state and the context of their agitation. For example, a grey literature publication on de-escalation training identified common underlying reasons for agitation along with suggested corresponding intervention goals [25]. The underlying reasons were fear, frustration, manipulation, and intimidation. When escalation is motivated by fear, individuals are presumed to be defending themselves against a perceived threat, and the goal of intervention is to respond in ways that will reduce the perceived threat. When frustration underlies the escalation, individuals are presumed to be acting out in response to a need to express intolerable frustration, and the suggested de-escalation approach is to convey that the crisis responder is in control of the environment. If manipulation is assessed to be the underlying motive of escalation, individuals are presumed to be impulsively attempting to obtain something in exchange for maintaining emotional control and not doing something dangerous. In this case, interventions that indicate crisis responders' detachment and refusal to become involved in manipulation are thought to decrease the likelihood that individuals will perceive a gain from their agitated behaviour and thereby promote de-escalation. Finally, when escalation is driven by the motive to intimidate, individuals are presumed to be engaging in a calculated attempt to obtain something in exchange for the physical safety of others. Clear communication of consequences for aggression and violence is the suggested de-escalation strategy [25]. The validity of this model of the underlying reasons for escalation and suggested response styles needs to be explored empirically; however, it exemplifies how robots' decision-making models for de-escalation need to consider contextual factors that can vary within individuals and across situations. Though shifting to a new intervention strategy may be necessary if the current strategy is ineffective, it will be important for robots to develop an intelligence capable of perceiving when a strategy needs to be repeated versus when it is ineffective and needs to be changed.