This article looks at ways to reduce avoidable conflict—and the stress, and maybe even injuries or psychological trauma—that correctional staff often face. The goal is to help staff skillfully steer around preventable conflicts with incarcerated persons.
To tackle this topic, we discuss how our brains deal with perceived threat, and we explore practical ways that staff may reduce the likelihood of pushing incarcerated persons’ “hot buttons” whether inadvertently or intentionally.
At the outset, however, we at Desert Waters acknowledge that not all conflict and violence can be prevented in correctional settings no matter how skilled staff may be at conflict de-escalation and helping calm people down. We recognize and honor the dedicated corrections staff—especially officers—who place themselves at risk to carry out their critical duties in the midst of uncertainty about their physical safety. These officers demonstrate extraordinary courage and self-control, even under extreme stress, on a regular basis.
Additionally, I’d like to acknowledge that maintaining professionalism through self-control and other emotional intelligence skills is especially challenging when correctional officers are burdened with heavy workloads while also being chronically sleep-deprived due to working excessive amounts of mandatory overtime. Such working conditions eventually erode the capacity to control one’s impulses and make sound judgments, resulting in reactive behaviors and poor decision-making. In other words, time pressure and fatigue, both physically and psychologically, lead to staff having a “short fuse”—reacting to others with impatience, irritability, harshness, anger, insensitivity, and lack of empathy. Despite these challenges, many officers continue to demonstrate remarkable discipline and resilience in their highly demanding work environments.
The Role of the Brain in Perceiving Threats
To begin, it is important to have a basic understanding of how our brains are hard-wired for survival, and how that influences staff’s reactions when feeling threatened in correctional environments.
The human brain constantly scans the environment for signs of danger. It uses sensory information—sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch—and our interpretation of it to detect potential threats.
Detecting a threat in our environment causes us to get “triggered,” to mobilize our resources to ensure our survival. A trigger is any event, behavior, or situation that signals danger or that reminds us of previous harm or trauma. Even if the current situation is not in fact dangerous, a trigger can activate the brain’s survival responses. That is, when a threat is perceived, the brain triggers the fight, flight, freeze, or faint response. This automatic process, while possibly life-saving in true emergencies, can create unnecessary fear-driven reactions when a perceived threat is not actually a true danger or when its magnitude is overestimated.
The Perception of Psychological Threats
Being triggered due to the perception of threat extends beyond physical danger. Psychological threats, such as ridicule, humiliation, belittlement, or a challenge to one’s authority, can be just as inflammatory and offensive. Incarcerated persons or staff may react to a perceived insult or disrespectful look as forcefully as they would to physical aggression. Defending one’s honor, particularly after public embarrassment, may feel as urgent and necessary as defending one’s physical safety.
What Is Reciprocal Triggering?
If we are not “on our toes,” focused on regulating our emotional reactions, interacting with someone who comes across to us as being angry or hostile can trigger a defensive emotional response in us, such as additional anger or hostility. In a destructive loop, this in turn increases the other person’s agitation. Both our brains are perceiving threat and are reacting accordingly. This phenomenon has been referred to as reciprocal triggering, a term coined by Gregory Morton1 in 2021. This term describes the escalating dynamic when two people “push each other’s buttons” in a snowballing, reactive cycle—each person’s knee-jerk reaction further provoking the other. Without interruption or de-escalation, this cycle often leads to conflict and harm that could have otherwise been avoided.
Why is this important to talk about? Both correctional staff and incarcerated persons operate in environments where the threat of danger is constant, leading to a state of hypervigilance and an increased likelihood of being triggered by real or imagined threats. Research shows that correctional staff—particularly custody personnel—experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress at rates significantly higher than the general population, and even higher than other first responders. Likewise, many incarcerated people have extensive histories of trauma. These conditions make both groups more prone to “hair-trigger” reactions when danger is sensed.
This dynamic creates a serious vulnerability in correctional settings: the risk of reciprocal triggering. In such charged environments, it’s not a matter of if it will happen, but when. Left unaddressed, this cycle of mutual reactivity can escalate into avoidable conflict and violence. To use an analogy, it’s as if people are walking around with lit matches in a room full of open gasoline containers.
(It is important to remind ourselves at this point that reciprocal triggering can occur in any relationship, such as among staff or among family members. It is not exclusive to staff and incarcerated persons.)
The “Us Against Them” Mentality
In correctional settings, both parties—staff and incarcerated persons—tend to view one another as “the enemy.” Neither party feels safe in these environments, and for good reason. For staff, this “us against them” mindset is at least in part due to the high-stress correctional settings where even under the best circumstances staff are severely outnumbered, causing the brain to get stuck on signaling danger, leading to hypervigilance and hyper-reactivity. Even in Norway’s prisons where the staff-to-incarcerated persons ratios are dramatically more favorable, staff report feeling anxious and stressed because they still perceive that they are in danger2. Prisons and jails are inherently unsafe places for multiple reasons.
Reciprocal triggering creates a “war” mentality, where survival is prioritized over conflict de-escalation, creating a belief that it’s “me or you, and I’m going to eliminate you as a threat before you have the chance to hurt me first.” This mindset often underpins avoidable clashes in correctional settings. For staff, this belief system may encourage a stance of harsh domination designed to inspire fear, and often justifies aggressive behavior and unnecessary use of force as essential for maintaining control. This attitude of course provokes defensiveness, hostility, and hatred in incarcerated persons, resulting in reciprocal triggering that keeps escalating.
The Paramilitary Influence in Corrections
The term “paramilitary” refers to organizations that are structured similarly to military units. In military operations, the presence of an enemy justifies a “war mindset” focused on overpowering or neutralizing the threat. This framing has deeply influenced correctional culture, shaping operational procedures, uniforms, postures, and staff attitudes.
A Norwegian prison captain once commented that when correctional staff are dressed in uniforms and carry gear designed for battle, that is exactly what they’ll get—a battle. A militarized stance triggers in others a defensive or combative reaction, possibly escalating situations that could have been resolved peacefully. To avoid this dynamic, Norwegian correctional practices include more relaxed officer uniforms made of soft materials, with weapons not being visible, and officers’ pants not being tucked into boots in military fashion. Some staff even cover their keys with leather to avoid symbolizing having control over another person’s freedom. Such practices demonstrate restraint towards incarcerated persons rather than dominance, and acknowledge the inherent dignity of other persons.2, 3, 4, 5
These choices reflect a commitment to building rapport, and not reinforcing fear, humiliation, and aggression. Consequently, while violence still happens in Norway’s prisons, it occurs at much lower rates than in the U.S. Once again though we need to point out that the staff-to-incarcerated-persons ratio in Norway is so favorable (1 to 11)6 that staff feel safer than in the U.S., and have the time (and are expected) to get to know incarcerated persons to some degree, and to talk to them as needed.
Practical Strategies for Reducing Reciprocal Triggering
It is essential that staff avoid asserting authority or superiority in ways that humiliate or demean others. While we cannot eliminate all conflict or we cannot control how others interpret our actions, we can reduce behaviors likely to provoke or escalate tensions. By minimizing conduct that comes across as disrespectful, dismissive, punitive, or needlessly antagonistic, we reduce the chances of triggering unnecessary conflict.
Importantly, this kind of restraint is not a weakness. Rather, it reflects emotional intelligence, professionalism, inner strength, self-control, and ultimately a commitment to the safety for all touched by correctional systems.
Correctional staff can take proactive steps to reduce reciprocal triggering by promoting safer, more respectful interactions. Here are some strategies:
- Avoid Provocation
Maintain a calm, neutral demeanor.
Unless there is a dire emergency, seek to understand a person’s distress rather than react to it.
Avoid escalating situations through dismissive, sarcastic, or aggressive behavior. - Empathy Consider the human side of every interaction. If your favorite family member were incarcerated, how would you want them to be treated by staff?
- Pick Your Battles
Not every issue requires confrontation. Learning when to take steps to de-escalate a confrontation is a sign of maturity and strength, not weakness. - Non-Threatening Communication
Use an open body posture, a calm and firm tone, and respectful eye contact.
Avoid intimidating gestures or verbal threats. - Avoid Cornering
Don’t back someone into a corner where they feel they have no choice but to lash out. Offer dignity and a path toward resolution that allows them to save face. - Challenge the “Us Against Them” Mentality
Treat every person as a human being. Even in high-stress environments, dignity, respect, and fairness go a long way toward preventing conflict. - Communicate Respect
Maintain a non-threatening posture and facial expressions.
Listen actively and without interruption.
Use language that shows empathy and concern. - Help Incarcerated Persons Regulate Their Emotions
Lead by modeling the management of your own emotional responses.
Take deep breaths both to calm yourself down and to reduce tension, indirectly modeling deep breathing as a tool for emotional regulation.
Use calm, measured tones, deliberately lowering the volume of your voice and slowing down your speech rate.
Allow space for incarcerated persons to express frustration.
Pause and listen before responding when emotions are running high.
Conclusion
Avoidable conflict in correctional settings often stems from a complex web of perceived threats, real danger, and histories of trauma. These conditions result in hypervigilance and fear-driven reactive behaviors, culminating in an “us against them” war mindset. While not all violence can be prevented, as leaders, correctional staff play a vital role in shaping their work environment and reducing unnecessary escalation. By understanding the brain’s response to threat, challenging the “us against them” mentality, and adopting respectful, non-threatening communication strategies, staff can build safer and more effective relationships—ultimately protecting their own well-being as well as the safety of those in their care.
REFERENCES
1 Morton, Gregory. Personal communication.
2 Horowitz, V. L., Greberman, E. R., Nolan, P. E., Hyatt, J. M. Uggen, C., Andersen, S. N., & Chanenson S. L. (2021): A comparative perspective on officer wellness: American reflections from Norwegian prisons, Criminal Justice Studies, DOI: 10.1080/1478601X.2021.2001231
3 Kilmer, A., Abdel-Salam, S., & Silver, I. A. (2023). “The Uniform’s in the Way” Navigating the Tension Between Security and Therapeutic Roles in a Rehabilitation-Focused Prison in Norway. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50, No. 4, 521–540. DOI: 10.1177/00938548221143536
4 Cloud, D. H. , Augustine, D., Ahalt, C., Haney, C., Peterson, L., Braun, C., & Williams, B. (2021). “We just needed to open the door”: a case study of the quest to end solitary confinement in North Dakota. Health and Justice, 9:28, 1-25. DOI: 10.1186/s40352-021-00155-5
5 Berlioz. D. “We are more like social workers than guards.” Special report 14/36. Spring-Summer 2019/HesaMag #19
6 Larsen, Tor Erik. Personal communication.
