Because the United States and many other countries have firm policies against making concessions to terrorists, the idea of negotiating with criminals or terrorists seems contradictory. In a hostage and barricade situation, however, dialogue between authorities and the hostage taker brings certain advantages. As the incident unfolds, negotiations are the only alternative to capitulation or the immediate use of force. Authorities can engage in dialogue while using delay tactics to wear down the hostage taker and induce a peaceful surrender. In hostage negotiations, it is essential that the person in charge of the decision-making process not be the actual negotiator unless absolutely necessary. The negotiator must be able to project a neutral, calming aura and focus on resolving the incident while avoiding political or philosophical disputes. The management of negotiations with the hostage taker involves a desire to live on the part of the hostage taker, sufficient force to threaten the life of the hostage taker, communication between the hostage taker and the negotiator, a decisionmaker for the hostage taker, one or more demands by the hostage taker, containment of the situation, time to establish rapport between the hostage taker and the negotiator, and a negotiator who can successfully represent the outside force's capacity to harm the hostage taker but who can also demonstrate a credible willingness to help the hostage taker. Tactics that have been employed successfully in past incidents are noted, and physiological and psychological aspects of hostage and barricade incidents are discussed.