The model portrays a triadic relationship of 'offender,' 'secondary victim' (hostage), and 'primary victim' (target) in terms of 'threat,' 'demand,' and 'inter-victim bond' within a specific 'context' as engendering a 'response' and a 'social impact.' The most important category in the model, the offender, is also the most empirically researched. Offender types are the mentally-ill person, where sickness thrives upon the dynamics of the hostage incident; the criminal, who attempts to use the hostage situtation for personal gain; and the political terrorist, who seeks to advance a political cause through the incident. The target of the hostage-taking is the ultimate entity from which the hostage-taker is seeking a particular response and is termed the primary victim, while the hostage is the secondary victim, who is used as an instrument of exchange to gain something of value from the target. 'Threat' describes the offender-secondary victim linkage and is the means by which the offender attempts to coerce the target into compliance with offender demands. 'Demand' is the linkage between the offender and primary victim and specifies what must and must not be done to secure the release of the secondary victim. Official responses should not be handled by the target but should be in the hands of those trained to handle such incidents. Responses will usually be based in varying emphases on securing the safety of the hostages and ensuring that the offender does not succeed and set a pattern for future incidents. While some will give ultimate priority to hostage safety, others will give this priority to ensuring the offender does not succeed. Negotiation as a tactic is generally considered to be the most likely means of achieving both objectives; as time elapses, a bond develops between the hostages and the offender and the will of the offender to persist in his/her demands falters. Forty-seven notes are listed.