As we work with people in crisis, we develop an idea about what might reduce the critical effects of the crisis.  Based on our understanding of what is happening, what happened, and what is likely to happen, we work with the individual to develop an intervention hypothesis, or plan for modifying the causes or outcome of the crisis.  Our crisis focus then, combines with our focus on our intervention hypothesis.  What will probably help, of course, depends upon our intervention hypothesis and upon the precipitating event and possible unseen effects of the specific crisis.  Each time we intervene in a crisis, we develop an individualized intervention hypothesis with the person in crisis.  The specifics of that hypothesis are as individualized as the person and the crisis itself.  Frequently however, just getting the individual to settle down, slow down, and plan ahead is sufficient to resolve the crisis by helping the individual to a point where he can handle and work on the conflict himself.  In fact, if we do get him to settle down, slow down, and plan ahead, we have essentially reduced the now potential.  If he is then in a position to deal with the conflict himself, the self-resolution factor is substantially higher.  We defined a crisis as a conflict with a high now potential and a low self-resolution factor.  If, following our hypothesis, we have reduced the now potential and increased the self-resolution factor, we have effectively resolved the crisis.  Our intervention hypothesis is, of course, our idea about what will help.  What we can do to help in any particular situation depends, in large measure, on our experience and ingenuity.  Not to be underestimated however, is the effectiveness of developing and following our intervention hypothesis.  This, combined with our self-confidence, will come through to the individual and give him confidence also. …

Please press play to continue.