How to Tackle F2F Blackmail and Online Extortion - Video Below
Informative section on F2F Blackmail:
Before we get into our first scenario about face-to-face blackmail, a story where Ella has not gotten over her ex-boyfriend Ryan and threatens to share intimate photos of Ryan and his new girlfriend Mya if she doesn’t break up with him, we want to explore the theories and principles that underpin effective negotiation tactics. The theories and tactics we explore are Madman Theory, 3D negotiations, Frustration-aggression hypothesis, Loss aversion principle, Reciprocity principle, ZOPA and BATNA.
Madman theory:
The Madman Theory was popularised by the former U.S. President Richard Nixon (Wikipedia Contributors, 2025). Nixon tried to make opposition leaders think he was unpredictable, irrational and volatile in an attempt to make the opposition avoid provoking the US, in fear he would actualise his threats (Wikipedia Contributors, 2025). The theory suggests that if you make yourself seem unpredictable and volatile or make extreme threats, you can make your opponent unsure of your next move. Then you can use fear to make them concede, on the basis that they believe you or don't want to take the risk. In our scenario, Ella embodies this theory by intentionally making herself seem unpredictable and emotionally unstable to manipulate Mya.
3D negotiation:
3D negotiation was developed by Lax and Sebenius (2003). It incorporates deal designs, setup moves and tactical engagement. Mya applies this approach by 1. reframing the situation to change Ella’s perception of control, 2. identifying shared interests to deescalate the situation, 3. using an external stakeholder (Ryan) to get Ella to reconsider her actions and values and 4. Using Ryan to create a BATNA.
BATNA and ZOPA:
A strong BATNA provides leverage in any negotiation. Mya highlights her alternatives, including involving law enforcement and external parties, to make it clear that she has fallback options, shifting power away from Ella and reducing the effectiveness of the blackmail attempt. By acknowledging Ella’s emotions and proposing an alternative way forward, Mya establishes a ZOPA, which creates a possible resolution that avoids conflict escalation.
Frustration-aggression hypothesis:
Frustration-aggression hypothesis by Miller et al. (1958) suggests that when people are blocked from achieving their goal, they feel frustrated, which can turn into aggression. Ella’s anger comes from her loss of Ryan. Mya manages this by acknowledging Ella’s feelings while not feeding into them, de-escalating potential aggression.
Loss aversion principle:
Loss aversion by Tversky & Kahneman (1991) posits that people are motivated to avoid losses rather than to seek equivalent gains. Mya uses this principle by making Ella aware of the long-term consequences of her actions instead of focusing on her short-term desires.
Reciprocity principle:
The reciprocity principle states that people usually respond to positive actions with positive actions (Cialdini, 2004). Mya uses this tactic to open the door for cooperation.
Informative Section on Online Extortion:
While the first scenario provides an example of tactics to tackle face-to-face blackmail, this second scenario will highlight the possible tactics a victim can leverage when faced with online extortion. The theories and principles highlighted in the previous scenario can also be applied indirectly to online extortion. However, this scenario will try to break down the complex interaction between the victim and anonymous blackmailer, where the information is “defective” rather than a game of complete information (Gambetta, 1994).
Blackmail could be assumed as a sequential game, rather than a simultaneous game (Barkley, 2019). Where one’s action will depend on how the other person will react, rather than, victim and blackmailer interacting simultaneously. First is a threat, the victim's choice and then the threatened response.
First Move Advantage
In many cases, blackmailers follow a principle of first move advantage, whereby initiating the threat, they aim to secure a larger payoff (Barkley, 2019). But do black mailers actually have a first move advantage? The victim is exposed to all the possible outcomes, what information the blackmailer claims to have, and the potential consequences of paying or not paying. If we regard a blackmailer as an individual whose interest is economic gain rather than a sociopath, then they also have a disutility to face, which is that blackmail is a criminal conviction in many countries (Di Tirro, 2021).
Credibility:
The blackmailers, who actually have accessed the private information, are very likely to spoil it in the threats to convince the victim to pay and where the disutility of losing money is smaller than the possible publication of whatever the blackmailer has on a person. If a blackmailer isn't providing any sufficient evidence, then they are probably bluffing (Di Tirro, 2021).
Extortion subdues human players but is finally punished in the prisoner’s dilemma
Another interesting insight that could help better understand extortion is actually that people are reluctant to cooperate against extortioners, which was found by Christian Hilbe et al. (2014). They found that in the Prisoner's Dilemma, many participants punished extortioners by refusing to cooperate. By defecting, humans sacrificed their own earnings but also significantly reduced the extortioner’s advantage.
This aligns with behavioural theories of fairness and retaliation, suggesting that people reject inequality even at a cost to themselves (Fehr & Gachter, 2002). Many blackmailers rely on the assumption that their target will cave in quickly. But if a victim stands firm, reports the crime, and refuses to engage, the blackmailer's advantage is lost. Those are all examples of indirect strategies that could enable you to fight in the asymmetric game (1kg, 2023).
Indirect strategies:
Indirect strategies encompass the idea of neutralising the imbalance without engaging in direct confrontation. If we look at the real-world example, Vietnam, through such indirect strategies, was able to combat the US, even though the US was a much more powerful army (1kg, 2023).
Bibliography
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.