All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Analysis on Hostage Crisis Negotiations With Regard to Identity Concerns
Unformatted Document Text:  Hostage Negotiations 12 1994, pp. 220-221) convey cues that indicate that the other person is listening. They function as fillers in order to continue conversation. Backchannels are not facework behaviors, at the same time, they are not totally neutral. Rogan and Hammer’s (1994) examination is a new approach to studying facework in crisis negotiations. They examine three cases: a suicidal intervention, a barricading case of an emotionally unstable person who had killed a relative, and a domestic barricading event in which a man holds his own children hostage. Their model of facework behaviors includes attacks of face in relation to negotiation. Face attacking is not a main concern of politeness theories, but attacks may naturally occur when two parties are in conflict. However, Rogan & Hammer’s findings show that there were no attacks on the other’s face either from negotiators or perpetrators in the three cases they analyzed. Their findings also show that perpetrators tend to restore self’s face and negotiators try to restore other’s face (p. 227). It would be natural to consider that negotiators employ strategies that may contribute to stabilizing the perpetrator’s emotional states. Rogan and Hammer also examine sequential occurrences of facework, specifically, face restoration behavior following each facework. The results demonstrate that participants follow facework with face-restoration behavior with a high frequency. One of the objectives of my research is to investigate if Rogan & Hammer’s (1994) findings of facework employed by negotiators and perpetrators represent typical hostage-taking incidents. While two of the cases that Rogan and Hammer investigated do not include hostages, all three events in this study involved hostage(s). H1: Participants of hostage-taking events engage in facework.

Authors: Ie, Fumiko.
first   previous   Page 12 of 32   next   last



background image
Hostage Negotiations 12
1994, pp. 220-221) convey cues that indicate that the other person is listening. They
function as fillers in order to continue conversation. Backchannels are not facework
behaviors, at the same time, they are not totally neutral.
Rogan and Hammer’s (1994) examination is a new approach to studying facework
in crisis negotiations. They examine three cases: a suicidal intervention, a barricading
case of an emotionally unstable person who had killed a relative, and a domestic
barricading event in which a man holds his own children hostage. Their model of
facework behaviors includes attacks of face in relation to negotiation. Face attacking is
not a main concern of politeness theories, but attacks may naturally occur when two
parties are in conflict. However, Rogan & Hammer’s findings show that there were no
attacks on the other’s face either from negotiators or perpetrators in the three cases they
analyzed. Their findings also show that perpetrators tend to restore self’s face and
negotiators try to restore other’s face (p. 227). It would be natural to consider that
negotiators employ strategies that may contribute to stabilizing the perpetrator’s
emotional states. Rogan and Hammer also examine sequential occurrences of facework,
specifically, face restoration behavior following each facework. The results demonstrate
that participants follow facework with face-restoration behavior with a high frequency.
One of the objectives of my research is to investigate if Rogan & Hammer’s
(1994) findings of facework employed by negotiators and perpetrators represent typical
hostage-taking incidents. While two of the cases that Rogan and Hammer investigated do
not include hostages, all three events in this study involved hostage(s).
H1: Participants of hostage-taking events engage in facework.


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 12 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.