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 15 agreement for 51% (kappa = .31) of the 111 discourse units. In order to amend the confusion in scoring temporality of face-honoring behaviors and in assigning the difference between the backchannels and the Neutral Face, the coders were trained using instructions personally communicated to me by Professor Rogan. These instructions clarified the category boundaries. For the actual coding, there were 89.68% agreement (kappa = .83) for Case 1, 74.04% (kappa = .61) for Case 2, and 80.79% (kappa = .67) for Case 3. I conducted judgment coding for the codes on which the coders (hereinafter referred to Coder A and Coder B) disagreed. For Case 1, my judgment agreed with Coder A for 15 codes, with Coder B for 10 codes, and with neither of them for 1 code of the 26 disagreed units. For Case 2, I agreed on 104 codes with Coder A, 53 with Coder B and 12 with neither for the 169 disagreed units. For Case 3, among 73 disagreed codes, I agreed with 36 codes from Coder A, 35 from Coder B, and 2 agreed with neither of them. Results Prior to introducing the results of this research, Rogan and Hammer’s (1994) findings should be summarized. According to their research, Face Restoration, both Restore Self’s Face and Restore Other’s Face, were the most frequent (n=637, 35.12% and n=615, 33.91% respectively) in 1814 cumulative discourse units by both negotiators and perpetrators. Specifically, negotiators employed Restore Other’s Face in 61.72% (n=615) of their speech units while they sought to Restore Self’s Face with smaller frequently (11.99%, n=109). Perpetrators engaged in Restore Self’s Face with the highest frequency (58.34%, n=528) and in Restore Other’s Face with a much smaller frequency (5.96%, n=54). Positive Backchannels came third for both Negotiators and Perpetrators (18.25%,

Authors: Ie, Fumiko.
first   previous   Page 15 of 32   next   last



background image
Hostage Negotiations 15
agreement for 51% (kappa = .31) of the 111 discourse units. In order to amend the
confusion in scoring temporality of face-honoring behaviors and in assigning the
difference between the backchannels and the Neutral Face, the coders were trained using
instructions personally communicated to me by Professor Rogan. These instructions
clarified the category boundaries. For the actual coding, there were 89.68% agreement
(kappa = .83) for Case 1, 74.04% (kappa = .61) for Case 2, and 80.79% (kappa = .67) for
Case 3. I conducted judgment coding for the codes on which the coders (hereinafter
referred to Coder A and Coder B) disagreed. For Case 1, my judgment agreed with
Coder A for 15 codes, with Coder B for 10 codes, and with neither of them for 1 code of
the 26 disagreed units. For Case 2, I agreed on 104 codes with Coder A, 53 with Coder B
and 12 with neither for the 169 disagreed units. For Case 3, among 73 disagreed codes, I
agreed with 36 codes from Coder A, 35 from Coder B, and 2 agreed with neither of them.
Results
Prior to introducing the results of this research, Rogan and Hammer’s (1994)
findings should be summarized. According to their research, Face Restoration, both
Restore Self’s Face and Restore Other’s Face, were the most frequent (n=637, 35.12% and
n=615, 33.91% respectively) in 1814 cumulative discourse units by both negotiators and
perpetrators. Specifically, negotiators employed Restore Other’s Face in 61.72% (n=615)
of their speech units while they sought to Restore Self’s Face with smaller frequently
(11.99%, n=109). Perpetrators engaged in Restore Self’s Face with the highest frequency
(58.34%, n=528) and in Restore Other’s Face with a much smaller frequency (5.96%,
n=54). Positive Backchannels came third for both Negotiators and Perpetrators (18.25%,


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
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 15 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.