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 16 n=331), and it was followed by Neutral Face (n=170, 9.37%), Defend Self’s Face (1.27%, n=23), Defend Other’s Face (0.94%, n=17), Negative Backchannels (0.89%, n=16), and Attack Self’s Face (0.03%, n=5). There were no records for Attack Other’s Face. Negotiators attempted to engage in Defend Other’s Face more than in Defend Self’s Face, while perpetrators sought Defend Self’s Face rather than Defend Other’s Face (pp. 221- 224). The coded negotiations were analyzed in the following manner. First, for the purpose of testing Hypotheses 1 and 2, and 3, frequencies of each facework behavior for both parties together and for negotiators and perpetrators were separately analyzed for the three cases. The results are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3 (See Appendix B). Second, Hypothesis 4 was analyzed by examining temporal plots of facework behaviors exhibited by negotiators and perpetrators. Table 1 shows the cumulative facework behaviors employed by both negotiators and perpetrators. The six facework behaviors (two face-threatening and four face- honoring) amount to 402 out of 1283 total discourse units examined (31.33%). This supports Hypothesis I, that participants of hostage-taking events engage in facework. The results of this research are inconsistent with Rogan and Hammer’s (1994) findings. First, the results demonstrate that participants of the three hostage-taking negotiations present Neutral Face with the highest frequency among the total of 1283 speech units in 60.48%, while Rogan and Hammer’s (1994) findings show that the most conspicuous facework category was Restore Other’s face. Neutral Face in my study is followed in frequency by Attack Other's Face (18.01%), Defend Self's Face (7.48%), Positive Backchannels (6.78%), Restore Other's Face (2.81%), Restore Self's Face (2.18%), Negative

Authors: Ie, Fumiko.
first   previous   Page 16 of 32   next   last



background image
Hostage Negotiations 16
n=331), and it was followed by Neutral Face (n=170, 9.37%), Defend Self’s Face (1.27%,
n=23), Defend Other’s Face (0.94%, n=17), Negative Backchannels (0.89%, n=16), and
Attack Self’s Face (0.03%, n=5). There were no records for Attack Other’s Face.
Negotiators attempted to engage in Defend Other’s Face more than in Defend Self’s Face,
while perpetrators sought Defend Self’s Face rather than Defend Other’s Face (pp. 221-
224).
The coded negotiations were analyzed in the following manner. First, for the
purpose of testing Hypotheses 1 and 2, and 3, frequencies of each facework behavior for
both parties together and for negotiators and perpetrators were separately analyzed for the
three cases. The results are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3 (See Appendix B). Second,
Hypothesis 4 was analyzed by examining temporal plots of facework behaviors exhibited
by negotiators and perpetrators.
Table 1 shows the cumulative facework behaviors employed by both negotiators
and perpetrators. The six facework behaviors (two face-threatening and four face-
honoring) amount to 402 out of 1283 total discourse units examined (31.33%). This
supports Hypothesis I, that participants of hostage-taking events engage in facework. The
results of this research are inconsistent with Rogan and Hammer’s (1994) findings. First,
the results demonstrate that participants of the three hostage-taking negotiations present
Neutral Face with the highest frequency among the total of 1283 speech units in 60.48%,
while Rogan and Hammer’s (1994) findings show that the most conspicuous facework
category was Restore Other’s face. Neutral Face in my study is followed in frequency by
Attack Other's Face (18.01%), Defend Self's Face (7.48%), Positive Backchannels
(6.78%), Restore Other's Face (2.81%), Restore Self's Face (2.18%), Negative


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 16 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.