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 17 Backchannels (1.40%), Attack Self’s Face (0.62%), and Defend Other’s Face (0.23%). With the exception of Case 1, Attack Other’s Face follows Neutral Face (n=110 of total of 651 units,16.90% in Case 2 and 24.47%, n=93 of total of 380 units in Case 3), which is another prominent difference from Rogan and Hammer’s research results. In Case 1, Attack Other's Face was the third most frequent (n=28 of total of 252 units, 11.11%) following Positive Backchannels. Participants engage more in Defend Self's Face than in Defend Other's Face, and more in Restore Other's Face than in Defend Other's face. Table 2 presents frequencies of facework behaviors for negotiators only. Of 648 cumulative codes for negotiators' discourses, Neutral Face occupies the top (69.91%). Interestingly, Defend Self's Face comes next (12.65%), followed by Positive Backchannels (5.40%), Restore Other's Face (5.25%), Attack Other's Face (3.86%), and Negative Backchannels and Defend Other's Face (0.46% for each). There were no Attack Self's Face in negotiator's side. In Cases 1 and 3 , the negotiators significantly engage in Restore Other's Face (n=12 out of 127 total discourses, 9.45% in Case 1, and n=11 out of 195 total discourses, 5.64% in Case 3), but not very much in Restore Self's Face (0.00% in Case 1 and 1.03% in Case 3). Face Restoration is practiced in Case 2 with equal frequencies in both loci of concern, Self and Other (3.37% for each locus). In All three cases, negotiators attempt to Defend Self's Face (5.51% in Case 1, 13.80% in Case 2, and 15.38% in Case 3) rather than to defend the perpetrators' face (0.00% in Case 1, 0.61% in Case 2,and 0.51% in Case 3). Hypothesis 2 that negotiators attempt to restore other's face more than restore self's face was supported for Case 1 and 3, but it was rejected in Case 2. Frequencies for perpetrators only are shown in Table 3. Although it is the most frequent of the nine categories, perpetrators' Neutral Face behaviors are less

Authors: Ie, Fumiko.
first   previous   Page 17 of 32   next   last



background image
Hostage Negotiations 17
Backchannels (1.40%), Attack Self’s Face (0.62%), and Defend Other’s Face (0.23%).
With the exception of Case 1, Attack Other’s Face follows Neutral Face (n=110 of total of
651 units,16.90% in Case 2 and 24.47%, n=93 of total of 380 units in Case 3), which is
another prominent difference from Rogan and Hammer’s research results. In Case 1,
Attack Other's Face was the third most frequent (n=28 of total of 252 units, 11.11%)
following Positive Backchannels. Participants engage more in Defend Self's Face than in
Defend Other's Face, and more in Restore Other's Face than in Defend Other's face.
Table 2 presents frequencies of facework behaviors for negotiators only. Of 648
cumulative codes for negotiators' discourses, Neutral Face occupies the top (69.91%).
Interestingly, Defend Self's Face comes next (12.65%), followed by Positive
Backchannels (5.40%), Restore Other's Face (5.25%), Attack Other's Face (3.86%), and
Negative Backchannels and Defend Other's Face (0.46% for each). There were no Attack
Self's Face in negotiator's side. In Cases 1 and 3 , the negotiators significantly engage in
Restore Other's Face (n=12 out of 127 total discourses, 9.45% in Case 1, and n=11 out of
195 total discourses, 5.64% in Case 3), but not very much in Restore Self's Face (0.00%
in Case 1 and 1.03% in Case 3). Face Restoration is practiced in Case 2 with equal
frequencies in both loci of concern, Self and Other (3.37% for each locus). In All three
cases, negotiators attempt to Defend Self's Face (5.51% in Case 1, 13.80% in Case 2, and
15.38% in Case 3) rather than to defend the perpetrators' face (0.00% in Case 1, 0.61% in
Case 2,and 0.51% in Case 3). Hypothesis 2 that negotiators attempt to restore other's face
more than restore self's face was supported for Case 1 and 3, but it was rejected in Case 2.
Frequencies for perpetrators only are shown in Table 3. Although it is the most
frequent of the nine categories, perpetrators' Neutral Face behaviors are less


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
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 17 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.