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 20 Discussion The results of this study are inconsistent with Rogan and Hamer’s (1994) findings in many respects. First, Neutral Face occupies the majority of discourse in all three hostage-taking cases. It can be inferred that although hostage-taking events are highly intense situations, neutral or rational conversations take place in order to continue the contact or to achieve small instrumental goals that emerge in the process of negotiations. Positive backchannels are found to be significant in this study, but not in Rogan and Hammer’s. Positive backchannels may also help smooth the flow of conversation, which may contribute to relational development and rational discussions. Second, despite the fact that Rogan and Hammer did not find Attack Other’s Face in any of the three cases they examined, it was the second most common facework behavior in my study. There may be several reasons that my findings and those of Rogan and Hammer's (1994) differ. First, the cases I studied were all hostage-taking incidents while Rogan and Hammer examined two non-hostage crises and one hostage-taking incident. While in any crisis, perpetrators would experience intense stress, the fact that perpetrators hold hostages may make them become more insecure. For the purpose of protecting hostages’ lives, law enforcement may be more likely to launch a forceful intervention than in non-hostage crises. Ironically, the fact that the perpetrators take hostages increases their own risks. Sensing the danger, perpetrators may become more defensive and inclined to be aggressive. Second, discourses such as sarcasm and intense injunction can be included in face-threat. Sarcasm threatens an interactant’s identity indirectly yet certainly. Injunction presents an exercise of power over the interactional partner, which signifies an unequality in the two bargaining parties.

Authors: Ie, Fumiko.
first   previous   Page 20 of 32   next   last



background image
Hostage Negotiations 20
Discussion
The results of this study are inconsistent with Rogan and Hamer’s (1994) findings
in many respects. First, Neutral Face occupies the majority of discourse in all three
hostage-taking cases. It can be inferred that although hostage-taking events are highly
intense situations, neutral or rational conversations take place in order to continue the
contact or to achieve small instrumental goals that emerge in the process of negotiations.
Positive backchannels are found to be significant in this study, but not in Rogan and
Hammer’s. Positive backchannels may also help smooth the flow of conversation, which
may contribute to relational development and rational discussions.
Second, despite the fact that Rogan and Hammer did not find Attack Other’s Face
in any of the three cases they examined, it was the second most common facework
behavior in my study. There may be several reasons that my findings and those of Rogan
and Hammer's (1994) differ. First, the cases I studied were all hostage-taking incidents
while Rogan and Hammer examined two non-hostage crises and one hostage-taking
incident. While in any crisis, perpetrators would experience intense stress, the fact that
perpetrators hold hostages may make them become more insecure. For the purpose of
protecting hostages’ lives, law enforcement may be more likely to launch a forceful
intervention than in non-hostage crises. Ironically, the fact that the perpetrators take
hostages increases their own risks. Sensing the danger, perpetrators may become more
defensive and inclined to be aggressive. Second, discourses such as sarcasm and intense
injunction can be included in face-threat. Sarcasm threatens an interactant’s identity
indirectly yet certainly. Injunction presents an exercise of power over the interactional
partner, which signifies an unequality in the two bargaining parties.


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 20 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.