The term Stockholm Syndrome was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot

Hostage Negotiations Abstract This study investigates hostage-taking incidents with regard to identity concerns based on Rogan and Hammers (1994) three dimensional model of facework. Rogan and Hammer examined the discourses in crisis negotiations, including two non-hostage and one hostage-taking incidents, by coding them into their facework categories. This study tests the applicability of their findings to typical hostage-taking events. Results are largelt inconsistent with Rogan and Hammers. This study discovered that participants typically engaged in Neutral Face and Positive Backchannels, while the dominant behaviors in Rogan and Hammers study were Facerestoration. Attack Others Face, which Rogan and Hammer did not find, was employed by the participants with significant frequency. Face-defense behaviors were conducted rather than Face- restoration. Investigation of a selection of facework behaviors over time revealed that Attack Others Face occurred more frequently toward the end of the incidents. Frequencies of facework behaviors are summarized in tables, and the selection bias is visually displayed. Introduction Whenever a hostage taking incident occurs and is broadcast, people watch the situation with great suspense. A hostage taking case is an intense crisis in which human lives are at stake. Hostage taking incidents are characterized by two opposing interests, one of which, the perpetrators side, is presented in a situation in which the other side, the law enforcement side, cannot easily reject the request. The ultimate goal for law enforcement is to resolve the incident without sacrificing human lives. However, if law enforcement complies with the perpetrator's demand, it signifies that the law succumbs to crime. The incidents therefore proceed in a dilemma. Negotiation is the most preferred measure to resolve the incidents with minimum sacrifice. In order to avoid a hostage taker harming hostages or law enforcement individuals, it is essential to stabilize the perpetrator's emotional state during the incidents. Face, or social self, of a perpetrator may play an important role in such emotional control. People usually attempt to protect their own social identity from being harmed. If face is threatened or actually damaged, they may employ methods to cope with this discomfort. In such an intense situation as hostage-taking, in which a threat may easily trigger the perpetrator's emotional break down, distorted and devastating coping strategies including murder may be readily employed. Review of Literature Because hostage-taking incidents typically involve many socially influential aspects, a variety of studies using different approaches have been done. These approaches include, but are not limited to, sociology and criminology, technical and tactical aspects of forced intervention, clinical psychological studies that investigate criminals mental states, social psychological approaches, and studies of communication. Communication studies examine a wide range of perspectives from relational development between a perpetrator and negotiator to the whole process of hostage crises

from the beginning to the end. Holmes (1997) integrated model of hostage negotiation processes helps us understand a hostage crisis as a whole event (p. 89). According to Holmes, a hostage negotiation proceeds as a dynamic process that typically involves "external influences, structural elements, and negotiation interaction" (p. 90). Another representative communicative approach to hostage negotiations examines the "interactive process wherein negotiators and perpetrators react to one anothers message behavior" (Hammer & Rogan, 1997, p. 14). While Holmes (1997) sees the elements intertwining with each other, the interactive process approach focuses on the front line participants interaction. Hammer and Rogan argue that three concerns exist in negotiation participants: instrumental concerns, relational concerns, and identity concerns (pp. 14- 15). The law enforcement side responds to a hostage taking incident as a team. Kaiser (1990) discusses the importance of cooperation in the team. The following is the typical flow of the response to a hostage-taking crisis. Communication officers first receive the initial report and transfer the information to patrol units. Patrol officers judge the nature of the incident and gather appropriate units, then the on-scene commander is selected. A negotiation team directly communicates with the perpetrator. Although solution by negotiation is believed to be ideal, in some cases assault by a tactical team is required (pp. 15-16). In the beginning of a negotiation, a negotiator may want to firmly set up a condition in which a relationship favorable to the law enforcement side may develop. Olin and Born (1983) emphasize that it is important for law enforcement personnel "to demonstrate immediate and absolute control of the outer perimeter" so that they can maximally limit the hostage takers conduct (p. 22). Fuselier (1986) warns that if the perpetrator establishes contact with media, with friends, or with relatives, the situation may become worse (p. 13). A negotiator should use communication techniques strategically in order to establish a favorable relationship with the perpetrator. For example, modification of verbal behavior such as vernacular and phraseological adjustment comes first (Fuselier, 1981, p. 12). According to Fuselier (1981), a negotiator should also "identify him or herself by first name and address the hostage taker in the manner the perpetrator desires" to demonstrate a good faith and respect (p. 12). This can lead to the establishment of a relationship that is characterized by collaboration toward a goal on the part of both the negotiator and the perpetrator. Olin and Born (1983) also discuss the significance of developing a direct and immediate relationship between the negotiator and the perpetrator. According to Olin and Born, caring behavior and reward will help this relational development. When the perpetrator shows positive behavior, such behavior "should be responded to with warmth, understanding, and encouragement" (p. 23). This positive reinforcement should encourage the perpetrators willingness to continue talking (p. 23). Rational discussion is the most desired element for resolution of a hostage-taking incident. Rogan and Hammer (1994) argue that the perpetrator's emotional excitation level must be reduced so that the perpetrator can stabilize his or her sense of self (p. 217). A hostage crisis produces intense strain not only for law enforcement but also for the perpetrator. It may easily lead to emotional instability in the perpetrator, which will negatively contribute to the process; whereas, a rational discussion will invite an ideal solution with a higher possibility of success. In order to create a situation in which rational discussion may occur, law enforcement will want to set up a win/win situation through a course of negotiation. Fuselier (1981) argues that this could be attained by making the

perpetrator believe that both the perpetrator and the negotiator have gained something via their cooperation and progress (p. 13). In other words, a negotiator should create a sense in the hostage taker that his or her face is saved. The concept of face derives from the Chinese culture (Goffman, 1967, Wilson, 1992, Tracy, 1990). However, the most famous operationalization of face was by Goffman (1967), which most studies introduce as the fundamental concept of the said phenomenon. According to Goffman, FACE is "the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes" (p. 5). The face is a positive social image of self which one may naturally want to hold. A self is socially constructed through interaction. Following Goffmans definition, Tracy (1990) describes such a self or face as "socially situated identities people claim or attribute to others" (p. 210). She also names positive and negative reinforcement of the face as "facework" (p. 210). Positive facework, or the reinforcement of the face by an interactional partner, will enhance and maintain the sense of self. In contrast, when ones face is negatively projected, the sense of self is undermined and he or she may cope with this unpleasantness by taking measures that may include rejection of the interaction, hostility, distrust, and retaliation. In any case, the negative reinforcement of self may cause displeasure that leads to emotional instability and irrationality. A hostage taking incident typically involves many people. Brown (1977) investigates the targeting mechanism. According to Brown (1977), there are three targetors by whom an individuals face concerns are elevated; 1) the opposing party, 2) audience feedback, and 3) a third partys intervention (pp. 292-294). A negotiator may become the opposing party or a mediator for a perpetrator according to the case. If a case is broadcast, the face of the perpetrator is presented to a mass audience, and, the level of significance attached to whether he or she saves or loses face will multiply. Broadcasting will intensely influence the perpetrators succeeding actions and reactions to the event. Therefore, in order to induce productive progress, a negotiator must pay maximum attention to the facework that is typically practiced through language. Peoples desire to save face is strong, especially when they have invested much in achieving an unrealized goal. Brockner, Brockport, Rubin, Fine, Hamilton, Thomas, and Turetsky (1982) argue such desire in relation to entrapment. Entrapment is a conflict in which "decision-makers feel compelled to continue investing their resources in order to justify previous costs incurred in the pursuit of some goal" (Brockner et al., 1982, p. 248). Individuals who invest much tend to be entrapped in a situation from which they have gone too far to retreat. Brockner, Rubin, & Lang (1981) suggest that "the kind of self- presentation that people make by either continuing to invest or quitting" largely contribute to how deeply they become entrapped (p. 69). In other words, the more one looks a loser when quitting, the harder it is to quit. In order to avoid the situation in which a hostage taker becomes entrapped, making the perpetrator feel that his or her face has been saved becomes essential. The concept of face and how it functions in human communication have been studied mainly in terms of three major perspectives. Tracy (1990) introduces the three approaches in her article: the sociopsychological research, politeness theory based on sociolinguistics, and the communicative approach (p. 210). These three approaches to face overlap in many respects, but sociopsychological studies focus more on cognitive aspects, politeness theories mainly discuss language, and the communicative perspective involves studies of messages conveyed through

human interaction. Sociopsychological studies examine tactics that may threaten face, contextual aspects that encourage consciousness about face, and influences of face-saving concerns on negotiation consequences (Wilson, 1992, p. 181). According to Tracy (1990), three approaches typically reflects the sociopsychological tradition of face studies; 1) Goffmans approach characterized by corrective and preventive strategies that people use in everyday life, 2) "self-presentation" theories that typically see facework as a "one-way phenomenon" and focus on presentation of social and private self, and 3) bargaining and conflict approach that limits the images of face to strength and firmness in negotiations (pp. 213-216). Politeness theories of face were originally developed by Brown and Levinson (1978) who defined the hierarchy of strategic politeness in interpersonal conversations. In 1987, they published a revised version of their theories of politeness. The core concept of Brown and Levinsons politeness theory is positive and negative face. Positive face reflects "an actors desire to have the approval of others" and negative face refers to "the desire to not be imposed upon by others" (as cited in, Lim, 1990, p. 76). Individuals wish that the wants of the face, both positive and negative, be satisfied. However, these are "social desires" that can only be granted by other individuals. Individuals then use politeness as a strategy for making a request with an expectation that if they do so others will reciprocate it by attempting to save their face (Lim, 1990, p. 76). Brown and Levinson (1987) define the hierarchy of strategic politeness that occurs in conversation. They integrate the social circumstances that define the severity of face-threatening acts and the conversational strategies with each of the five levels of politeness hierarchy: 1) not doing face a threatening act, 2) going off record, 3) negative politeness, 4) positive politeness, and 5) reacting baldly, without redressive action (p. 69). This comprehensive approach to discourse politeness by Brown and Levinson (1978) attracted broad academic attention. Many scholars studied, applied, and critiqued this approach and developed their own theories. Leichty and Applegate (1991) attempted to further investigate the correlation between Brown and Levinsons (1978) theory about social circumstances and selection of face-saving strategies. The results of Leichty and Applegates (1991) research confirm Brown and Levinsons (1978) findings in regard to the distinctions between "positive face redress and autonomy granting and between threat to autonomy and threat to positive face" (p. 480). TingToomey (1988, 1994, 1998) studies facework in intercultural conflict. She has established a two-dimensional model of facework based on Brown and Levinsons (1978) politeness theories. The first dimension is concerned with the person to which the facework is directed, self or other, and the second dimension is the character of face, positive or negative (p. 218). In contrast, Lim (1990) points out the limitations of Brown and Levinsons (1978) model because: 1) it allows only one type of threat at one time, 2) politeness theory should include the absence of behavior and those utterances that have no instrumental aspect at all, and 3) it ignores the inverted meanings of utterances that are created in particular contexts (pp. 77-78). Providing these critiques, Lim develops her own model of positive and negative politeness strategies which is basically a refined version of Brown and Levinsons (1978). Baxter (1984) also questions the concept of hierarchy and suggests functional overlaps of strategies. Her argument is fundamentally about what strategy one chooses in a case when he or she seeks compliance from the other, and she adds "pre-giving" (p. 440) to Brown and Levinsons tactics (1978). Her naturalistic approach, which

examines situational factors and includes gender difference in the selection of strategies, provides new insights to the study of face. Tracys (1994) model facework is directed toward the micro level of interaction and urges a drastic revision to Brown and Levinsons (1978) strategies by stressing the necessities for taking into account situational factors. Tracy points out the inapplicability of face-concerns (positive and negative face) to some contexts. For example, individuals may abandon faces in order to achieve their goals. At the same time, according to Tracy, Brown and Levinsons definition of positive face is too general and it does not identify what faceconcern is most central to an interactant (p. 292). While many of the studies on facework largely depend on request or compliance seeking behavior in daily, "normal" human interaction, Rogan and Hammer (1994) take a different approach. They specifically focus on dimensions rather than a hierarchy and argue it in relation to crisis negotiations. Crisis events are extremely volatile situations and negotiations usually continue over time. When facework is practiced in order to stabilize a perpetrators emotional condition so that they would not harm hostages (or the perpetrators themselves in suicidal cases), the hierarchy of politeness may not be of significant interest. Rather than the level of politeness, the nature of the messages exchanged through negotiations would become a central concern. Based on the peculiar nature of hostage negotiation, Rogan and Hammer present three dimensions of facework: locus of concern, face valence, and temporality (p. 218). Locus of concern refers to the side on which a potential impact of facework would be inflicted, that is, either self or the other. Face valence includes threat, honor, and neutrality. Face-threat involves verbal offense of identities such as "intimidation, insults, humiliation, derogation, criticism, or reprimands" (p. 218) Neutral facework potentially poses neutral impact on the speakers or listeners face. Face-honoring may include "hedges, qualifiers, humor, disclosures, approval, optimism, liking, retractions, clarifications, and retroactive disclaimers" (p. 218). The third dimension, temporality, follows face-honoring. Temporality, or timing, sees if the facework can function as defense against future possible threats or restoration of the lost face. Face-defense is operationalized as "anticipatory and preventive" and face-restoration as "reparative of damage already done" to ones identity (Brown, 1977, p. 277). Based on the three- dimensional model, Rogan and Hammer introduce seven types of facework; one may 1) defend selfs face, 2) attack selfs face, 3) restore selfs face, 4) present a neutral face, 5) defend others face, 6) attack others face, and 7) restore others face (p. 218). In addition to these seven faceworks, two types of backchannels, positive and negative, were analyzed in their study. Backchannels such as "Yah" and "Nah" (Rogan and Hammer, 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 Hammers (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 & Hammers findings show that there were no attacks on the others face either from negotiators or perpetrators in the three cases they analyzed. Their findings also show that perpetrators tend to restore

selfs face and negotiators try to restore others face (p. 227). It would be natural to consider that negotiators employ strategies that may contribute to stabilizing the perpetrators 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 & Hammers (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. Following Rogan and Hammers (1994) findings, the following hypotheses are established. H2: Negotiators attempt to restore others face more than restore selfs face. H3: Perpetrators attempt to restore selfs face more than restore others face. In addition to the bias in selection of facework behaviors, it is important to consider temporal aspects of negotiation. There will be many independent variables that may influence participants attitudes. For instance, relational development may occur over time. It is necessary to consider that participants may implement different facework behaviors according to perceived relational development. The level of trust or closeness may change in the process of negotiation and facework may accordingly change. Various external influences in negotiation processes will also affect participants behavior. Due to the intensity of the situation, participants in hostage-taking incidents will become fatigued over time. The ongoing negotiations themselves may also change emotional excitation level. Taking into consideration that a variety of components change throughout the negotiation process, the following hypothesis is developed. H4: Facework behaviors change in selection and frequency as negotiations proceed. Method The transcripts analyzed in this study were available through previous research by Holmes. The three cases are authentic hostage-taking events. They include two barricading cases in cities and an airplane highjacking. The situations of these cases are as follows: Case 1. A suspect who robbed a jewelry store has fled to a residential area and holds an elderly couple as hostages in order to escape police arrest. Case 2. A bank robbery suspect holds a woman in the bank and requests an automobile to escape the scene. Case 3. A suspect hijacks an airplane and takes two crew members hostage. He demands to see his girlfriend and to return to the drug rehabilitation program from which he has recently released. (Holmes & Sykes, 1993, p. 43). Each transcript was coded by two coders, both of them were Ph.D students in communication. The coders were instructed to code according to Rogan and Hammers (1994) threedimensional model of facework plus two types of backchannels, positive and negative. The coding system consists of nine categories: 1) Attack Others Face, 2) Attack Selfs Face, 3) Defend Others Face, 4) Defend Selfs Face, 5) Restore Others Face, 6) Restore Selfs Face, 7) Positive Backchannels, 8) Negative Backchannels, and 9) Neutral Face. Each coder was provided with a coding scheme book that displayed the description and sample discourses of the nine facework behaviors (see Appendix A). The unit of analysis is one discourse turn. The number of units are 252, 651, and 380 for Cases 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The total of 1283 discourse units were coded and analyzed. In a case when one speaking turn involved more than one facework behavior, the coders chose the most emphasized facework

behavior. If the coders considered that the emphasis was too subtle, they selected the one they felt preceded the other facework behavior(s). In order to estimate reliability of coding, the coders first coded a transcript from a case not used in this study that consisted of 111 discourse units. The coders were in 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 Hammers (1994) findings should be summarized. According to their research, Face Restoration, both Restore Selfs Face and Restore Others 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 Others Face in 61.72% (n=615) of their speech units while they sought to Restore Selfs Face with smaller frequently (11.99%, n=109). Perpetrators engaged in Restore Selfs Face with the highest frequency (58.34%, n=528) and in Restore Others Face with a much smaller frequency (5.96%, n=54). Positive Backchannels came third for both Negotiators and Perpetrators (18.25%, n=331), and it was followed by Neutral Face (n=170, 9.37%), Defend Selfs Face (1.27%, n=23), Defend Others Face (0.94%, n=17), Negative Backchannels (0.89%, n=16), and Attack Selfs Face (0.03%, n=5). There were no records for Attack Others Face. Negotiators attempted to engage in Defend Others Face more than in Defend Selfs Face, while perpetrators sought Defend Selfs Face rather than Defend Others 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 Hammers (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 Hammers (1994) findings show that the most conspicuous facework category was Restore Others 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 Backchannels (1.40%), Attack Selfs

Face (0.62%), and Defend Others Face (0.23%). With the exception of Case 1, Attack Others 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 Hammers 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 common(n=323 in total of 635 cumulative speech units, 50.87%) than that of negotiators. Remarkably, they engage in Attack Others Face frequently (32.44%). This behavior is followed by Positive Backchannels and Restore Selfs Face (2.35% for each behavior), Defend Selfs Face (2.20%), Attack Selfs Face (1.26%), and Restore Others Face (0.31%). There were no Defend Others Face. Attack Others Face is most frequent in Case 3 (90 of total of 185 speech units, 48.65), which exceeds Neutral Face (43.79%). Also, perpetrators engage in Defend Selfs Face rather than Defend Others Face, and more in Restore Selfs Face (0.80%, 2.77%, and 2.70% for Cases 1, 2, and 3 respectively) than in Restore Others Face (0.00%, 0.31%, and 0.54% for Cases 1, 2, and 3 respectively). Hypothesis 3 that perpetrators attempt to restore selfs face more than restore others face was supported in all three cases. Results of the test of Hypothesis 4 are visually displayed (see Appendices C-1, 2, and 3). Facework behaviors shown by each party in Case 1, 2, and 3 are plotted as dots during the sequence of the discourses. In order to examine the relationship between temporal flow and frequency of facework behaviors, the plots of the discourses for each case are divided into five segments. Included are response by third parties. The perpetrator of Case 1 attacks the others face four times and his own face three times in the first segment of the discourse units (each segment is approximately 63 units including both negotiator and perpetrators discourse units). In response to the perpetrators Face-Threat, the negotiator attempts to restore the perpetrators face six times. In the second segment, the negotiator attacks the perpetrators face four times and the perpetrator defends his face five times. In the third segment, the perpetrator attacks the negotiators face five times, and the negotiator defends his face three times. In the fourth segment, face attacking by the perpetrator increases to nine times, while the negotiators face-defense is three. The last segment consists

mostly of a conversation between the perpetrator and his mother, which is excluded from the analysis. The perpetrator attacks the negotiators face twice at the end. In Case 2, the perpetrator attacks the negotiators face eleven times in the first segment (each segment is approximately 140 units including both negotiator and perpetrators speech units) of the negotiation. Attack Others Face by the perpetrator increases to 21 times in the second segment, returns to ten times in the third, and increases to 18 times in the fourth, and it to 34 times in the final segment. He uses Restore Selfs Face eight times in the fourth segment. The negotiators constantly employ Defend Self's Face throughout, especially, as they attempt to defend their face 17 times in the final segment. Case 3 (n=107 per segment, including both negotiator and perpetrators speech) demonstrates a similar pattern to Case 2 in terms of the employment of Attack Others Face by the perpetrator. The perpetrator constantly uses Attack Others Face, and it culminates in 25 times in the last segment the negotiation. The negotiators also employ Defend Selfs Face with significant frequency, as well as attempt to Restore Others Face. All three cases demonstrate that perpetrators employ Attack Others Face more in the later part of negotiations. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 states that facework behaviors change in selection and fequency as negotiations proceed is supported. Discussion The results of this study are inconsistent with Rogan and Hamers (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 Hammers. 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 Others 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 interactants identity indirectly yet certainly. Injunction presents an exercise of power over the interactional partner, which signifies an unequality in the two bargaining parties. Interestingly, law enforcement negotiators also engage in Attack Others Face. In order to attain superiority in negotiations, law enforcement may sometimes have to take a resolute attitude toward the perpetrators, which may contain some level of identity rejection. However, the frequency in employing Attack Other's Face is much lower than that of perpetrators, perhaps because negotiators do not want to intensely threaten the

perpetrators' face enough to stimulate them into devastating behaviors. The finding that negotiators employ Restore Other's Face more than Restore Self's Face and that perpetrators engage in Restore Self's Face more than Restore Other's Face are consistent with Rogan and Hammer's (1994) research results. This may suggest that in order to calm down emotions heightened as a result of an identity crisis, negotiators may intentionally, and perpetrators may naturally, attempt to restore the threatened face of the perpetrators. This may also accounts for the results obtained by both Rogan and Hammer and myself that perpetrators attempt to Defend Self's Face more than Defend Others Face. However, Defend Self's Face is found in negotiators' discourses with remarkable frequency, which is inconsistent with Rogan and Hammer's (1994) discoveries. It is necessary to discuss the functions of Defend Self's Face by negotiators. It is not realistic to consider that the negotiators are always attempting to defend their personal identities, because they negotiate to achieve ultimate goals such as leading the perpetrator to releasing hostages and to surrender. These goals would take precedence over their personal identities presented in the given situations. Usually, more than one demand is presented in the course of negotiation in hostage-taking situations. Considering the possibility that failure in negotiating a small demand may negatively influence the next, negotiators may have to be highly prudent in conversations, especially when they make a concession to the perpetrator. If they accept the perpetrators request and fail to honor their words, it may create distrust between the participants. Delaying tactics may also account for their use of Defend Selfs Face. Avoiding making concrete statements may serve to increase negotiating so that law enforcement can take necessary actions for the given situation. These assumptions may also be applied to the results from temporal analysis of facework behaviors. The study shows that Defend Selfs Face by negotiators generally increases when Attack Others Face by perpetrators increases. When a perpetrator attempts to exert power over law enforcement by threatening face, negotiators respond by giving a statement that carefully deters future trouble rather than trying to restore his or her personal identity. Lastly, in all the three cases analyzed in this study, perpetrators employ Attack Others Face more near the end of the incident. Moreover, negotiators Attack Others Face increases slightly near the end. Fatigue could be one reason for becoming aggressive. Also, as negotiations come to the climax the participants may pursue their interests more intensly. Also, near the end of the incident it becomes crucial to decide whether tactical intervention should be implemented. These results are consistent with Gullivers phase model of negotiations (Holmes & Sykes, 1993). Conclusion This research has attempted to test Rogan and Hammers (1994) three dimensional model of facework behaviors on hostage-taking incidents. It further sought to understand the bias in choice of face strategies according to the flow of time. The findings of this study demonstrate how participants of hostage-taking negotiations present and negotiate their identities. The results are partially consistent to Rogan and Hammers, but selections of facework behaviors differed sigificantly from those presented in the crisis negotiations studied by Rogan and Hammer. This may suggest that hostagetaking incidents involve unique factors that are not found in other types of crises such as suicidal intervention. As Rogan and Hammer (1994) refer to their own study (pp. 226-229), this examination was descriptive, and it would be inappropriate to generalize the results. Each hostage-taking incident may involve unique elements which the participants need to consider. Also, identity concern is not the only element that influences a hostage-takers

emotional state. Furthermore, although the facework behaviors examined in this study are strictly limited to those which are practiced by and directed toward perpetrators and negotiators, it is necessary to consider that third party interventions including those by the perpetrators family or friends by hostages would significantly affect the flow of negotiations. The research on facework behaviors may become more insightful if interactions with third parties are integrated into those bewteen hostage-takers and negotiators. References Brockner, J., Brockport, S., Rubin, J. Z., Fine, J., Hamilton, T. P., Thomas, B., & Turestsky, B. (1982). Factors affecting entrapment in escalating conflicts: The importance of timing. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 247-266. Brockner, J., Rubin, J. Z., & Lang, E. (1981). Facesaving and entrapment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 6879. Brown, B. R. (1977). Face-saving and face-restoration in negotiation. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiation: Social-psychological perspectives (pp. 275299). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Fuselier, G. W. (1981). A practical overview of hostage negotiations (conclusion). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 50(7), 10-15. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago, IN: Aldine Publishing Company. Hammer, M. R., & Rogan, R. G. (1997). Negotiation models in crisis situations: The value of a communication-based approach. In R. G. Rogan, M. R. Hammer, & C. R. Van Zandt (Eds.), Dynamic process of crisis negotiation (pp. 9-23). Westport, CT: Praeger. Holmes, M. E. (1997). Process and patterns in hostage negotiations. In R. G. Rogan, M. R. Hammer, & C. R. Van Zandt (Eds.), Dynamic process of crisis negotiation (pp. 77-93). Westport, CT: Praeger. Holmes, M. E., & Sykes, R. E. (1993). A test of the fit of Gullivers phase model to hostage negotiations. Communication Studies, 44, 38-55. Kaiser, N. F. (1990). The tactical incident: A total police response. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 59(8), 14-18. Leichty, G., & Applegate, J. L. (1991). Social-cognitive and situational influences on the use of face-saving persuasive strategies. Human Communication Research, 17(3), 451-484. Lim, T. (1990). Politeness behavior in social influence situations. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 75-86). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick. Olin, W. R., & Born, D. G. (1983). A behavioral approach to hostage situations. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 52(1), 19-24. Rogan, R. G., & Hammer, M. R. (1994). Crisis negotiations: A preliminary investigation of facework in naturalistic conflict discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 216-231. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim, & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.) (1994). The challange of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187225. racy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles, & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 209-226). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. Wilson, S. R. (1992). Face and facework in negotiation. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp. 176-205). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Appendix A Coding Book Thank you very much for participating in the study. You are kindly requested to code the transcripts. The coding procedure is

described as follows. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate how participants of crisis negotiations employ messages that contain certain types of facework. Face and Facework Face is a social image of self which is projected and attributed in the course of social interaction. Facework is the positive and negative reinforcement of the face which is generally practiced through language. When an individual receives negative reinforcement such as "threats, intimidation, insults, humiliation, derogation, or criticism," (Rogan and Hammer, 1994, p. 218), social identity of the person is threatened, and the individual may feel his or her face is attacked or lost. In contrast, if your face is positively reinforced, or honored, you will feel that your face is saved or restored. Such face-honoring acts may include "hedges, qualifiers, humor, disclosures, approval, optimism, liking, retractions, clarifications, and retroactive disclaimers" (p. 218). Each facework, attacking or honoring, has its object person to be attacked, that is, either self or other. In this study, coding will be practiced according to nine categories of facework behaviors. Facework Categories The following is the nine categories of facework. There are two targets to whom facework is directed, other or self. In the categories, "other" indicates the other side of the negotiating parties; for a perpetrator, the other is law enforcement personnel(s) and for law enforcement, it is the perpetrator. Face attacking includes threats, intimidation, insults, humiliation, derogation, criticism, and reprimands (Rogan & Hammer, 1994, p. 218). (1) Attack Others Face Participants may attack others face (e.g., "Youre pissin me off now," "You all never cooperate with nobody," or "Do it now, you fool.") (2) Attack Selfs Face Participants may attack selfs face (e.g., "Oh, god, Ive shot that guy," "Nobody cares me," or "I have no hope"). There are four categories of facehonoring acts. Face-honoring such as hedges, qualifiers, humor, disclosures, approval, optimism, liking, retractions, clarifications, and retroactive disclaimers are also directed to either other or self. At the same time, there are two temporal dimensions in face-honoring behaviors: defense and restoration. Face- defense occurs as proactive prevention of future possible face-threats. On the other hand, face-restoration attempts to restore already threatened face. (3) Defend Others Face Participants may protect others face from future loss (e.g., "I know youre very intelligent," "Youre doing alright?" "Thank you for listening," or "Yes, its very true" following other's self-honoring). (4) Defend Selfs Face Participant may attempt to protect or qualify selfs face (e.g., "I guess it is OK, but I have to ask my boss about it first," or "Im not a fool to believe this"). (5) Restore Others Face Participants may help restoring others already threatened or lost face (e.g., "Your family, they need you" following others self-attacking, "No, you did fine, its' alright,"). (6) Restore Selfs Face Participants may want to restore self's already threatened or lost face (e.g., "I didn't do that, it's not me," "I'm not as bad as you think," or "You're not saying it to me, are you?"). In addition to the obvious faceworks, there are backchannels that serve as cues to continue conversations. Backchannels are not phrases or sentence. They do not function as faceworks but involve some level of positive or negative meaning in them. There are two categories of backchannels, positive and negative. Coders may sometimes need to assess their positivity and negativity according to the context in which they occur. (7) Positive Backchannels "Yeah," or "uh-huh" may function as backchannels. (8) Negative Backchannels "Nah," or "uh-uh" may function as backchannels. The final facework category is Neutral Face, which functions as neither

threatening nor honoring. (9) Neutral Face Neutral Face typically does not contain any facework message (e.g., "This is Bill speaking," "Hello," or "My girlfriend's name is Jane,"). Coding The transcripts are negotiations between barricading criminals and law enforcement personels. You are going to code each uninterrupted discourse turn according to the facework behavioral categories mentioned below. The transcripts have serial numbers of discourse units; please write the number of facework behavior applied to the unit in the space next to the serial numbers for each speaking unit: 1. Attack Others Face 2. Attack Selfs Face 3. Defend Others Face 4. Defend Selfs Face 5. Restore Others Face 6. Restore Selfs Face 7. Positive Backchannels 8. Negative Backchannels 9. Neutral Face The speaking units irrelevant to the negotiations between perpetrators and law enforcement (e.g., discourse by a telephone operator or hostages) will not be coded. If one speaking turn involves more than one facework behaviors, please choose the most emphasized facework behavior. If you think that there is no obvious emphasis, please write the one which you feel precedent to other facework behavior(s). If you have any question, please call 582-9937. Thank you again for your time.