lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v13y2004i6d10.1007_s10726-005-2125-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Druckman

    (George Mason University)

  • James N. Druckman

    (University of Minnesota)

  • Tatsushi Arai

    (George Mason University)

Abstract
In this article, the results of three experiments designed to evaluate the impact of an electronic mediator on negotiating behavior are reported. The mediator is a web-based tool that serves three mediation functions: diagnosis, analysis, and advice. The diagnosis provides information about progress toward or away from agreements. The analysis identifies the possible sources of problems in each of several areas of negotiation. The advice is linked to the source of the problem and based on empirical research. In all of the experiments, role-playing negotiators attempted to reach agreement on seven issues discussed in a simulation of a conflict that resembles the pre-war conflict between the United States and Iraq. The first experiment consisted of a comparison between the e-mediation support technology and a condition in which negotiators reflected separately about the negotiation without the technology. Results indicate that access to the technology produced significantly more agreements and resulted in more positive perceptions of the outcomes than the reflection condition. However, perceptions of the between-round periods were more positive for reflection-condition negotiators. In the second experiment, we compared the e-mediation technology with a condition in which negotiators only received the advice in paper form. Access to the technology resulted in more agreements than advice-only, although the differences were smaller than those obtained in the first experiment, and perceptions of outcomes were more positive for advice-only negotiators. The third experiment compared two forms of e-mediation (separate and joint) with a scripted live mediator. Results show that joint e-mediation out-performs live mediation on some measures; both these conditions resulted in more agreements, and more integrative statements, than separate e-mediation. The live mediator was perceived more favorably than both the separate and joint e-mediators. Possible explanations for these results are discussed along with an agenda for further research on e-mediation.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Druckman & James N. Druckman & Tatsushi Arai, 2004. "e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 481-511, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:13:y:2004:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-005-2125-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-005-2125-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-005-2125-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-005-2125-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Druckman & Bennett Ramberg & Richard Harris, 2002. "Computer-Assisted International Negotiation: A Tool for Research and Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 231-256, May.
    2. Daniel Druckman, 1971. "The influence of the situation in interparty conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 15(4), pages 523-554, December.
    3. Melvin F. Shakun, 1999. "An ESD Computer Culture for Intercultural Problem Solving and Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 237-249, May.
    4. Dan Jacobson, 1981. "Intraparty Dissensus and Interparty Conflict Resolution," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(3), pages 471-494, September.
    5. Daniel Druckman, 1997. "Dimensions of International Negotiations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(5), pages 395-420, September.
    6. Daniel Druckman & Benjamin J. Broome & Susan H. Korper, 1988. "Value Differences and Conflict Resolution," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(3), pages 489-510, September.
    7. James A. Wall Jr. & Michael Blum, 1991. "Community Mediation in the People's Republic of China," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 3-20, March.
    8. William M. Evan & John A. MacDougall, 1967. "Interorganizational conflict: a labor-management bargaining experiment," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 11(4), pages 398-413, December.
    9. Sieck, Winston & Yates, J. Frank, 1997. "Exposition Effects on Decision Making: Choice and Confidence in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 207-219, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Johannes Gettinger & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Far from Eye, Far from Heart: Analysis of Graphical Decision Aids in Electronic Negotiation Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 787-817, July.
    2. Schilling, Martin S. & Mulford, Matthew, 2007. "In search of value-for-money in collective bargaining: an analytic-interactive mediation process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Debby Damen & Per Wijst & Marije Amelsvoort & Emiel Krahmer, 2020. "The Effect of Perspective-Taking on Trust and Understanding in Online and Face-to-Face Mediations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1121-1156, December.
    4. Gregory E. Kersten & Hsiangchu Lai, 2007. "Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 553-586, November.
    5. Daniel Druckman & Ronald Mitterhofer & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Resolving Impasses in e-Negotiation: Does e-Mediation Work?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 193-210, March.
    6. Daniel Druckman & Lin Adrian & Malene Flensborg Damholdt & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koszegi & Johanna Seibt & Christina Vestergaard, 2021. "Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 395-426, April.
    7. Ofir Turel & Yufei Yuan & Joe Rose, 2007. "Antecedents of attitude towards online mediation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 539-552, November.
    8. Fieke Harinck & Daniel Druckman, 2019. "Values and Interests: Impacts of Affirming the Other and Mediation on Settlements," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 453-474, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Druckman & Bennett Ramberg & Richard Harris, 2002. "Computer-Assisted International Negotiation: A Tool for Research and Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 231-256, May.
    2. Daniel Druckman & Jennifer Martin & Susan Allen Nan & Dimostenis Yagcioglu, 1999. "Dimensions of International Negotiation: A Test of Iklé's Typology," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 89-108, March.
    3. Sornette, Didier & Zhou, Wei-Xing, 2006. "Importance of positive feedbacks and overconfidence in a self-fulfilling Ising model of financial markets," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 370(2), pages 704-726.
    4. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:251-256 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Kuvaas, Bard & Selart, Marcus, 2004. "Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 198-207, November.
    7. Yi-Fen Chen & Shi-Han Chang, 2016. "The online framing effect: the moderating role of warning, brand familiarity, and product type," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 355-374, September.
    8. Gustavo Borges & Maria José Domingues & Rita de Cássia Cordeiro, 2016. "Student’s trust in the university: analyzing differences between public and private higher education institutions in Brazil," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 13(2), pages 119-135, July.
    9. Daniel Druckman & Lin Adrian & Malene Flensborg Damholdt & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koszegi & Johanna Seibt & Christina Vestergaard, 2021. "Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 395-426, April.
    10. Chris Provis, 1996. "Unitarism, Pluralism, Interests and Values," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 34(4), pages 473-495, December.
    11. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    12. Melvin F. Shakun, 2001. "Unbounded Rationality," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 97-118, March.
    13. Krzysztof Przybyszewski & Dorota Rutkowska, 2013. "The Role of Cognitive Effort in Framing Effects," Collegium of Economic Analysis Annals, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, issue 32, pages 107-119.
    14. Melvin F. Shakun, 2003. "Right Problem Solving: Doing the Right Thing Right," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(6), pages 463-476, November.
    15. Daniel Druckman & Ronald Mitterhofer & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Resolving Impasses in e-Negotiation: Does e-Mediation Work?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 193-210, March.
    16. Guy Oliver Faure, 1999. "The Cultural Dimensions of Negotiation: The Chinese Case," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 187-215, May.
    17. Debby Damen & Per Wijst & Marije Amelsvoort & Emiel Krahmer, 2020. "The Effect of Perspective-Taking on Trust and Understanding in Online and Face-to-Face Mediations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1121-1156, December.
    18. McKenzie R. Rees & Ann E. Tenbrunsel & Kristina A. Diekmann, 2022. "“It’s Just Business”: Understanding How Business Frames Differ from Ethical Frames and the Effect on Unethical Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 429-449, March.
    19. Milch, Kerry F. & Weber, Elke U. & Appelt, Kirstin C. & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Krantz, David H., 2009. "From individual preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 242-255, March.
    20. Olivier Barreteau & Patrice Garin & Alexandre Dumontier & Geraldine Abrami & Flavie Cernesson, 2003. "Agent-Based Facilitation of Water Allocation: Case Study in the Drome River Valley," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 441-461, September.
    21. Jim Sheffield, 2004. "The Design of GSS-Enabled Interventions: A Habermasian Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 415-435, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:13:y:2004:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-005-2125-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    Лучший частный хостинг