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

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 betweenround 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.

Antecedents of attitude towards online mediation

“…Druckman, et al (2004) found differences between negotiator perceptions in a fully automated e-mediation procedure, and their perceptions in a non-automated procedure. These differences are partially ascribed to differences between the attributions negotiators make to humans and computers (Nass and Moon 2000).…”

“…While many studies examine the various facets of mediation in face-to-face negotiations (a good review is provided in Carnevale and Pruitt 1992), and some studies explore technology-based conflict mediation (Druckman et al 2004), the field of human mediation via the online media is left fairly untapped. Consequently, the critical success factors of these services, and specifically the effects of the online environment, are yet to be explored.…”

Mediation = Information Revelation + Analogical Reasoning

“…Important from a computational perspective is the diagnosis stage of the mediation process [20]. The diagnostic function consists of monitoring the progress of negotiation or related interactions intended to settle or resolve disputed issues (Druckman and coauthors [20] refer to [21]).…”

“…The diagnostic function consists of monitoring the progress of negotiation or related interactions intended to settle or resolve disputed issues (Druckman and coauthors [20] refer to [21]). Monitoring provides a long view of unfolding developments, including trends in escalating and de-escalating dynamics.…”

Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview

“…Rules were used to provide domain-specific expert advice to their users (Roman and Ahamed 1984;Rangaswamy et al 1989), conduct qualitative simulation of negotiations (Kersten and Michalowski 1989;Matwin et al 1989), manage documents such as contracts de Moor and Weigand 2004), and provide the negotiators with access to experts' knowledge (Druckman et al 2004). …”