Functions of a third party in the resolution of conflict: The role of a judge in pretrial conferences.

Erickson, Bonnie E.; Holmes, John G.; Frey, Robert; Walker, Laurens; Thibaut, John

doi:10.1037/h0036612

Cited by 41 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the simultaneous consideration of the issues, which was facilitated and enhanced by the Negotiation Decision Support Tool, enabled subjects to consider contract packages instead of one issue at a time. This substantiated the results found earlier by Erickson et al (1974). Second, bargaining research conducted by Fouraker and Siegel (1963) had shown that increased knowledge about their opponent's utility or point structure enables bargainers to improve their joint outcomes and approach or achieve Pareto-optimal solutions.…”

Section: Joint Outcomesupporting

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An empirical study of an interactive, session-oriented computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS)

Foroughi

Perkins

1995

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Negotiating is one of the four major decisional roles played by managers. In fact, resolving conflict is said to occupy 20% of a manager's working hours. This growing frequency of negotiation scenarios coupled with the increasing complexity of the issues which need to be resolved in a negotiation make the possibility of computer enhancement for negotiation very appealing. Implementations of computerized Negotiation Support Systenls (NSS) in the business world, international affairs, labor law, and environmental and safety disputes have demonstrated their potential for making negotiation problems more manageable and comprehensible for negotiators. Still, pioneers in NSS research have expressed their dismay at the lack of rigorous empirical research and evaluation of NSS. In particular, research is needed which will determine how and under what circumstances negotiation processes can be enhanced by NSS support.This article describes empirical research on the effects of a highly structured, interactive NSS on the outcome of face-to-face issues resolution and the attitudes of negotiators in both low-and high-conflict situations. In a laboratory experiment, bargaining dyads played the roles of manufacturers negotiating a four-issue, three-year purchase agreement for an engine subcomponent in conditions of high and low conflict of interest. The results of the study showed that NSS support did help bargainers achieve higher joint outcomes and more balanced contracts, but that the NSS support increased negotiation time. Satisfaction was greater for NSS dyads in both conflict levels, and perceived negative climate was reduced in low conflict.One primary implication of the results of this study is that NSS developers should keep in mind the importance of providing users with a system with interactive qualities which not only enhance the decision-making process but also provide them with a sense of participation in reaching the solution, as was done in this study.

show abstract

Section: Joint Outcomesupporting

confidence: 79%

“…The failure to integrate single issues into a single package so that potential trade-offs can be recognized (Kelley 1966;Erickson et al 1974).…”

Section: Cognitive Biases a Consideration Of Issues In Isolationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical study of an interactive, session-oriented computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS)

Foroughi

Perkins

1995

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baker (1974) investigated the effects of inequity between two disputants on a third party's behavior toward each of them. Erickson et al (1974) studied the comparative effectiveness of different ways a judge could encourage attorneys to approach cases involving the partitioning of tracts of land. Finally, hlontgomery et al (1973), while not focusing on the third party role per se, evaluated the effects of two different techniques used to reduce tension between fraternity and nonfraternity students at a university.…”

Section: Bartunek Et Al 1 Third Party Inter Vention 15331mentioning

confidence: 99%

Third Party Intervention and the Bargaining Behavior of Group Representatives

Bartunek

Benton

Keys

1975

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tlie present study compared the effects of content, process, and passive types of third party intervention on tlic bargaining behavior of pairs of group representatives. The setting was a simuhted school board-teachers' union dispute over a new contract. Each side \vas represented by one person who ivas instructed t o bargain tenaciously and to obtain as niuch as possible. The j o b of the representatives was either in jeopardy (high accountability) or not (low accountability). In the content intervention condition, a reasonable settlement was suggested t o the representatives by the third party. In the process intervention condition, he taught them how t o paraphrase. In the passive condition h e had them take a break from their negothtions. For the high accountable representatives, as predicted, the order of effectiveness of the interventions (number of agreements, average joint profit, and speed of resolution), from most to least, was content, process, and passive. Contrary to expectations, the process intervention did not produce the highest average joint profit for thc low accountability representatives. The representatives who did reach agreement in the low accounbbility process and content conditions, however. achieved higher joint profits than the representatives in the passive condition. Directions for further research wcrc indicated.

show abstract

“…subjects do not reach an agreement or implement the outcome that would have been implemented in that case. The difference between these two regressions is that in the first one we look at the whole sample of observations with incomplete information but in the second regression we drop the observations in which subjects reached the 'no agreement' outcome (we disregard whether this happens by 18 All the aforementioned differences are significant at the 1% level (Mann Whitney test) with the only exception of difference between the time in the negotiation sessions with complete information and incomplete information that is marginally insignificant (z = 1.643, p = 0.1003). However, this difference becomes significant at the 10% if we drop the initial six periods of the data (out of 18 periods).…”

Section: Incomplete Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of information in different bargaining protocols

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze a bargaining protocol recently proposed in the literature vis-à-vis unconstrained negotiation. This new mechanism extracts "gains from trade" inherent in the differing valuation of two parties towards various issues where conflict exists. We assess the role of incomplete vs. complete information in the efficiency achieved by this new mechanism and by unconstrained negotiation. We find that unconstrained negotiation does best under a situation of complete information where the valuations of both bargaining parties are common knowledge. Instead, the newly proposed mechanism does best in a situation with incomplete information. The sources of inefficiencies in each of the two cases arise from the different strategic use of the available information. _____________________________We thank

show abstract

Functions of a third party in the resolution of conflict: The role of a judge in pretrial conferences.

Cited by 41 publications

References 10 publications

An empirical study of an interactive, session-oriented computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS)

An empirical study of an interactive, session-oriented computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS)

Third Party Intervention and the Bargaining Behavior of Group Representatives

The role of information in different bargaining protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About