The Effect of Perspective-Taking on Trust and Understanding in Online and Face-to-Face Mediations

Abstract

This research investigates the perspective taking process in online and face-to-face mediations. In particular, it addresses the question whether a perspective taking technique—being asked circular questions—helps the establishment of mutual understanding and interpersonal trust between negotiators in online and face-to-face mediation settings. This question was studied in an experimental setting in which disputants had to solve a conflict face-to-face or online by the help of a professional mediator. During the interventions, the mediator either posed mainly circular (perspective-taking) or linear questions. It was expected that mediations in which circular questions were used would lead to a higher level of mutual understanding and interpersonal trust between the disputants, and—as a result—to a more satisfying, integrative agreement. Furthermore, this study examined whether the communication mode of the intervention (online, face-to-face) affected the re-establishment of disputants’ interpersonal trust and understanding. The results of the study show that disputants’ feelings of trust in and understanding of their interaction partner improved more in the face-to-face mediations than in the online mediations. These improved feelings of understanding and trust also predicted how satisfying and integrative disputants perceived the agreement to be. Moreover, disputants perceived their mediator to be more trustworthy and more professional in the face-to-face than in the online interventions. No effect was found for mediators’ questioning style on disputants’ improved interpersonal trust and mutual understanding. We discuss the effects of the questioning style of a mediator and conclude with reflections on reasons why these effects did not lead to differences in mutual understanding and interpersonal trust between the disputants.

Research on the Impact of Intelligent Customer Service on Trust Restoration in Service Recovery—Based on the Perspective of Customer Social Mindfulness Perception

“…Driven by the concept that "customer engagement is the key to business success", companies have been trying new initiatives to form participatory co-operation by catering to customers' preferences or preferences as much as possible. Meanwhile, social mindfulness, which consists of cognitive viewpoint selection and emotional empathy, coincides with the above concept, and scholars have conducted a lot of research on it, and the results are consistent with those of van Lange and van Doesum et al-social mindfulness is a facilitator of cooperation (Williams, 2012;Damen et al, 2020;Bagdasarov et al, 2019). At present, most of the research and application of social mindfulness is in the field of interpersonal behavioural psychology, if we force AI customer service to express social mindfulness as a unique human "feeling" quality will trigger the Valley of Terror effect, resulting in counterproductive effects?…”

Justice via chat? How litigants’ preferences and attorneys’ recommendations influence the choice to use online dispute resolution.

“…Furthermore, parties with particularly negative relationships could prefer the remote communication methods inherent in ODR (Sternlight & Robbennolt, 2022). On the other hand, individuals generally report a better understanding of, and increased trust in, the other party when they use face-to-face as opposed to online mediation (Damen et al, 2020). Trust building may be particularly valuable for parties with an adversarial relationship (Nadler, 2004).…”

The Benefits and Obstacles to Perspective Getting

“…Our research shows that perspective getting is still effective in leading to more accurate results, even when communication is done via online modes, where the transmission of non-verbal and social cues (study 1 and study 2), or direct eye-contact (study 3) is limited. We encourage future researcher to examine how effects of perspective getting on accuracy are related to communicative settings in which interlocutors are able to rely on a variety of cues to build interpersonal report, and simultaneously or consequently, interpersonal understanding (e.g., Damen, et al, 2020b).…”