Predicting the Outcomes of Disputes: Consequences for Disputant Reactions to Procedures and Outcomes1

Third parties in dispute settings often make predictions to disputants regarding the likely outcome of their dispute at arbitration. However, virtually no research has examined the impact of predictions on disputant satisfaction with dispute resolution procedures and outcomes. One explanation for the lack of attention to this variable may be that current theorizing regarding dispute resolution procedures is too narrowly stated to incorporate this procedural variation. Theories about predictability from nondispute settings are used to generate hypotheses regarding the consequences of such outcome prediction. In a laboratory setting, disputants prepared arguments in anticipation of an arbitration hearing. Prior to the arbitrator's decision, the experimenter read the disputants' arguments and made a prediction regarding the arbitrator's decision. Their arguments were then presented to an arbitrator who imposed a binding decision. Dependent measures include the disputants' anxiety while awaiting the arbitrator's decision, and their postdecision satisfaction with dispute resolution procedures and outcomes. Internal analyses support the hypothesis that outcome prediction has benefits for disputants' predecision coping, ratings of procedural fairness, and satisfaction judgments. Also, as hypothesized, correct predictions produced greater postdecision satisfaction with outcomes and decision-makers than did incorrect predictions.     

Preferences for Dispute Resolution Procedures as a Function of Intentionality,Consequences, Expected Future Interaction,and Power1

Two studies investigated preferences for dispute resolution procedures as a function of several situational factors. Study 1 varied intentionality of the conflict, consequences, and expected future interaction between the disputants. The data indicated that 3rd-party procedures were most preferred when the wrongdoing was intentional and when there were high consequences. Study 2 varied intentionality, consequences and the power relationship between the 2 disputants. The relevant effects of Study 1 were replicated, and it was found that arbitration and advisory arbitration were most preferred when the conflict involved parties of equal power. The study supports the general view that research in several domains can be integrated into a coherent pattern of effects relevant for dispute resolution.     

The Influence of Third Party Power and Suggestions on Negotiation: The Surface Value of a Compromise1

A simulated organizational dispute tested the influence of third party power and settlement suggestions on negotiation. Six different types of third party suggestions were tested: Integrative (highest possible value to both parties), compromise (the prominent solution equally favorable to both parties), unintegrative (lowest possible value to both parties), favorable (more value to subject than to opponent), unfavorable (more value to opponent than to subject), and no offers. Additional subjects bargained with no third party. The results suggest that the potential of a third party to impose a settlement influenced disputant perceptions of power and desire for third party involvement, but had only weak effects on communication processes and little effect on offer proposals. While integrative suggestions led to greater acceptability of the third party, compromise suggestions positively influenced the appearance of fairness and the use of rationality and exchange messages. Receipt of an unfavorable suggestion resulted in less favorable ratings of third party acceptability, greater perceptions of bias, and the use of more assertive messages and fewer upward appeals aimed at the third party than did receipt of a favorable suggestion. Implications for managerial dispute resolution behavior and subsequent perceptions of satisfaction and justice are discussed.     

Arbitration: Semi-judicial process or negotiation?

Arbitration is usually described as a semi-judicial, evaluative process, where the parties to a dispute surrender their responsibility for its resolution to a disinterested third party. The arbitrator is expected to listen impartially to the arguments of both sides and, on the basis of the evidence put forward, decide the issue between them. This paper questions the validity of the typical image of arbitration and suggests that a more comprehensive understanding can be developed if it is viewed in the context of different models of negotiation. It is argued that the arbitrator is likely to have at least two contrasting roles: (1) that of manager of the process of concession-convergence, when the issues in dispute are relatively straightforward; and (2) that of joint negotiator with the parties, constructing a framework for a future detailed resolution of the dispute, when the issues are more complex. The parties, on the other hand, are likely to be differentiated according to their previous experience of arbitration. While the more experienced participants may be able to make skilful strategic use of the procedures, the inexperienced are likely to be adversely affected by the evaluative/judicial public image of arbitration.     

Arbitration: Semi-judicial process or negotiation?

Arbitration is usually described as a semi-judicial, evaluative process, where the parties to a dispute surrender their responsibility for its resolution to a disinterested third party. The arbitrator is expected to listen impartially to the arguments of both sides and, on the basis of the evidence put forward, decide the issue between them. This paper questions the validity of the typical image of arbitration and suggests that a more comprehensive understanding can be developed if it is viewed in the context of different models of negotiation. It is argued that the arbitrator is likely to have at least two contrasting roles: (1) that of manager of the process of concession-convergence, when the issues in dispute are relatively straightforward; and (2) that of joint negotiator with the parties, constructing a framework for a future detailed resolution of the dispute, when the issues are more complex. The parties, on the other hand, are likely to be differentiated according to their previous experience of arbitration. While the more experienced participants may be able to make skilful strategic use of the procedures, the inexperienced are likely to be adversely affected by the evaluative/judicial public image of arbitration.     

Decision Control and Process Control Effects on Procedural Fairness Judgments1

Process control, the capacity to influence the content of a conflict resolution hearing, has been found repeatedly to affect disputants' judgments of the fairness of conflict resolution procedures, but never has there been an unambiguous test of the effect in nonbinding procedures. It was hypothesized that disputants experiencing nonbinding conflict resolution procedures, as well as those experiencing binding conflict resolution, would judge as more fair procedures high in disputant process control. One hundred nineteen undergraduate males and females were placed in apparent conflict with other suhjects. The procedure used to resolve the conflict was either high or low in disputant process control and was either binding or nonbinding. The outcome of the conflict resolution procedure was either favorable or unfavordblc to the subject. High disputant process control procedures were judged more fair than low disputant process control procedures regardless of whether the decision was binding, confirming the hypothesis. The results support new applications of procedural fairness theory and research and encourage testing of process control-like variables in nonlegal settings.     

论医疗纠纷中的替代性解决机制

由于在纠纷解决方面所表现出来的简便、经济、快捷、专业型及保密性强等优点,替代性纠纷解决机制逐渐成为许多国家和地区解决民事纠纷的一大趋势。根据我国所面临的现实情况,将ADR引入医疗纠纷领域是一条快速、有效地解决医疗纠纷的途径。医疗纠纷的替代性解决机制主要包括临时仲裁、调解、和解。这三种纠纷解决方式各具特点,适用于不同情况下医疗纠纷的解决。     

Effect of Mode of Adjudication,Presence of Defense Counsel,and Favorability of Verdict on Observers' Evaluation of a Criminal Trial1

In an experimental simulation, observers evaluated one of four different legal procedures in the presence of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome in a video-taped reenactment of a criminal trial. The procedures were adversarial, inquisitorial, adversarial without lawyer, and adversarial with plea bargaining. Data were gathered on the fairness and perceived satisfaction of the defendant with the final outcome, and quality of the defense and prosecution. Contrary to previous research, results showed that the several different procedures were seen as equally fair and legitimate, which suggests that how a procedure is implemented may be more important than its structural properties in observers' overall evaluations. It was also found that defendants are seen as least satisfied when the ostensibly fairest procedure (eg, adversarial) yields an unfavorable outcome. This finding supports a frustration interpretation and contradicts previous studies which report adversarial to be the most preferred dispute resolution procedure within all outcome conditions.     

Disagreements about taste

I argue for the possibility of substantive aesthetic disagreements in which both parties speak truly. The possibility of such disputes undermines an argument mobilized by relativists such as Lasersohn (Linguist Philos 28:643–686, 2005) and MacFarlane (Philos Stud 132:17–31, 2007) against contextualism about aesthetic terminology. In describing the facts of aesthetic disagreement, I distinguish between the intuition of dispute on the one hand and the felicity of denial on the other. Considered separately, neither of those phenomena requires that there be a single proposition asserted by one party to an aesthetic dispute and denied by the other. I suggest instead that many such disputes be analyzed as disputes over the selection or appropriateness of a contextually salient aesthetic standard.     

A TEST OF THE GROUP VALUES AND CONTROL MODELS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE FROM THE COMPETING PERSPECTIVES OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT

A path model was developed to determine the predictive power of the group values (Lind & Tyler, 1988) and the self-interest/control (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) models in the justice judgments of three state impasse resolution procedures for teacher bargaining disputes. Surveys were returned by 90 school superintendents and 74 union presidents from districts that had used the procedures during the last contract negotiations. The group values variables of perceived neutrality of, and trust in, third parties were most predictive of procedural justice judgments. Process control was also predictive of procedural justice judgments, whereas decision control was not. Neither model was predictive of distributive justice judgments. Further, the path analysis clearly indicates the importance in this context of examining procedural and distributive justice from the competing perspectives of labor and management. Labor/management affiliation was strongly related to trust in third parties, perceptions of relative pay, and overall distributive justice judgments.     

Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure

A review of recent research demonstrates that people are more willing to accept decisions when they feel that those decisions are made through decision‐making procedures they view as fair. Studies of procedural justice judgements further suggest that people evaluate fairness primarily through criteria that can be provided to all the parties to a conflict: whether there are opportunities to participate; whether the authorities are neutral; the degree to which people trust the motives of the authorities; and whether people are treated with dignity and respect during the process. These findings are optimistic and suggest that authorities have considerable ability to bridge differences and interests and values through the use of fair decision‐making procedures. The limits to the effectiveness of such procedural approaches are also outlined.     

Marriage Counsellors’ Reflections on the Counselling Process in Family Courts in India

Family courts in India were established to facilitate speedy redressal of family disputes, particularly matrimonial issues. Marriage counsellors facilitated dispute resolution based on alternative dispute resolution practices. Counselling was mandated for all couples approaching family courts due to marital discord. At present, there is a lack of literature on the process of counselling followed by marriage counsellors in the family courts. The present study used an exploratory research design to understand marriage counsellors’ perspectives on the process of counselling in family courts. Fifty-six marriage counsellors completed open-ended questionnaires on counselling assessment, goals, interventions and the influence of the presence of children on the couple counselling process. Thematic text analysis of the responses revealed a range of areas that counsellors explored, individual and relational goals that they focused on, as well as the interventions used by marriage counsellors in their work with couples. Findings suggested that there was a lack of uniformity in the counselling approaches used by marriage counsellors. Additionally, marriage counsellors reported not being equipped to address some intrapersonal and interpersonal concerns that emerged in the counselling process, despite identifying them. Based on the findings, the paper recommends the need for a unifying framework for training and practice for marriage counsellors working with couples in family courts to conceptualise couples’ concerns as well as guide their goals and interventions. The paper underscores the need for acknowledging sociocultural influences, reflective practice and client feedback in the process of counselling.     

Indian secularism,dialogue and the Ayodhya dispute

Indian secularists compound difficulties for the emergence of a genuinely secular society by relying on an exclusively constitutional rather than a dialogical approach to settle India’s religious disputes as manifested in Ayodhya and elsewhere. There are, however, intellectuals who favour dialogue with religious communities to strengthen secularism but are afraid of suggesting dialogue with contending parties on contentious issues like the Ayodhya dispute for fear of legitimising religious fundamentalism. As a result, the notion of ‘contentious dialogue’ is avoided even while the need for dialogue is recognised. Instead of religious grievances getting resolved through law, they get embroiled over a period of time and result in the rise of religious fundamentalism and terrorism, thereby deepening the crisis of secularism. In the Ayodhya dispute, communities encouraged by the secular state have followed a legal approach to the settlement of their religious grievances since 1950. While the dispute languished in court, the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992, the emergence of religious terrorism and the riots in Gujarat in 2002 followed. All these developments are in some way interrelated and need a broad and holistic counter-strategy. Only a dialogic approach will induce communities to comprehend the interconnected nature of problems arising from the Ayodhya dispute and make them seek solutions outside the law. This paper proposes a model of reconciliation based on the themes of recognition of intrinsic faith, negotiation with extrinsic elements of each religion and sacrifice. This dialogical approach ought to be carried out by a non-sectarian political society that must involve ruling and opposition parties, NGOs, lawyers, administrators and contending religious organisations in order to seek a realistic solution to the Ayodhya dispute in the larger and long-term interest of a secular polity in India.     

Preference for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control

Research on procedural justice has suggested that the distribution of control among participants can be used to classify dispute-resolution procedures and may be an important determinant of preference for such procedures. This experiment demonstrates that control can be meaningfully divided into two components: control over the presentation of evidence and control over the final decision. The experiment placed subjects (law students and undergraduates) in a situation of conflict and varied two between-subjects factors: (1) Role, whether subjects expected to role-play third parties (law students) or litigants (undergraduates), and (2) Orientation, whether individuals focused on equity claims (appeals to a norm of fairness) or legal claims (appeals to a strict, legal interpretation of events). As a control, a third-party neutral-orientation condition was included. In addition, subjects were presented with four dispute-resolution procedures which varied in third-party control over the presentation of evidence (Process Control) and third-party control over the final decision (Decision Control) as within-subjects factors. Results revealed that both litigants and third parties preferred high rather than low third-party decision control. Litigants with an equity orientation preferred low third-party control over the presentation of evidence, particularly when third parties had high rather than low decision control. Third parties and litigants with a legal orientation preferred low rather than high third-party process control only when there was high third-party decision control. Litigant preferences were more affected by variation in process control than variation in decision control while third-party preferences were more affected by variation in decision control than in process control. As a check on external validity, military judges given a neutral orientation were asked to evaluate and express preferences for the four dispute-resolution procedures. Their results were not detectably different from those of the law students who role-played third parties in the main portion of the study.     

社会认知双加工视角下的刻板印象激活机制

刻板印象激活过程中意识干预与否的问题,催生了内隐与外显两种激活理论长久以来的争端。其根源在于现有研究的刻板激活操作不严谨、两类范式不可比等多个方面。社会认识双加工理论提供了独特的分阶段比较视角。在该理论视角下,文章从梳理内隐及外显理论争端入手,分析各自存在的问题,并以双加工理论为指导,设计了一项内隐及外显任务分离启动研究,以期为探明刻板印象的认知激活机制,提供方法上的支撑。     

Person perception in the heat of conflict: Negative trait attributions affect procedural preferences and account for situational and cultural differences

Disputes by their nature involve contentious behavior. If one attributes such behavior to underlying personality traits, these attributions can be quite damning. The current research investigated negative trait attributions and their impact on dispute resolution decisions. We hypothesized that judging one's opponent to be low in agreeableness and high in emotionality (e.g. stubborn and volatile) shifts one's preference towards more formal procedures – formal in the sense that a third party judge controls the process and outcome. Drawing on the attribution literature, we hypothesized that two antecedents of these judgments (and consequent preferences) are the perceiver's level of prior information and the perceiver's cultural proclivity to explaining behavior in terms of personal dispositions. Results of an experiment measuring reactions to a hypothetical dispute found that prior information and culture (USA vs Hong Kong) increased trait attributions and preferences for formal procedures. Additionally, expectancy measures showed interaction effects suggesting that disputants dynamically construct expectancies in light of their personality impressions.     

Current themes in organizational change

Research in leadership effectiveness has paid less attention to the role of leader fairness than probably it should have. More recently, this has started to change. To capture this development, we review the empirical literature in leadership and fairness to define the field of leadership and fairness, to assess the state of the art, and to identify a research agenda for future efforts in the field. The review shows that leader distributive, procedural, and especially interactional fairness are positively associated with criteria of leadership effectiveness. More scarce and scattered evidence also suggests that fairness considerations help explain the effectiveness of other aspects of leadership, and that leader fairness and other aspects of leadership, or the leadership context, may interact in predicting leadership effectiveness. We conclude that future research should especially focus on interaction effects of leader fairness and other aspects of leadership, and on the processes mediating these effects.     

When the means justify the ends: effects of observability on the procedural fairness and distributive fairness of resource allocations

While there is substantial research examining how recipients react to allocations that vary in procedural fairness (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001 ), previous research has not examined how those dividing resources among themselves and others manipulate procedural fairness (Tyler & Smith, 1998 ). In this paper, we introduce a measure that allows us to compare procedural fairness across resource allocations, and we use an experimental procedure in which participants vary the procedural fairness of their allocations. In three studies, we show that those dividing resources make proactive tradeoffs between distributive and procedural fairness. Participants increased the procedural fairness of their allocations when they knew recipients would observe their procedures, but they were less likely to divide the resources equally among recipients. The decreased emphasis on distributive fairness when procedures were observable resulted in higher joint outcomes, suggesting that the observability of procedures has important implications for the efficiency of resource allocation in groups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

THE MAKING OF EXTRAORDINARY PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENA

This article considers the extraordinary phenomena that have been central to unorthodox areas of psychological knowledge. It shows how even the agreed facts relating to mesmerism, spiritualism, psychical research, and parapsychology have been framed as evidence both for and against the reality of the phenomena. It argues that these disputes can be seen as a means through which beliefs have been formulated and maintained in the face of potentially challenging evidence. It also shows how these disputes appealed to different forms of expertise, and that both sides appealed to belief in various ways as part of the ongoing dispute about both the facts and expertise. Finally, it shows how, when a formal Psychology of paranormal belief emerged in the twentieth century, it took two different forms, each reflecting one side of the ongoing dispute about the reality of the phenomena.     

Preference for Methods of Conflict Processing in Two Collectivist Cultures

Previous research has shown that harmony-enhancing procedures for conflict resolution are endorsed more in collectivist than in individualist societies, whereas the reverse is true for confrontational procedures. However, this result is derived from comparing Western with Eastern societies, leaving the possibility that it may be caused by a variety of East—West differences other than collectivism and individualism. To resolve this ambiguity and to extend the generality of this finding, two collectivist societies, one from Europe (Spain) and the other one from Asia (Japan), were contrasted in the present study. Consistent with the individualism—collectivism framework, results indicated that the procedural preferences of these two cultural groups were quite similar. Results also indicated that expectancies based on process control and animosity reduction were culture-general predictors of procedural preference, and that valences based on these variables yielded little additional variance over and above the expectancy variables. Expectancies based on fairness and favourableness were found to be culture-specific, as were their relationships with procedural preference. Results also implied that cultural femininity was not related to procedural preference. Finally, implications of these results for developing a universal theory of procedural preference are discussed.