TY - JOUR
T1 - e-mediation
T2 - Evaluating the impacts of an electronic mediator on negotiating behavior
AU - Druckman, Daniel
AU - Druckman, James N.
AU - Arai, Tatsushi
N1 - Funding Information:
This article was presented by Daniel Druckman as a keynote address to the Group Decision and Negotiation program at EURO/INFORMS, Istanbul, July, 2003. Thanks are extended to Melissa Burn and Richard Harris for their work on the Negotiation Support System. James N. Druckman acknowledges support from the University of Minnesota McKnight Land-Grant Professorship. Daniel Druckman and Tatsushi Arai acknowledge the support of the George Mason University Vernon M. and Minnie I. Lynch chair endowment. Thanks also to Jon Wilkenfeld for providing us the opportunity to conduct Experiments II and III at the University of Maryland.
PY - 2004/11
Y1 - 2004/11
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Electronic mediation
KW - Experimental evaluation
KW - Impasse resolution
KW - Mediator functions
KW - Negotiating flexibility
KW - Outcomes
KW - Perceptions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=17544368764&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=17544368764&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10726-005-2125-2
DO - 10.1007/s10726-005-2125-2
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:17544368764
SN - 0926-2644
VL - 13
SP - 481
EP - 511
JO - Group Decision and Negotiation
JF - Group Decision and Negotiation
IS - 6
ER -
