ABSTRACT
The authors examined the impact of 2 hybrid dispute resolution procedures (mediation-arbitration [med-arb] and arbitration-mediation [arb-med]) and 3 disputant dyadic structures (individual vs. individual, individual vs. team, and team vs. team) on various dispute outcomes. Consistent with W. H. Ross and D. E. Conlon (2000), the authors found that disputants in the arb-med procedure (a) settled in the mediation phase of their procedure more frequently and (b) achieved settlements of higher joint benefit than did disputants in the med-arb procedure. These results suggest that arb-med may be a dispute resolution procedure with broader applicability than originally imagined.
Subject(s)
Negotiating , Conflict, Psychological , Humans , Random AllocationABSTRACT
Results of this experiment demonstrate that individualists and collectivists react differently to minority influence. Based on the distinction between objectivity and preference norms in the minority influence literature, we hypothesize that individualism and collectivism influence (A) responses to minority influence (focusing on the target of influence) and (B) effectiveness of minority influence (focusing on the influence agent). Our results replicate past research and demonstrate improved decision quality for individuals exposed to a minority perspective. Moreover, minority influence targets with high horizontal individualism and low horizontal collectivism made higher quality decisions. Influence targets with high vertical collectivism demonstrated higher quality decisions when the influence agent held a high status position in the group. Results also demonstrate that influence agents with high vertical individualism experienced less role stress than those with low vertical individualism. Finally, influence agents with low role stress were more effective in influencing the decision making of others. We discuss our findings in terms of boundary conditions to the minority influence process. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
