Advertisement

Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 21–32 | Cite as

Reducing Demand for Litigation in Consumer Disputes—a Randomized Field Experiment with Social Information

  • Andreas Maaløe JespersenEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

It has long been argued that alternative dispute resolution is superior to traditional court litigation. The paper reviews traditional and behavioural arguments and findings for why litigation rates remain high. The paper then reports on a natural field experiment designed to test how to improve disputes between consumers and businesses in Denmark resolution by including social information into the dispute process. The experiment demonstrates that social information significantly affects litigants’ need for litigation, but that the effect on settlement rates is non-significant. The results are discussed along with suggestions for possible future research into improving the willingness to cooperate in consumer disputes.

Keywords

Consumer policy Alternative dispute resolution Negotiation theory Behavioural law and economics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Andreas Maaløe Jespersen is a Ph.D. student at the Roskilde University, Department of Communication and Arts (Anmaje@ruc.dk). I am grateful to the Danish Consumer and Competition Authority for the opportunity to collaborate on the experiment, as well as to Pelle Guldborg Hansen, Katrine Lund Skov, and Laurits Rohden Skov for insightful comments throughout the process. Finnally, I must thank the two anonymous reviewers for truly constructive and helpful criticism.

References

  1. Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., & Issacharoff, S. (1997). Creating convergence: Debiasing biased litigants. Law & Social Inquiry, 22(4), 913–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. (2009). The importance of default options for retirement saving outcomes: Evidence from the United States. In Social security policy in a changing environment (pp. 167–195). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bicchieri, C., & Xiao, E. (2009). Do the right thing: But only if others do so. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(2), 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovens, L. (2009). The ethics of nudge. In T. Grüne-Yanoff & S. O. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology, (pp. 207-219). Dordrecht et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z. I., & Goldberg, S. B. (1996). The effectiveness of mediation: An independent analysis of cases handled by four major service providers. Negotiation Journal, 12(3), 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooter, R., Marks, S., & Mnookin, R. (1982). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: A testable model of strategic behavior. The Journal of Legal Studies, 11(2), 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldin, J. (2015). Which way to nudge? Uncovering preferences in the behavioral age. The Yale Law Journal, 125(1), 226–270.Google Scholar
  11. Goodman-Delahunty, J., Granhag, P. A., Hartwig, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2010). Insightful or wishful: Lawyers’ ability to predict case outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(2), 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013). Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1), 3–28.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harvey, N. (1997). Confidence in judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(2), 78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hausman, D. M., & Welch, B. (2010). Debate: To nudge or not to nudge. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Medicine: Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karakostas, A., & Zizzo, D. J. (2016). Compliance and the power of authority. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 124, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, J., & McCrudden, C. (2016). The dark side of nudging: The ethics, political economy, and law of libertarian paternalism. In A. Kemmerer, C. Möllers, M. Steinbeis, & G. Wagner (Eds.), Choice architecture in democracies (pp. 75–140). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2), 502–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Posner, R. A. (2011). Economic analysis of law (8th Ed.). New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
  22. Robbennolt, J. K. (2014). Litigation and settlement. In E. Zamir & D. Teichman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Saghai, Y. (2013). Salvaging the concept of nudge. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(8), 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Selinger, E., & Whyte, K. (2011). Is there a right way to nudge? The practice and ethics of choice architecture. Sociology Compass, 5(10), 923–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spier, K. E. (2007). Litigation. In A. M. Polinsky & S. Shavell (Eds.), Handbook of law and economics (pp. 259–342). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudges vs. shoves. Harvard Law Review Forum, 127(6).Google Scholar
  27. Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2013). Green by default. Kyklos, 66(3), 398–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge - Improving decisions on health, wealth and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Watkins, D. (2009). A nudge to mediate: How adjustments in choice architecture can lead to better dispute resolution decisions. The American Journal of Mediation, 1545(1991), 1–22.Google Scholar
  30. Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilson, R. (1995). Strategic and informational barriers to negotiation. In K. Arrow, R. H. Mnookin, L. Ross, A. Tversky, & R. Wilson (Eds.), Barriers to conflict resolution (pp. 109–119). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations