Skip to main content
Log in

e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bajwa, D. and F. Lewis. (2002). “Current Status of Information Technologies Used in Support of Task-Oriented Collaboration,” in R.H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, A. A. and D. Druckman. (1973). “Salient Solutions and the Bargaining Behavior of Representatives and Non-Representatives,” International Journal of Group Tensions 3, 28-39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beriker, N. and D. Druckman. (1996). “Simulating the Lausanne Peace Negotiations, 1922–23: Power Asymmetries in Bargaining,” Simulation & Gaming 27, 162-183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonham, G. M. (1993). “Cognitive Mapping as a Technique for Supporting International Negotiation,” Theory and Decision 34, 255-273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M., D. Canavan, and J. Z. Rubin. (1971). “The Effects of Size of Conflict and Sex of Experimenter upon Interpersonal Bargaining,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 7, 258-267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. (2002). “Settlements and Resolutions: Consequences of Negotiation Processes in the Laboratory and in the Field,” International Negotiation 7, 313-338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. (1997). “Dimensions of International Negotiations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes,” Group Decision and Negotiation 6, 395-420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. (1994). “Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Bargaining: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38, 507-556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. (1978). “The Monitoring Function in Negotiation: Two Models of Responsiveness,” in H. Sauermann (Ed.), Bargaining Behavior. Tubingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. (1971). “The Influence of the Situation in Interparty Conflict,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 15, 523-554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. (1968). “Prenegotiation Experience and Dyadic Conflict Resolution in a Bargaining Situation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4, 367-383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. and C. Mitchell. (1995). “Flexibility in Negotiation and Mediation,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 542, 10-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., B. Broome, and S. H. Korper. (1988). “Value Differences and Conflict Resolution: Facilitation or Delinking?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 32, 489-510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., B. Ramberg, and R. Harris. (2002). “Computer-Assisted International Negotiation: A Tool for Research and Practice,” Group Decision and Negotiation 11, 231-256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., R. M. Rozelle, and K. Zechmeister. (1977). “Conflict of Interest and Value Dissensus: Two Perspectives,” in D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D. D. ‘An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Various Types and Degrees of Communication Opportunity on Conflict Between Groups,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.

  • Erickson, T. and S. Herring (Eds.) (1999). “Persistent Conversation,” Special Issue of the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 4(4).

  • Evan, W. M. and J. A. MacDougall. (1967). “Interorganizational Conflict: A Labor-Management Bargaining Experiment,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 11, 398-413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. (1964). “Fractionating Conflict,” in R. Fisher (Ed.), International Conflict and Behavioral Science: The Craigville Papers. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, P. T. (1995). “Two Paradigms of Negotiation: Bargaining and Problem Solving,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 542, 24-47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, D. (1981). “Intraparty Dissensus and Interparty Conflict Resolution,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 25, 471-494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, L. (1979). “Bargaining Strategies and Strategic Arms Limitations.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

  • Kersten, G. E. (1993). “Negotiation Support: Development of Representations and Reasoning,” Theory and Decision 34, 293-311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, N. H., J. A. Wall, D.-W. Sohn, and J. S. Kim. (1993). “Community and Industrial Mediation in South Korea,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37, 361-381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowert. P. A. and M. G. Hermann. (1997). “Who Takes Risks?: Daring and Caution in Foreign Policy Making,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41, 611-637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, R. M. and M. Deutsch. (1966). “Communication in Interpersonal Bargaining,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4, 572-577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kressel, K., E. A. Frontera, S. Forlenza, F. Butler and L. Fish. (1994). “The Settlement Orientation Versus the Problem-Solving Style in Custody Mediation,” Journal of Social Issues 50, 67-84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., D. M. Webster, and A. Klem. (1993). “Motivated Resistance and Openness to Persuasion in the Presence or Absence of Prior Information,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 861-876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E.-J. and C. Nass. (2002). “Experimental Tests of Normative Group Influence and Representation Effects in Computer-Mediated Communication: When Interaction via Computers Differs from Interacting with Computers,” Human Communication Research 28, 349-381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. L. (1959). “Communication, the Development of Trust, and Cooperative Behavior,” Human Relations 12, 108-118.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. and J. Cowden. (2001). “The Impact of Uncertainty and Sex in a Crisis Simulation Game,” International Interactions 27, 353-380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1971). “Some Variables Affecting Boundary Role Behavior,” Sociometry 34, 524-537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plous, S. (1987). “Perceived Illusions and Military Readiness: A Computer Simulated Arms Race,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 31, 5-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samarasan, D. K. (1993). “Analysis, Modeling, and the Management of International Negotiations,” Theory and Decision 34, 275-291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, M. (1999). “An ESD Computer Culture for Intercultural Problem Solving and Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 237-249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieck, W. and J. F. Yates. (1997). “Exposition Effects on Decision Making: Choice and Confidence in Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70, 207-219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. and N. J. Castellan, Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulvila, J. W. (1990). “Turning Points: An Analysis,” in J. W. McDonald and D. B. Bendahmane (Eds.), U.S. Base Rights Overseas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, J. A. and M. Blum. (1991). “Community Mediation in the People’s Republic of China,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 35, 3-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, J. A. and A. Lynn. (1993). “Mediation: A Current Review,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37, 160-194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, S., Q. Jones, and L. Terveen. (2002). “Managing Long Term Communications: Conversation and Contact Management,” in R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35 th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wichman, H. (1970). “Effects of Isolation and Communication on a Two-Person Game,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16, 114-120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicki, A. P., L. Krus, and M. Makowski. (1993). “The Role of Multi-Objective Optimization in Negotiation and Mediation Support,” Theory and Decision 34, 201-214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winham, G. R. (1977). “Complexity in International Negotiation,” in D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zartman, I. W. and M. R. Berman. (1982). The Practical Negotiator. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Druckman, D., Druckman, J.N. & Arai, T. e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior. Group Decis Negot 13, 481–511 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-2125-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-2125-2

Navigation