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.
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.
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.
Beriker, N. and D. Druckman. (1996). “Simulating the Lausanne Peace Negotiations, 1922–23: Power Asymmetries in Bargaining,” Simulation & Gaming 27, 162-183.
Bonham, G. M. (1993). “Cognitive Mapping as a Technique for Supporting International Negotiation,” Theory and Decision 34, 255-273.
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.
Druckman, D. (2002). “Settlements and Resolutions: Consequences of Negotiation Processes in the Laboratory and in the Field,” International Negotiation 7, 313-338.
Druckman, D. (1997). “Dimensions of International Negotiations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes,” Group Decision and Negotiation 6, 395-420.
Druckman, D. (1994). “Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Bargaining: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38, 507-556.
Druckman, D. (1978). “The Monitoring Function in Negotiation: Two Models of Responsiveness,” in H. Sauermann (Ed.), Bargaining Behavior. Tubingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr.
Druckman, D. (1971). “The Influence of the Situation in Interparty Conflict,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 15, 523-554.
Druckman, D. (1968). “Prenegotiation Experience and Dyadic Conflict Resolution in a Bargaining Situation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4, 367-383.
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.
Druckman, D., B. Broome, and S. H. Korper. (1988). “Value Differences and Conflict Resolution: Facilitation or Delinking?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 32, 489-510.
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.
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.
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.
Fisher, R. (1964). “Fractionating Conflict,” in R. Fisher (Ed.), International Conflict and Behavioral Science: The Craigville Papers. New York: Basic Books.
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.
Jacobson, D. (1981). “Intraparty Dissensus and Interparty Conflict Resolution,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 25, 471-494.
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.
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.
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.
Krauss, R. M. and M. Deutsch. (1966). “Communication in Interpersonal Bargaining,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4, 572-577.
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.
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.
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.
Loomis, J. L. (1959). “Communication, the Development of Trust, and Cooperative Behavior,” Human Relations 12, 108-118.
McDermott, R. and J. Cowden. (2001). “The Impact of Uncertainty and Sex in a Crisis Simulation Game,” International Interactions 27, 353-380.
Organ, D. W. (1971). “Some Variables Affecting Boundary Role Behavior,” Sociometry 34, 524-537.
Plous, S. (1987). “Perceived Illusions and Military Readiness: A Computer Simulated Arms Race,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 31, 5-33.
Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Samarasan, D. K. (1993). “Analysis, Modeling, and the Management of International Negotiations,” Theory and Decision 34, 275-291.
Shakun, M. (1999). “An ESD Computer Culture for Intercultural Problem Solving and Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 237-249.
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.
Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Siegel, S. and N. J. Castellan, Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
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.
Wall, J. A. and M. Blum. (1991). “Community Mediation in the People’s Republic of China,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 35, 3-20.
Wall, J. A. and A. Lynn. (1993). “Mediation: A Current Review,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37, 160-194.
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.
Wichman, H. (1970). “Effects of Isolation and Communication on a Two-Person Game,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16, 114-120.
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.
Winham, G. R. (1977). “Complexity in International Negotiation,” in D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Zartman, I. W. and M. R. Berman. (1982). The Practical Negotiator. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-2125-2