Electronically-Mediated Dispute Resolution and E-Commerce

Abstract

Although the volume of internet commerce continues to increase, some consumers hesitate to conduct business transactions on the internet because of concerns about the trustworthiness of on-line merchants. The presence of readily available, on-line dispute resolution services can send a reassuring signal to consumers that allays their fears and encourages them to do business on-line. However, on-line dispute resolution systems designed to address disputes arising from e-commerce transactions rely on a communication medium that is impoverished, which can lead to lower trust in the process, and to the escalation of negative emotion and negative attributions about the other participants in the dispute resolution process, making successful resolution of the dispute more difficult. A mediator or arbitrator in an on-line setting who is aware of these potential problems can try to avert them by engaging in simple rapport-building procedures. However, facilitating acceptance of on-line dispute resolution decisions may be more difficult than in a traditional face-to-face environment because of the absence of cues that communicate the trustworthiness and neutrality of the third party, as well as acknowledgment of the societal standing of the disputant.

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

REFERENCES

  1. Cyberatlas 1999, August 5. B2B commerce boom expected. Retrieved November 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/b2b/article/0,,10091_153081,00.html

  2. Cyberatlas 1999, January 26. Better than clearance sales e-tailing's future lies in auctions. Retrieved November 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/retailing/ article/0,,6061_153431,00.html

  3. Cyberatlas 2000, October 25. E-commerce, mobile access drawing interest from net users. Retrieved November 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographics/ article/0,,5911_494701,00.html

  4. Drolet, A. L. and M.W. Morris 2000. Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how nonverbal exchange fosters cooperation on mutual beneficial settlements to mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36: 26-50.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dubrovsky, V. J., S. Kiesler, and B.N. Sethna. 1991. The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and fact-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction 6: 119-146.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eudora 5.0: Moodwatch. N.d. Qualcomm. Retrieved November 1, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.eudora.com/email/features/moodwatch.html#foot1

  7. Fortune, A. and S. E. Brodt. 2000. Face-to-face or virtually, for the second time around: The influence of task, past experience, and media on trust and deception in negotiation. Working paper, Duke University.

  8. Guidelines for Merchant-to-Consumer Transactions and Commentary. 2000. Electronic Commerce and Consumer Protection Group. Retrieved November 1, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ecommercegroup.org/guidelines.htm

  9. Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Katsh, E. and J. Rifkin. 2001. Online dispute resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Katsh, E., J. Rifkin, and A. Gaitenby. 2000. E-commerce, e-disputes, and e-dispute resolution: In the shadow of “eBay law.” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 15: 705-734.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Landry, E. M. 2000. Scrolling around the new organization: The potential for conflict in the on-line environment. Negotiation Journal 16: 133-142.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lind, E. A. 1996. Procedural justice, disputing, and reactions to legal authorities. In Everyday practices and trouble cases, edited by A. Sarat, M. Constable, D. Engel, V. Hans, and S. Lawrence. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lind, E. A. and T. R. Tyler, 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lind, E. A., R. Kanfer, and P.C. Earley. 1990. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 952-959.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lind, E. A., C. Kulik, M. Ambrose, and M. Park, 1993. Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 224-251.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lind, E. A., R. J. MacCoun, P. E. Ebener, W. L. Felstiner, D. R. Hensler, J. Resnik, and R. R. Tyler. 1990. In the eye of the beholder: Tort litigants’ evaluations of their experiences in the civil justice system. Law & Society Review 24: 953-996.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lisco, K. C. 2000. Comments made during presentation at auctions and negotiations.com: a conference on electronic exchange. Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. 15 September 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  19. MacCoun, R., E.A. Lind, and T. Tyler 1992. Alternative dispute resolution in the courts. In Handbook of psychology and law, edited by D.R. Kagehiro and W.S. Laufer. New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moore, D., T. Kurtzberg, L. Thompson, and M.W. Morris. 1999. Long and short routes to success in electronically-mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes 77: 22-43.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Morris, M., J. Nadler, T. Kurtzberg, and L. Thompson, 2002. Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics 6.

  22. Nua Internet Surveys. 2000 (November 16). B2C worth USD56 billion in 2000. Retrieved 25 November 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nua.net/surveys/?f=VS&art_id= 905356175&prel=true

  23. Shapiro, D. L. and J. M. Brett, 1993. Comparing three processes underlying judgments of procedural justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 1167-1177.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thompson, L., V. H. Medvec, V. Seiden, and S. Kopelman. 2001. Poker face, smiley face, and rant ‘n’ rave: Myths and realities about emotion in negotiation. In Blackwell's handbook in social psychology: Group processes, vol. 3, edited by M. Hugg and S. Tindale. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Thompson, L. and J. Nadler. 2002. Negotiating via information technology: Theory and application. Journal of Social Issues 58.

  26. Tyler, T. R. and E. A. Lind, 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. In Advances in experimental social psycology, vol. 25, edited by M. Zanna. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tyler, T. R. 1990. Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tyler, T. R., K. Rasinski, and N. Spodick. 1985. The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 72-81.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Nadler, J. Electronically-Mediated Dispute Resolution and E-Commerce. Negotiation Journal 17, 333–347 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014534707294

Download citation

Keywords

  • Resolution System
  • Negative Emotion
  • Potential Problem
  • Communication Medium
  • Dispute Resolution