ADR Empirical Research Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ADR Empirical Research Studies (Summer 2013-Summer 2017) James Coben, Professor, Mitchell Hamline School of Law ([email protected]) Donna Steinstra, Senior Researcher, Federal Judicial Center ([email protected]) Beginning in summer 2013, we have co-edited Research Insights, a regular column in the American Bar Association’s DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE (DRM). Twice a year we choose 10-12 empirical research studies relevant to ADR professionals and publish the citation and abstract. To compile the longer list from which we choose our subset for publication in the column, we’ve cast a fairly wide net looking for published research in a variety of fields, including social psychology, cognitive science, consumer research, law, economics, sociology, and political science. We know we haven’t captured every study published in the last five years, but the current list has grown quite large – now just short of 300 entries. We’re hoping you (and/or your students) might find our list helpful for your own research, teaching/training, and writing projects. We’ve organized them here by topic1 (and within topic, by year published [most recent first]), providing citation, the published abstract, and the DRM issue in which the abstract was published. We’ll be updating the list twice a year (you can always find the most current version on the Mitchell Hamline Dispute Resolution Institute website [ http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/dri_empirical/ ]. In the meantime, if you notice a relevant empirical research study that we’ve omitted, please let us know and we’ll add it to the list. Thanks! Apology ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Arbitration: General ................................................................................................................. 5 Arbitration: International/Investment Treaty ........................................................................ 9 Arbitration: Employment ....................................................................................................... 19 Arbitration: Consumer ........................................................................................................... 21 Conflict Theory/Systems Design ............................................................................................ 23 Courts & Litigant Preferences ............................................................................................... 30 Ethics/Deception ...................................................................................................................... 39 Mediation: General ................................................................................................................. 45 Mediation: Global .................................................................................................................... 51 Mediation: Family ................................................................................................................... 55 Negotiation: General ............................................................................................................... 58 Negotiation: Opening offers, Anchoring and Framing ........................................................ 67 Negotiation: Gender, Race & Culture ................................................................................... 71 Negotiation: Emotion .............................................................................................................. 83 Negotiation: Power Dynamics ................................................................................................ 92 Negotiation: Trust ................................................................................................................... 94 Ombuds .................................................................................................................................... 96 Online Dispute Resolution ...................................................................................................... 97 Persuasion and Decision-Making ......................................................................................... 100 Restorative Justice ................................................................................................................. 114 1 To keep the list length manageable, we’ve listed each study only once (notwithstanding we recognize that quite a few might be relevant in multiple categories). 1 APOLOGY An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies Roy Lewicki, Beth Polin & Robert Lount, Jr. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(2): 177–196 (May 2016) Violations of trust are an unfortunate but common occurrence in conflict and negotiation settings: negotiators make promises that they do not keep; parties in conflict behave in unexpected ways, escalating tensions and breaking past trust. What often follows these violations is some form of an account, specifically an apology, in an effort to repair that trust. But are some apologies more effective than others? Two studies reported here examine the structural components of apologies. Six components of an apology were defined from previous research and presented to subjects—singly and in combination—in the form of component definitions and in the context of a trust violation scenario. Results indicate that not all apologies are viewed equally; apologies with more components were more effective than those with fewer components, and certain components were deemed more important than others. Moreover, apologies following competence-based trust violations were seen as more effective than apologies following integrity-based violations. Implications and future directions for research in the structure of effective apologies are presented. [DRM Summer 2016] Forgiveness is Not Always Divine: When Expressing Forgiveness Makes Others Avoid You Gabrielle Adams, Xi Zou, M. Ena Inesi & Madan M. Pillutla Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 126: 130–141 (2015) Organizational scholars have recently become interested in forgiveness as a way to resolve workplace conflicts and repair relationships. We question the assumption that forgiveness always has these relational benefits. In three studies we investigated participants’ responses to people who expressed forgiveness of them versus those who did not. We found that when the ostensible transgressor did not believe he or she had committed a wrongdoing, expressing forgiveness damaged the relationship relative to a control condition. This effect occurred when participants were made to believe that a real person had forgiven them (Studies 1 and 2) and when they imagined a co-worker had forgiven them (Study 3). Furthermore, in the absence of wrongdoing, participants’ perceptions of the forgiver as self-righteous mediated the effect of forgiveness on avoidance of forgivers (Studies 2 and 3). We discuss implications for conflict management. Apologies Demanded Yet Devalued: Normative Dilution in the Age of Apology Tyler G. Okimoto, Michael Wenzel, Matthew J. Hornsey Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60: 133-136 (September 2015) Dramatic increases in the issuance of political apologies over the last two decades mean that we now live in the “age of apology”. But what does this surge in frequency mean for the effectiveness of intergroup apologies in promoting forgiveness? In the current research we propose a paradoxical “normative dilution” effect whereby behavioral norms increase the perceived appropriateness of an action while at the same time reducing its symbolic value. We experimentally manipulated the salience of the age-of-apology norm prior to assessing participant (N = 128) reactions to past unjust treatment of ingroup POWs by the Japanese during WWII. The apologetic norm increased victim group members' desire for an apology in response to the harm. However, after reading the actual apology, the invocation of the norm decreased 2 perceived apology sincerity and subsequent willingness to forgive. Thus, although apologetic trends may suggest greater contemporary interest in seeking reconciliation and harmony, their inflationary use risks devaluing apologies and undermining their effectiveness. Saving Face? When Emotion Displays During Public Apologies Mitigate Damage to Organizational Performance Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 130: 1-12 (September 2015) Leanne ten Brinke & Gabrielle S. Adams In the wake of corporate transgressions and scandals, how do apologizers’ expressed emotions affect investors’ perceptions of the organization in question? We analyzed the market effects of normative versus deviant facial affect expressed during apologies for corporate wrongdoing. Archival data revealed that the expression of deviant affect was associated with decreased investor confidence in the form of negative stock market returns; adverse financial effects persisted up to three months post-apology. Moreover, this effect was exacerbated when a company representative with greater responsibility within the organization delivered the apology. Experimental data further revealed that third parties interpreted deviant affect (smiling) as a signal of insincerity, which reduced their confidence in these representatives’ organizations. Ultimately, we find that subtle emotion expressions are detected by stakeholders, signal insincerity, and have important consequences for organizations. We suggest that organizations must carefully