ADR Empirical Research Studies (Summer 2013-Fall 2020)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mitchell Hamline School of Law Mitchell Hamline Open Access ADR Empirical Research Studies DRI Projects 1-2021 ADR Empirical Research Studies (Summer 2013-Fall 2020) James Coben Mitchell Hamline School of Law, [email protected] Donna Stienstra Follow this and additional works at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/dri_empirical Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Coben, James and Stienstra, Donna, "ADR Empirical Research Studies (Summer 2013-Fall 2020)" (2021). ADR Empirical Research Studies. 1. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/dri_empirical/1 This Abstract and Citation is brought to you for free and open access by the DRI Projects at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in ADR Empirical Research Studies by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADR Empirical Research Studies (Summer 2013-Fall 2020) James Coben, Professor, Mitchell Hamline School of Law ([email protected]) Donna Stienstra, 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 empirical study published in the last seven years, but the current list has grown quite large – now in excess of 500 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 ................................................................................................................. 6 Arbitration: International/Investment Treaty ...................................................................... 15 Arbitration: Employment ....................................................................................................... 28 Arbitration: Consumer ........................................................................................................... 31 Around the World ................................................................................................................... 32 Conflict Theory/Systems Design ............................................................................................ 41 Courts & Litigant Preferences ............................................................................................... 57 Ethics/Deception ...................................................................................................................... 71 Facilitation ................................................................................................................................ 86 Mediation: General ................................................................................................................. 87 Mediation: Global .................................................................................................................... 97 Mediation: Family ................................................................................................................. 104 Negotiation: General ............................................................................................................. 108 Negotiation: Opening offers, Anchoring and Framing ...................................................... 132 Negotiation: Gender, Race & Culture ................................................................................. 139 Negotiation: Anger and Emotion ......................................................................................... 155 Negotiation: Power Dynamics .............................................................................................. 170 Negotiation: Trust ................................................................................................................. 174 Ombuds .................................................................................................................................. 181 Online Dispute Resolution .................................................................................................... 182 Persuasion and Decision-Making ......................................................................................... 189 Restorative Justice ................................................................................................................. 225 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 To Be Or Not To Be Sorry? How CEO Gender Impacts the Effectiveness of Organizational Apologies Amanda P. Cowen & Nicole Votolato Montgomery Journal of Applied Psychology 105(2): 196–208 (February 2020) We examine whether consumer reactions to a product failure are affected by the gender of the CEO to whom the organization’s postfailure communications are attributed. We find that CEO gender and response type interact to affect both consumers’ perceptions of the organization, and their propensity to purchase from it following a product failure. Specifically, consumers’ reactions to unqualified apologies versus other types of accommodative responses do not differ when these responses are attributed to male CEOs. However, unqualified apologies are generally more successful for female CEOs than alternative responses. We show that such differences can be attenuated by increasing perceptions of a female CEO as agentic. We attribute these findings to consumers’ perceptions of how fairly they have been treated by an organization in the wake of a failure (i.e., interactional fairness). Our findings contribute to the crisis management literature by demonstrating how personal characteristics can shape the effectiveness of organizations’ crisis response strategies, thereby highlighting one implication of CEOs’ growing public visibility. In doing so, our findings also advance research on female CEOs and how gender-based expectations may impact organizational outcomes. A Long Time Coming: Delays in Collective Apologies and Their Effects on Sincerity and Forgiveness Michael Wenzel, Ellie Lawrence‐Wood, Tyler G. Okimoto & Matthew J. Hornsey Political Psychology 39(3): 649-666 (June 2018) Political apologies by one group to another often occur a significant period of time after the original transgression. What effect does such a delay have on perceptions of sincerity and forgiveness? A delayed apology could reflect the offender group's reluctance to apologize, or, alternatively, it could represent time and consideration spent on developing an appropriate response. In the latter case, the delayed apology would represent a sincere acknowledgment of the harm done, whereas in the former case it would not. In two studies, we found that a verbal collective apology, when delayed, was perceived to be less sincere than when offered more immediately following a transgression, and this translated to less forgiveness. However, in Study 2, the negative effects of time delay on sincerity and forgiveness were mitigated or reversed when the apology was in the form of commemoration. The commemorative apology, in particular when delayed, gave rise to favorable attributions (including representativeness of apologizing group, commitment to remember, and giving voice to victims), which mediated the effects on sincerity. The results suggest that collective apologies that are offered with considerable delay appear less meaningful and less deserving of a forgiving response, unless the apologizing group is able to express consideration and thoughtfulness through the apology process. 2 Prosocial Response to Client-Instigated Victimization: The Roles of Forgiveness and Workgroup Conflict Jonathan D. Booth, Tae-Youn Park, Luke (Lei) Zhu, T. Alexandra Beauregard, Fan Gu & Cécile Emery Journal of Applied Psychology 103(5): 513-536 (May 2018) We investigate forgiveness as a human service employee coping response to client- instigated victimizations and further explore the role of workgroup conflict in (a) facilitating this response, and (b) influencing the relationship between victimization and workplace outcomes. Using the theoretical lens of Conservation of Resources (Hobfoll, 1989), we propose that employees forgive clients—especially in the context of low workgroup conflict. From low to moderate levels of client-instigated