Premium
The Impact of Hybrid Dispute‐Resolution Procedures on Constituent Fairness Judgments 1
Author(s) -
Ross William H.,
Brantmeier Cheryl,
Ciriacks Tina
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
journal of applied social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.822
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1559-1816
pISSN - 0021-9029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01430.x
Subject(s) - confidentiality , mediation , arbitration , third party , psychology , social psychology , distributive property , law , business , law and economics , political science , economics , computer science , internet privacy , mathematics , pure mathematics
The authors investigated the effects of hybrid third‐party procedures on constituents' procedural and distributive fairness judgments. In Experiment 1, three independent variables were manipulated: third‐party procedure (Med–Arb vs. Arb–Med), concession making during mediation (concessions vs. no concessions), and role (labor vs. management). Participants viewed Med–Arb as fairer than Arb–Med. In Experiment 2, three factors were again manipulated: third‐party procedure (Med–Arb vs. Arb–Med), whether confidential information was revealed during mediation (confidential information revealed vs. not revealed), and arbitration outcomes (winning vs. losing). Results suggest that when no confidential information was revealed, Med–Arb was significantly fairer than Arb–Med, but if confidential information was revealed, then both procedures were equally fair. Results are discussed in terms of procedural design.