Some Determinants of Preference for Modes of Conflict Resolution
- 1 June 1976
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Conflict Resolution
- Vol. 20 (2) , 319-356
- https://doi.org/10.1177/002200277602000206
Abstract
This experimental study manipulated presence or absence of temporal urgency, presence or absence of a judgmental standard, and the correspondence or noncorrespondence of outcomes among disputants in a factorial design to assess their effects on preferences for five dispute-resolution procedures arranged along a continuum of decreasing third-party intervention: autocratic decision-making, arbitration, a moot, mediation, and bargaining. Arbitration was the most generally preferred means of settlement, followed in order by the moot, mediation, autocratic, and bargaining procedures. The independent variables modified these preferences, however, such that procedures with a high degree of third-party intervention were preferred more when there was temporal urgency, outcome noncorrespondence, and a standard. Interactions revealed that correspondence affected preferences only when there was no temporal urgency, and presence-absence of a standard affected preferences only when there was temporal urgency and outcome correspondence.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974
- Procedural Justice as FairnessStanford Law Review, 1974
- Bias in the Analysis of Repeated-Measures Designs: Some Alternative ApproachesChild Development, 1973
- Cognitive conflict between persons: Application of the “lens model” paradigmJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966
- Interpersonal conflict in cooperative and uncertain situationsJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965
- The Calculus of ConsentPublished by University of Michigan Library ,1960
- Techniques of attitude scale construction.Published by American Psychological Association (APA) ,1957
- Informal social communication.Psychological Review, 1950