Although it is widely recognized that the behavior of mediators in resolving disputes is often contingent on the characteristics of disputes, little systematic research has examined mediators' perceptions of the contingent use or effectiveness of their behavior. We surveyed 255 professional mediators about the features of the disputes they encountered, the tactics they used, and the outcomes they achieved in their most recently completed case. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test a hypothesized factor structure for mediator behavior, and exploratory factor analyses provided information about the underlying structures of dispute features and mediation outcomes. The results of the factor analyses served as the basis for an assessment of perceived contingencies among dispute sources, mediator tactics, and outcomes. The results of correlational analyses suggest that the mediators used many tactics contingently. The results of moderated multiple regression analyses indicate that mediators believed some tactics were effective in certain dispute situations and not in others. Tactics viewed as positively related with success in some disputes were viewed as unrelated or even negatively related with success in other disputes.Mediation has long been regarded as an effective technique for helping people resolve disputes in organizational and other settings. It is probably best known as a component of collective bargaining in formal labor-management interactions, and there is growing interest in mediation as an informal mechanism of coordinating social and organizational goals (Kressel & Pruitt, 1989). However, research on mediation is in its infancy. In this article, we report an exploratory empirical investigation of mediation as it is practiced in an assortment of arenas, including labor, marital, community, judicial, family, environmental, marketplace, and landlord-tenant disputes.Many writers have acknowledged that mediators often use strategies and tactics contingent on the dispute situation (Car-
Recent legal developments appear to sanction the use of psychometrically unsound procedures for examining differential item functioning (DIP) on standardized tests. More appropriate approaches involve the use of item response theory (IRT). However, many IRT-based DIP studies have used Lord's (1968) joint maximum likelihood procedure, which can lead to incorrect and misleading results. A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of two other methods of parameter estimation: marginal maximum likelihood estimation and Bayes modal estimation. Sample size and data dimensionality were manipulated in the simulation. Results indicated that both estimation methods (a) provided more accurate parameter estimates and less inflated Type I error rates than joint maximum likelihood, (b) were robust to multidimensionality, and (c) produced more accurate parameter estimates and higher rates of identifying DIP with larger samples. This research is based on Rodney G. Lim's thesis for the Master of Arts degree.We would like to thank David Harrison and Mary McLaughlin for their technical assistance, and Charles Hulin for his insightful and helpful comments.
The contingency approach to research on mediation has become increasingly popular in recent years. In building contingency models, researchers have used general mediation strategies to organize mediation tactics. However, none of the extant organizing schemes have been verified empirically. In the present study, 54 active professional mediators sorted 36 mediation tactics into as many mutually exclusive categories as they wanted. A matrix of tactic similarities was derived from the aggregate data. Multidimensional scaling and clustering analyses were used to identify structure in the matrix. The best scaling solution yielded three dimensions, labeled substantive-reflexive, affective-cognitive, and forcing-facilitating. Hierarchical clustering provided strong support for Kressel and Pruitt's (1985) categories: reflexive, substantive, and contextual.
The individual and joint effects of overconfidence and aspirations on negotiator performance were examined. Past research has suggested that negotiator overconfidence impedes effective dispute resolution. It is argued here, however, that overconfidence may not impair negotiator performance in all situations and may actually be beneficial in some. Specifically, the dual concern model offers a framework for predicting negotiator outcomes as a function of overconfidence and aspiration difficulty. Face‐to‐face buyer‐seller negotiations were conducted between different combinations of over‐ and realistically‐confident negotiators. Hypotheses involving the impact of overconfidence and aspiration difficulty on the key constructs of the dual concern model were supported Predictions involving their subsequent effects on negotiator performance, however, were not supported, although this lack of support appeared to stem from unresponsiveness on the part of sellers only. Even though overconfident negotiators fared no worse than realistically confident negotiators regardless of aspiration difficulty or the appropriateness of their opponent's confidence, they did not fare any better either. A variety of theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.