IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v30y2021i2d10.1007_s10726-020-09716-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Druckman

    (George Mason University
    Macquarie University
    University of Queensland)

  • Lin Adrian

    (University of Copenhagen)

  • Malene Flensborg Damholdt

    (University of Aarhus)

  • Michael Filzmoser

    (Technical University of Vienna)

  • Sabine T. Koszegi

    (Technical University of Vienna)

  • Johanna Seibt

    (University of Aarhus)

  • Christina Vestergaard

    (University of Aarhus)

Abstract

The impacts of various mediation platforms on negotiation outcomes and perceptions are compared in this article. The mediator platforms contrasted were a (teleoperated) Telenoid robot, a human, and a computer screen. All of these platforms used the same script for process diagnosis, analysis, and advice on how to resolve an impasse in a simulated high-tech company de-merger negotiation. A fourth experimental condition consisted of a no-mediation control. More agreements and more integrative agreements were attained by the robotic platform than by the other types of mediator platforms and the control. Mediation via the Telenoid robot also produced more non-structured agreements, which consisted of decisions made outside of the scenario options. Negotiators in this condition had more positive perceptions of the mediation experience, were more satisfied with the outcome, and thought that the mediator’s advice was more useful. Indirect analyses showed that the outcomes mediated the effects of the conditions on perceived satisfaction. Implications of the findings are discussed in terms of responses to novelty, which include creative and divergent modes of thinking.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Druckman & Lin Adrian & Malene Flensborg Damholdt & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koszegi & Johanna Seibt & Christina Vestergaard, 2021. "Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 395-426, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09716-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-020-09716-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-020-09716-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-020-09716-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Druckman & James N. Druckman & Tatsushi Arai, 2004. "e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 481-511, November.
    2. Leonardelli, Geoffrey J. & Gu, Jun & McRuer, Geordie & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Galinsky, Adam D., 2019. "Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 64-83.
    3. Daniel Druckman & Bennett Ramberg & Richard Harris, 2002. "Computer-Assisted International Negotiation: A Tool for Research and Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 231-256, May.
    4. Jacob Bercovitch & Scott Sigmund Gartner, 2006. "Is There Method in the Madness of Mediation? Some Lessons for Mediators from Quantitative Studies of Mediation," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 329-354, December.
    5. Witt, Ulrich, 2009. "Propositions about novelty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 311-320, May.
    6. Daniel Druckman & Ronald Mitterhofer & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Resolving Impasses in e-Negotiation: Does e-Mediation Work?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 193-210, March.
    7. Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    8. Jan Krátký & John J McGraw & Dimitris Xygalatas & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Paul Reddish, 2016. "It Depends Who Is Watching You: 3-D Agent Cues Increase Fairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nørskov, Sladjana & Damholdt, Malene F. & Ulhøi, John P. & Jensen, Morten Berg & Mathiasen, Mia Krogager & Ess, Charles M. & Seibt, Johanna, 2022. "Employers’ and applicants’ fairness perceptions in job interviews: using a teleoperated robot as a fair proxy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Daniel Druckman & Fieke Harinck, 2022. "Trust Matters in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1179-1202, December.
    3. Araz Zirar, 2023. "Can artificial intelligence’s limitations drive innovative work behaviour?," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 2005-2034, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Debby Damen & Per Wijst & Marije Amelsvoort & Emiel Krahmer, 2020. "The Effect of Perspective-Taking on Trust and Understanding in Online and Face-to-Face Mediations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1121-1156, December.
    2. Schilling, Martin S. & Mulford, Matthew, 2007. "In search of value-for-money in collective bargaining: an analytic-interactive mediation process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Daniel Druckman & Ronald Mitterhofer & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Resolving Impasses in e-Negotiation: Does e-Mediation Work?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 193-210, March.
    4. Fieke Harinck & Daniel Druckman, 2019. "Values and Interests: Impacts of Affirming the Other and Mediation on Settlements," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 453-474, June.
    5. Johannes Gettinger & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Far from Eye, Far from Heart: Analysis of Graphical Decision Aids in Electronic Negotiation Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 787-817, July.
    6. Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Dhiaulhaq, Ahmad & Gritten, David & De Bruyn, Toon & Yasmi, Yurdi & Zazali, Ahmad & Silalahi, Mangarah, 2014. "Transforming conflict in plantations through mediation: Lessons and experiences from Sumatera, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 22-30.
    8. Cantner Uwe & Dosi Giovanni, 2014. "Guest Editorial," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 234(2-3), pages 116-119, April.
    9. Andrew P. Owsiak, 2015. "Forecasting conflict management in militarized interstate disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(1), pages 50-75, February.
    10. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2024. "Predicting the Unpredictable under Subjective Expected Utility," Papers 2403.01421, arXiv.org.
    11. Pierpaolo Andriani & Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, 2015. "Transactional innovation as performative action: transforming comparative advantage in the global coffee business," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 371-400, April.
    12. Molly M. Melin & Scott Sigmund Gartner & Jacob Bercovitch, 2013. "Fear of rejection: The puzzle of unaccepted mediation offers in international conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(4), pages 354-368, September.
    13. Kurt Dopfer & Jason Potts & Andreas Pyka, 2017. "Upward and Downward Complementarity: The Meso Core of Evolutionary Growth Theory," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 69-80, Springer.
    14. Jan M. Gerken & Martin G. Moehrle, 2012. "A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 645-670, June.
    15. Binder, Martin & Witt, Ulrich, 2012. "A critical note on the role of the capability approach for sustainability economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 721-725.
    16. Harper, David A. & Endres, Anthony M., 2012. "The anatomy of emergence, with a focus upon capital formation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 352-367.
    17. Frank Beckenbach & Maria Daskalakis & David Hofmann, 2012. "Agent-based modelling of novelty creating behavior and sectoral growth effects—Linking the creative and the destructive side of innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 513-542, July.
    18. Srivastava, Smita & Sahaym, Arvin & Allison, Thomas H., 2021. "Alert and Awake: Role of alertness and attention on rate of new product introductions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4).
    19. Renato Corbetta & Molly M. Melin, 2018. "Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(10), pages 2205-2231, November.
    20. Tussyadiah, Iis & Miller, Graham, 2019. "Nudged by a robot: Responses to agency and feedback," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09716-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.