Suchergebnisse

In two experiments on reactions to persistent annoyance from another person, participants employed a very orderly verbal escalation sequence that fit a cascading Guttman scale. This began with requests and moved on to demands, and then to complaints, angry statements, threats, harassment, and abuse, in that order. The more escalated the tactic, the fewer people used it. People seldom skipped a step on the way to their most escalated tactic. Two possible explanations for this pattern seemed plausible in light of the data, that it is due to either a widely snared try‐try‐again script or a declining hierarchy of thresholds. Verbal escalation was associated with a negative view of the annoyer's character, while physical escalation was associated with blame and feelings of frustration and anger. Escalation was discouraged by membership in the same group as the annoyer. Loud noise did not encourage escalation in general but promoted the use of angry statements.

A theory is presented about the functions of caucusing (private meetings between the mediator and disputant) in mediation. Empirical results that confirm and extend a number of propositions from the theory are also presented. Two coders, content analyzing both mediator and disputant behavior, observed 51 hearings at the Dispute Settlement Center of Western New York. Results indicated that disputants in caucus sessions employed less direct hostility, provided more information, and proposed more new alternatives than in joint sessions. Mediators, in parallel fashion, were more likely to request information and to challenge the disputants to come up with new alternatives. Mediators also exhibited more freedom to violate the neutrality norms during caucus sessions, giving greater support to the side that originally filed the complaint. These results support the use of caucusing as a route to issue identification and problem solving. However, other results showed that disputants were especially likely to boost their own position and put the other party down during caucus sessions, suggesting that mediators must be wary of what they learn from one party when the other is out of the room.

A variety of strategies were identified in interview‐based chronologies of ordinary interpersonal conflicts. Verbal confrontation with the adversary was the most common strategy and usually preceded other approaches. Efforts to arrange mediation and arbitration were extremely rare, though third parties were approached for other reasons in most of the cases. It was possible to distinguish complainants from respondents in 61 percent of the cases. Respondents employed more problem solving and apology than complainants, while complainants employed marginally more pressure tactics.

A variety of dispute strategies were identified in interview-based chronologies of ordinary interpersonal conflicts (N = 39 undergraduates). Verbal confrontation was the most common strategy & usually preceded other approaches. Efforts toward mediation & arbitration were extremely rare, though third parties were approached for other reasons in most of the cases. Drawing on data from a week-long diary study of social interaction (N = 84 undergraduates), it is possible to distinguish complainants from respondents (Rs) in 61% of the cases. Rs employed more problem solving & apology than complainants, who employed marginally more pressure tactics. 3 Tables, 33 References. Adapted from the source document.

This research examined antecedents of short-term success in mediation. Seventy-three hearings were observed at two community dispute resolution centers in New York State. Measures of short-term success were: reaching agreement, goal achievement, and immediate satisfaction with the agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. Results indicated that the likelihood of short-term success increased with disputant joint problem solving and decreased with disputant hostile and contending behavior and the prominence of intangible issues in the case. Satisfaction with the hearing increased with disputants' involvement in a continuing relationship; and goal achievement and both types of satisfaction decreased with escalation of the conflict prior to hearing. As predicted, joint problem solving increased with involvement in a continuing relationship and decreased with disputants' hostile and contentious behavior, the prominence of intangible issues, and escalation of the conflict prior to the hearing. Five mediator behaviors were either unrelated or negatively related to short-term success: providing reassurance, displaying expertise, keeping order, criticizing, and asking embarrassing questions. Mediator behaviors that were positively related to short-term success were those that demonstrated empathy, structured the discussion, and stimulated thinking. Multiple regression analyses revealed several interactions of mediator behaviors with disputant behaviors and prior conditions in predicting agreement and goal achievement.

This research examined the relationships among a number of outcomes of mediation. The sample consisted of 73 hearings at two dispute settlement centers in New York State. Predictions from goal achievement theory were contrasted with predictions from procedural justice theory. In accordance with goal achievement theory, disputants who attained their goals in the agreement indicated immediate satisfaction with that agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. However, goal achievement was unrelated to long‐run success or long‐run satisfaction with the agreement, a result which may apply primarily to the mediation of interpersonal disputes. The predictions from procedural justice theory were more successful. Disputants who perceived that the underlying problems had been aired, that the mediator had understood what they said and that they had received a fair hearing also showed immediate satisfaction with the agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. In addition, these and related perceptions—especially in the eyes of the respondent—were predictive of several aspects of long‐run success.