Third-Party Intervention: A Field Experiment Comparing Three Different Models

• Published in: Journal of personality and social psychology 1987-07, Vol.53 (1), p.104-112
• Main Authors: McGillicuddy, Neil B, Welton, Gary L, Pruitt, Dean G
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Behavior; Biological and medical sciences; Community Services; Conflict Resolution; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Human; Motivation; Negotiation; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Social interactions. Communication. Group processes; Social psychology; Social research
• ISSN: 0022-3514; 1939-1315
• DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.104

A field experiment was conducted at a community mediation center to test the impact on behavior in mediation of three models of third-party intervention. Third parties and disputants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (a) straight mediation; (b) mediation/arbitration (same), or med/arb(same); or (c) mediation/arbitration (different), or med/arb(diff). These models differ in what happens if agreement between the disputants is not reached. In straight mediation, the hearing simply ends; in med/arb(same), the third party arbitrates; in med/arb(diff), a fourth party not present at the mediation hearing arbitrates. Results indicated that disputants in med/arb(same) engaged in more problem solving and were less hostile and competitive than were disputants in straight mediation, with med/arb(diff) intermediate on these dimensions. Third parties in med/arb(diff) were less involved throughout the session than were third parties in the other two conditions. Results are discussed in terms of motivational influences induced by the three conditions that have impact on tactics used by disputants and third parties.