This study tested the hypothesis that partisanship influences judgments of fairness and trustworthiness in the mediation of social conflict. Subjects evaluated third party proposals for resolving the conflict in Jerusalem. A2×2×4 factorial design examined (1) partisanship of the subject, either partisan (pro-Israeli) or nonpartisan (neutral); (2) content bias of third party proposals, where the substance of the proposal was either (a) pro-Israeli or (b) evenhanded; and (3) source bias, where the third party was labeled as being (a) pro-Israeli, (b) pro-Palestinian, (c) neutral, or (d) of unknown persuasion. Analyses of judgments of fairness and third party trustworthiness indicated differences between partisan and nonpartisan subjects in self-serving bias and underlying dynamics in judgments. Partisans used favorableness of the proposals to judge the trustworthiness of the third party, independent of evenhandedness of the proposal, whereas evenhandedness was the criterion for nonpartisans. Nonpartisans trusted the neutral third party and partisans trusted the pro-Israeli third party regardless of proposal fairness. Partisans showed a cushioning effect of third party characteristics: a pro-Israeli third party who made an evenhanded proposal (relatively unpalatable to the pro-Israeli subjects) was trusted more than a pro-Palestinian third party who made the same proposal. The results highlight practical problems in mediation where the third party may need the trust not only of the disputing parties but also the trust of nonpartisan others. Evenhanded third party behavior that may impress nonpartisans is likely to be seen as biased mediation by disputants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Babcock, L. , G. Loewenstein, S. Issacharoff, and C. Camerer. 1992. Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. Working paper series, no. 92-15, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Pittsburgh.
2.
Bar-Tal, D. , A. W. Kruglanski, and Y. Ktar. 1989. Conflict termination: An epistemological analysis of international cases. Political Psychology10:233-255.
3.
Bercovitch, J. (1989). International dispute mediation: A comparative empirical analysis. In Mediation research, edited by K. Kressel and D. G. Pruitt, 284-299. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Bercovitch, J. , and J. Z. Rubin, eds. 1991. Mediation in international relations. New York: St. Martin's.
5.
Brookmire, D. , and F. Sistrunk. 1980. The effects of perceived ability and impartiality of mediators and time pressure on negotiation. Journal of Conflict Resolution24:311-327.
6.
Carnevale, P. J.1992. The usefulness of mediation theory. Negotiation Journal8:387-390.
7.
Carnevale, P. J. , and D. E. Conlon. 1988. The perceived fairness and acceptability of biased mediators. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Justice and Societal Problems, August, Leiden, the Netherlands.
8.
Carnevale, P. J. , and R. Pegnetter. 1985. The selection of mediation tactics in public-sector disputes: A contingency analysis. Journal of Social Issues41:65-81.
9.
Carnevale, P. J. , and D. G. Pruitt. 1992. Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology43:531-582.
10.
Conlon, D. E. , and W. H. Ross. 1993. The effects of partisan third parties on negotiator behavior and outcome perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology78(2): 280-290.
11.
Harris, K. L. , and P. J. Carnevale. 1990. Chilling and hastening: The influence of third-party power and interests on negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes47:138-160.
12.
Hastorf, A. M. , and H. Cantril. 1954. They saw a different game: A case study. Journal of Social Psychology49:129-134.
13.
Hollander, E. P. 1985. Power and leadership. In The handbook of social psychology, edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. New York: Random House.
14.
Kressel, K. 1972. Labor mediation: An exploratory survey. Albany, NY: Association of Labor Mediation Agencies.
15.
Kressel, K. , and D. G. Pruitt. 1989. Conclusion: A research perspective on the mediation of social conflict. In Mediation research, edited by K. Kressel and D. G. Pruitt, 394-400. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Lim, R. , and P. J. Carnevale. 1990. Contingencies in the mediation of disputes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology58:259-272.
17.
Lind, E. A. , and R. I. Lissak. 1985. Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology21:19-29.
18.
Lord, C. G. , L. Ross, and M. R. Lepper. 1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effect of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37:2098-2109.
19.
Mahoney, M. J.1977. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias on the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research1:161-175.
20.
Messick, D. M. , and K. P. Sentis. 1979. Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology15:418-434.
21.
Oskamp, S.1965. Attitude toward U.S. and Russian actions: A double standard. Psychological Reports16:43-46.
22.
Peters, E. 1952. Conciliation in action. New London, CT: National Foremen's Institute.
23.
Princen, T.1987. International mediation—the view from the Vatican: Lessons from mediating the Beagle Channel Dispute. Negotiation Journal3:347-366.
24.
Pruitt, D. G. 1983. Negotiation and mediation in the Falklands crisis. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Oxford, England.
25.
Pruitt, D. G. , and D. F. Johnson. 1970. Mediation as an aid to face-saving in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology14:239-246.
26.
Rapoport, A. , E. Weg, and D. Felsenthal. 1990. Effects of fixed costs in two-person bargaining. Theory and Decision28:41-47.
27.
Ross, L. , and C. Stillinger. 1991. Barriers to conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal7:389-404.
28.
Ross, M. , and F. Sicoly. 1980. Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. In Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, edited by D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Rubin, J. Z. , and B. Brown. 1975. The social psychology of bargaining and negotiations. New York: Academic Press.
30.
Schelling, T. 1960. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Smith, W. P.1985. Effectiveness of the biased mediator. Negotiation Journal1:363-372.
32.
Stillinger, C. A. , and L. Ross. 1987. Reactive devaluation of concessions: A social-cognitive barrier. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.
33.
Stulberg, J. B. 1987. Taking charge: Managing conflict. Lexington, MA: Health.
34.
Thompson, L. L. , and G. Loewenstein. 1992. Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes51:176-197.
35.
Tome, V.1992. Maintaining credibility as a partial mediator: United States mediation in Southern Africa, 1981-1988. Negotiation Journal8:273-289.
36.
Touval, S.1975. Biased intermediaries: Theoretical and historical considerations. Jerusalem Journal of International Relations1:51-69.
37.
Touval, S. .1982. The peace brokers: Mediation in the Arab-Israeli conflict, 1948-1979. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Touval, S.1985. The context of mediation. Negotiation Journal1:373-378.
39.
Touval, S. , and I. W. Zartman, eds. 1985. International mediation in theory and practice. Boulder, CO: Westview.
40.
Tyler, T. R.1987a. Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology52:333-344.
41.
Tyler, T. R. .1987b. The psychology of disputant concerns in mediation. Negotiation Journal3:367-374.
42.
Vallone, R. P. , L. Ross, and M. R. Lepper. 1985. The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology49:577-585.
43.
Welton, G. L. , and D. G. Pruitt. 1987. The effects of mediator bias and disputant power over the mediator on the mediation process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin13:123-133.
44.
Wittmer, J. , P. J. Carnevale, and M. Walker. 1991. General alignment and overt support in biased mediation. Journal of Conflict Resolution35:594-610.
45.
Young, O. 1967. The intermediaries: Third parties in international crises. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
Zartman, W. I. , and S. Touval. 1985. International mediation: Conflict resolution and power politics. Journal of Social Issues41:27-45.
