General Alignment and Overt Support in Biased Mediation

Bibliographic Data

ID6283673
AuthorsJerry M Wittmer, Peter J Carnevale, Peter Carnevale, Michael E Walker (0000-0002-9304-7881, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)
Year1991
Volume35
Issue4
Pages594-610
Publication date1991-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Conflict Resolution (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-0027 • E-ISSN: 1552-8766
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0022002791035004002
OpenAlexW2096106620
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited14

This experiment examined the influence of mediators' interests and outcome recommendations on disputants' perceptions and behavior. A distinction (following Pruitt, 1983) was made between two types of mediator bias: general alignment and overt support. In the general alignment variable, participants dealt with a mediator who was aligned either: (a) with them - mediator outcomes were positively correlated with their own, or (b) against them - mediator outcomes were negatively correlated with their own. In the overt support variable, participants were confronted with a mediator who made outcome recommendations that were overtly favorable, even handed, or unfavorable. The results indicate that disputants mistrusted favorable recommendations from unfavorably aligned mediators; this “Trojan horse effect” also led to lower ratings of mediator acceptability. The results suggest that favorable mediator alignment may cushion the impact of overt, unfavorable recommendations from that mediator. Broader theoretical and organizational implications are discussed

Mediation · Mediator · Outcome (game theory · Perception · Political science · Attachment and Relationship Dynamics · Conflict Management and Negotiation · Medicine · Psychology · Social Power and Status Dynamics · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub