Nonbinding Suggestions and Dispute Rates: Uncertainty, Focal Points, and their Effects on Bargaining Outcomes

非约束性建议和争议率：不确定性、焦点及其对谈判结果的影响

• 批准号: 0316414
• 负责人: David Dickinson
• 金额: $ 4.4万
• 依托单位: Utah State University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2003
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2003-09-01 至 2004-08-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0316414&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Nonbinding; Suggestions; Dispute; Rates; Uncertainty

Mediation and fact-finding are examples of non-binding dispute resolution since these procedures do not implement binding settlements or guarantee resolution of the conflict. The effectiveness of mediators, for example, lies in their ability to facilitate voluntary settlements for those individuals in dispute. While mediators use many different tools, this research will specifically examine the use of non-binding suggestions as a way of improving dispute resolution. Existing research suggests two conflicting effects of suggestions. Suggestions may facilitate agreement by providing an anchor or "focal point" around which the individuals can voluntarily settle their dispute. On the other hand, bargaining research suggests that binding dispute resolution procedures (e.g., trials or arbitration hearings) will best promote voluntary settlement from risk averse individuals only if trial or arbitration outcomes are uncertain. Since mediation typically occurs prior to arbitration or trials, non-binding suggestions may provide information as to what a binding settlement outcome might be. Ironically, suggestions would then decrease the uncertainty about binding settlement outcomes and, according to theory, reduce voluntary settlement rates. The objective of this research is to examine which of these two effects (focal point or uncertainty) dominates, by systematically introducing suggestions into a controlled laboratory experiment. Financially motivated subjects will engage in a bargaining experiment in which computer generated suggestions may or may not occur, and these suggestions may be more or less influential in altering computerized binding settlement outcomes. By manipulating both the existence and the influence of the suggestion, it is possible to not only determine whether suggestions increase voluntary settlements, but it will also be possible to measure the separate focal point versus uncertainty effects. These effects will be precisely measured using appropriate statistical analysis, and both the design and the analysis of the data will help achieve the main objective of this research-to gain insights into designing and improving existing dispute resolution procedures. Alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration and mediation, is growing in popularity largely due to its promise of resolving disputes more effectively and at less cost than litigation. Non-binding dispute resolution is especially popular since individuals generally prefer self-determined outcomes to mandated outcomes. The National Association for Community Mediation reported an increase of over 200% in the number of community mediation programs in the U.S. in the 1990's (from 150 to 450). Though mediation abounds, it remains to be seen whether its use actually increases voluntary settlements and, if so, by what mechanisms does it work. This study focuses on the effects of suggestions due to the prevalence of suggestions in resolving disputes in a variety of settings. It may seem that, due to the popularity and success of mediation, suggestions are already known to be effective at facilitating settlements. However, existing data on naturally occurring disputes cannot easily isolate the effects of suggestions from other tools that mediators might use (e.g., trust building). Laboratory methods can overcome this limitation. This project promises to help improve dispute resolution in a variety of settings, from labor-management relations to international trade disputes, to community mediation programs.

调解和实况调查是不具约束力的争端解决办法的例子，因为这些程序并不执行具有约束力的解决办法，也不保证解决冲突。 例如，调解人的有效性在于他们能够促进争端中的个人自愿解决争端。 虽然调解员使用许多不同的工具，这项研究将具体审查使用非约束性的建议，作为一种改善争端解决的方式。 现有的研究表明，建议有两种相互矛盾的效果。建议可以通过提供一个锚或“焦点”来促进达成协议，个人可以围绕这个锚或“焦点”自愿解决他们的争端。 另一方面，谈判研究表明，有约束力的争端解决程序（例如，只有在审判或仲裁结果不确定的情况下，才能最好地促进风险厌恶者的自愿解决。 由于调解通常发生在仲裁或审判之前，不具约束力的建议可能会提供关于具有约束力的和解结果的信息。 具有讽刺意味的是，建议将减少具有约束力的解决结果的不确定性，并根据理论，降低自愿解决率。 本研究的目的是检查这两种效果（焦点或不确定性）占主导地位，通过系统地引入建议到一个受控的实验室实验。 经济动机的受试者会参与一个讨价还价的实验，在这个实验中，计算机生成的建议可能会发生，也可能不会发生，这些建议可能会或多或少地影响改变计算机化的绑定结算结果。 通过操纵建议的存在和影响，不仅可以确定建议是否会增加自愿和解，而且还可以衡量单独的焦点效应与不确定性效应。 这些影响将使用适当的统计分析进行精确测量，数据的设计和分析将有助于实现本研究的主要目标-获得设计和改进现有争议解决程序的见解。 仲裁和调解等替代性争议解决方式越来越受欢迎，主要是因为它承诺比诉讼更有效地解决争议，成本更低。 不具约束力的争议解决特别受欢迎，因为个人通常更喜欢自主决定的结果，而不是强制性的结果。 全国社区调解协会报告说，20世纪90年代，美国社区调解项目的数量增加了200%以上（从150个增加到450个）。 虽然调解比比皆是，但它的使用是否实际上增加了自愿解决，如果是，它通过什么机制发挥作用，还有待观察。 本研究的重点是建议的影响，由于建议在解决纠纷的各种设置的普遍性。 似乎由于调解的普及和成功，人们已经知道建议在促进和解方面是有效的。 然而，关于自然发生的争端的现有数据不能轻易地将建议的效果与调解人可能使用的其他工具（例如，信任建设）。 实验室方法可以克服这一限制。 该项目有望帮助改善各种环境下的纠纷解决，从劳资关系到国际贸易纠纷，再到社区调解计划。