COMPLAINANT‐RESPONDENT DIFFERENCES IN PROCEDURAL CHOICE

Abstract

This research concerned preference and choice among six procedures commonly used to resolve disputes. Two experiments revealed that, compared to complainants, respondents liked inaction and disliked arbitration. However, the most striking findings concerned general preferences among the procedures: consensual procedures (negotiation, mediation, and advisory‐arbitration) were best liked, followed by arbitration, with inaction and struggle least liked. Further analysis suggested that perceptions of self‐interest and societal norms underlie these procedural preferences, with the latter perceptions apparently more important. An examination of choices among the procedures revealed that negotiation was by far the most common first choice of action. If negotiation failed to resolve the conflict, the following escalative sequence of actions was typically endorsed: mediation, then advisory arbitration, then arbitration, and finally struggle.

Citation

Peirce, R.S. and Pruitt, D.G. (1993), "COMPLAINANT‐RESPONDENT DIFFERENCES IN PROCEDURAL CHOICE", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 199-222. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022726