Psychology Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Dispute resolution: Dispute resolution in psychology involves methods to address conflicts and disagreements. It encompasses techniques like negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. See also Conflicts._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Experimental Psychology on Dispute Resolution - Dictionary of Arguments
Parisi I 115 Dispute Resolution/Experimental Psychology/Wilkinson-Ryan: The contribution of experimental psychology is to show a sort of "fair process effect," in which studies using a diverse array of methodological approaches have shown that overall disadvantageously inequitable outcomes tend to be rated more favorably when the negatively affected parties view the process as having been a fair one. Self-representation: There are two ways that we might imagine how people could be glad that they influenced a decision. a) One is that they affected the way that the decision came out. b) The other is that they affected the presentation of evidence and arguments leading up to the decision. In an adversarial adjudication system, parties have no direct control over the decision - that is made by the judge or jury or arbitrator. The Tyler and Lind (1988)(1) model of procedural fairness envisions concerns about process within the larger social structure. It seems obvious that a fair procedure should include a neutral procedure and a trustworthy judge, but they also emphasize a third factor, which is that the procedure must convey respect for its participants. Whether a party was treated with respect, courtesy, and dignity is enormously important to individuals even though it does not, unlike neutrality and trustworthiness, have any obvious normative connection to the system's ability to deliver just outcomes. In Lind, Kanfer, and Early (1990)(2), subjects in an experiment were each assigned tasks, with some subjects assigned more tasks than others. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a "voice" condition or a "no voice" condition. 1) In the voice condition, subjects could express their views about the task allocation; 2) in the no voice condition, there was no mechanism for that kind of communication. Parisi I 116 It was clear to the subjects in the voice condition that their opinions were not factored into the decision on task allocation. Even so, the process was deemed fairer in the voice condition, and indeed the "workers" in that condition were more satisfied with their own burden. >Fairness/Experimental psychology. Voice/fairness: (...) in many ways the fair process effect is essentially a heuristic - when it is diffcult to figure out whether or not the outcome is fair, people instead determine whether the process felt fair and base their evaluation of the outcome on the process. Van den Bos and co-authors (1997)(3) demonstrated this in an experiment testing the effect of voice in conditions of greater or lesser certainty about the actual fairness of the outcome. Certainty about fairness was provided by way of information about one's partner's allocation in a particular distribution. 1. Lind, E. Allan and Tom R. Tyler (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum. 2. Lind, E. Allan, Ruth Kanfer, and P. Christopher Earley (1990). "Voice, Control, and Proce- dural Justice: Instrumental and Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 952-959. 3. Van den Bos, Kees, Riel Vermunt, and Henk A. M. Wilke (1997). "Procedural and Distributive Justice: What is Fair Depends More on What Comes First Than on What Comes Next." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 95-104. Wilkinson-Ryan, Tess. „Experimental Psychology and the Law“. In: Parisi, Francesco (ed) (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics. Vol 1: Methodology and Concepts. NY: Oxford University Press_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Experimental Psychology Parisi I Francesco Parisi (Ed) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1: Methodology and Concepts New York 2017 |
||
> Counter arguments against Experimental Psychology
> Counter arguments in relation to Dispute Resolution
