Cultural contingencies of mediation: Effectiveness of mediator styles in intercultural disputes

• Date: 01 August 2013
• Author: Elizabeth D. Salmon,Ayşe Betül Çelik,Molly Inman,Sarit Kraus,Michele J. Gelfand,Jonathan Wilkenfeld
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.1870
• Published date: 01 August 2013

Cultural contingencies of mediation: Effectiveness

of mediator styles in intercultural disputes

ELIZABETH D. SALMON

1

*, MICHELE J. GELFAND

1

,AYŞE BETÜL ÇELIK

2

,

SARIT KRAUS

3,5

, JONATHAN WILKENFELD

4

AND MOLLY INMAN

4

1

Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.A.

2

Conflict Analysis and Resolution Program, SabancıUniversity, Istanbul, Turkey

3

Department of Computer Science, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

4

Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.A.

5

Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.A.

Summary The difficulties of intercultural negotiations are well established, yet few studies have examined the factors

that facilitate the successful resolution of these disputes. This research took a dynamic approach and

examined the types of mediation tactics that are most effective in intercultural disputes given specific

disputant characteristics. One hundred and ten participants from the United States and Turkey negotiated a

community-based dispute in real time from their respective countries using a newly developed virtual lab.

Dyads were randomly assigned to negotiate with a formulative computer mediator, a manipulative

computer mediator, or in an unmediated control condition. As predicted, the results showed a significant

interaction between manipulative mediation and markers of disputant difficulty on Pareto efficiency. Manipulative

mediation produced agreements of higher Pareto efficiency in intercultural dyads with more difficult disputants

(low openness to mediation, low motivational cultural intelligence (CQ), low trust, and low willingness to concede)

but lower Pareto efficiency in dyads with more favorable disputant factors (high openness to mediation, high

motivational CQ, high trust, and high willingness to concede). The results for subjective value also partially

supported the hypotheses. Theoretical and practical implications for the study of intercultural disputes are discussed.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: intercultural disputes; culture; conflict; mediation

In a world of increasing globalization, individuals are thrust into situations in which they must communicate and

solve problems with people from a variety of cultures. Globalization has increased contact between individuals from

diverse cultural backgrounds in diplomatic, military, business, organizational, and community settings, bringing

with it a heightened occurrence of intercultural conflicts and disputes. Although the issues at stake in these conflicts

may be no different from those that occur between individuals from the same culture, intercultural disputes are

plagued by additional difficulties stemming from cultural differences in values (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994),

norms for communication (Hall, 1976; Hammer, 2005; Ting-Toomey, 1988), and stereotypes (Adair, Taylor, &

Tinsley, 2009; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Although theories and research enumerating the difficulties

associated with intercultural disputes abound (e.g., Brett, 2001; Gelfand & Brett, 2004; Kimmel, 2000), to our knowledge,

there are few studies that have examined the specific factors that help facilitate the resolution of these disputes.

In this article, we examine the types of mediation tactics that are most effective in intercultural disputes. While

theory and research on conflict and negotiation have expanded to explore the role of culture (e.g., Gal, Kraus,

Gelfand, Khashan, & Salmon, 2011; Gelfand & Brett, 2004; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001), it has rarely

examined the role of mediators in intercultural contexts. And although research on mediation has shown the promise

of this technique for improving settlement rates (Druckman, Druckman, & Arai, 2004; Wall & Dunne, 2012;

*Correspondence to: Elizabeth Salmon, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, 1147 Biology/Psychology Building, College Park,

MD 20742, U.S.A. E-mail: esalmon@umd.edu

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 14 April 2012

Revised 22 February 2013, Accepted 23 April 2013

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 887–909 (2013)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1870

Special Issue Article

Wilkenfeld, Young, Asal, & Quinn, 2003), increasing disputant satisfaction (Depner, Cannata, & Ricci, 1994;

Druckman et al., 2004; Wall & Dunne, 2012; Wilkenfeld et al., 2003), and creating more durable settlements

(Elleman, 1997; Landsman, Thompson, & Barber, 2003), the field of mediation has generally ignored the role of culture

(see Bercovitch & Foulkes, 2012; Callister & Wall, 2004; Cohen, 1996; Wall, Arunachalam, & Callister, 2008; Wall,

Beriker, & Wu, 2010; Wall & Callister, 1999, for exceptions).

This research is among the first attempts to examine mediation style effectiveness in intercultural disputes and the

disputant factors that make certain styles more or less effective. As discussed later, research has cataloged mediation

tactics into different styles (Beardsley, Quinn, Biswas, & Wilkenfeld, 2006; Carnevale & Pegnetter, 1985; Kressel &

Pruitt, 1985), including formulative styles (i.e., making substantive contributions to the dispute by suggesting settlements)

and manipulative styles (i.e., pressing the disputants to come to an agreement through threats and rewards). On the basis of

research showing that manipulative mediation produces better outcomes in difficult disputes (Bercovitch, 1997; Hiltrop,

1985, 1989; Kleiboer, 1996; Lim & Carnevale, 1990; Rubin, 1980; Wilkenfeld et al., 2003), we propose that manipulative

mediation will be most effective in intercultural disputes, which are marked by a number of unique challenges. However,

we take a dynamic approach and argue that not all intercultural disputes are alike. In other words, there is no

“one-size-fits-all”mediation strategy to manage intercultural disputes, and mediation tactics need to match the

characteristics of the disputants.

Specifically, participants in intercultural disputes vary on a number of dimensions that affect the dispute manageability

or tractability. These dimensions may include characteristics directly related to the dispute, including openness to

mediation, willingness to concede, and trust in the other party, as well as more general individual differences such as

cultural intelligence (CQ). We hypothesize that although manipulative mediation is much more effective in intercultural

disputes with more difficult participants (i.e., those with low openness to mediation, low CQ, low trust, and low

willingness to concede), this style is actually counterproductive in intercultural disputes with less difficult participants

(i.e., those characterized by high openness, high CQ, high trust, and high willingness to concede). In this research, we

emphasize the importance of gathering information on disputant characteristics from the disputants themselves; previous

mediation research has frequently relied solely on mediator perceptions of the dispute or archival sources and has not

directly assessed the disputants’characteristics or perceptions (see Hiltrop, 1989; Thoennes & Pearson, 1985; Zubek,

Pruitt, Peirce, McGillicuddy, & Syna, 1992, for exceptions).

In what follows, we review the literature on typologies of mediation tactics and the formulative and manipulative

mediation styles in particular. We then discuss the implications of the intercultural context for mediation style

effectiveness and introduce our dynamic approach, which considers the impact of the interaction between mediation

styles and disputant difficulty markers for objective and subjectiveoutcomes in interculturaldisputes. Weadvance spe-

cific hypotheses regarding the role of manipulative mediation in different disputant contingencies and present an

intercultural disputing experiment conducted through a new intercultural virtual lab with American and Turkish partici-

pants in their respective countries. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of the research for intercultural disput-

ing in an increasingly globalized world.

Dimensions of Mediation Tactics

Mediation has been defined as

A process of conflict management where disputants seek the assistance of, or accept an offer of help from, an

individual, group, state, or organization to settle their conflict or resolve their differences without resorting to

physical force or invoking the authority of the law (Bercovitch, Anagnoson, & Wille, 1991, p. 8).

A number of tactics and styles used by mediators help facilitate the resolution of disputes (e.g., Carnevale &

Pegnetter, 1985; Kressel, 1979; Kressel & Pruitt, 1985; Touval & Zartman, 1985; Wall, 1981; Wall & Rude,

1985; Wilkenfeld et al., 2003). We examined two mediation styles in the current research. The first is the formulative

mediation style, which refers to interventions employed to move a party onto a new position by making specific,

888 E. D. SALMON ET AL.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 887–909 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job