The Impact of Hybrid Dispute‐Resolution Procedures on Constituent Fairness Judgments1

Abstract

The authors investigated the effects of hybrid third‐party procedures on constituents' procedural and distributive fairness judgments. In Experiment 1, three independent variables were manipulated: third‐party procedure (Med–Arb vs. Arb–Med), concession making during mediation (concessions vs. no concessions), and role (labor vs. management). Participants viewed Med–Arb as fairer than Arb–Med. In Experiment 2, three factors were again manipulated: third‐party procedure (Med–Arb vs. Arb–Med), whether confidential information was revealed during mediation (confidential information revealed vs. not revealed), and arbitration outcomes (winning vs. losing). Results suggest that when no confidential information was revealed, Med–Arb was significantly fairer than Arb–Med, but if confidential information was revealed, then both procedures were equally fair. Results are discussed in terms of procedural design.