Partisanship Effects in Judgments of Fairness and Trust in Third Parties in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

This study tested the hypothesis that partisanship influences judgments of fairness and trustworthiness in the mediation of social conflict. Subjects evaluated third party proposals for resolving the conflict in Jerusalem. A2×2×4 factorial design examined (1) partisanship of the subject, either partisan (pro-Israeli) or nonpartisan (neutral); (2) content bias of third party proposals, where the substance of the proposal was either (a) pro-Israeli or (b) evenhanded; and (3) source bias, where the third party was labeled as being (a) pro-Israeli, (b) pro-Palestinian, (c) neutral, or (d) of unknown persuasion. Analyses of judgments of fairness and third party trustworthiness indicated differences between partisan and nonpartisan subjects in self-serving bias and underlying dynamics in judgments. Partisans used favorableness of the proposals to judge the trustworthiness of the third party, independent of evenhandedness of the proposal, whereas evenhandedness was the criterion for nonpartisans. Nonpartisans trusted the neutral third party and partisans trusted the pro-Israeli third party regardless of proposal fairness. Partisans showed a cushioning effect of third party characteristics: a pro-Israeli third party who made an evenhanded proposal (relatively unpalatable to the pro-Israeli subjects) was trusted more than a pro-Palestinian third party who made the same proposal. The results highlight practical problems in mediation where the third party may need the trust not only of the disputing parties but also the trust of nonpartisan others. Evenhanded third party behavior that may impress nonpartisans is likely to be seen as biased mediation by disputants.

[1]  Joseph B. Stulberg.  Taking Charge/Managing Conflict , 1987 .

[2]  J. Rubin,et al.  The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation , 1975 .

[3]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[4]  Keith P. Sentis,et al.  Fairness and preference , 1979 .

[5]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Egocentric Interpretations of Fairness and Interpersonal Conflict , 1992 .

[6]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  NEGOTIATION AND MEDIATION , 1992 .

[7]  I. William Zartman,et al.  International mediation in theory and practice , 1985 .

[8]  Dean G. Pruitt,et al.  MEDIATION AS AN AID TO FACE SAVING IN NEGOTIATION , 1970 .

[9]  Mark R. Lepper,et al.  The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. , 1985 .

[10]  William P. Smith.  Effectiveness of the biased mediator , 1985 .

[11]  Amnon Rapoport,et al.  Effects of fixed costs in two-person sequential bargaining , 1990 .

[12]  O. Young,et al.  The Intermediaries: Third Parties in International Crises , 1967 .

[13]  Robin I. Lissak,et al.  Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments , 1985 .

[14]  P. Carnevale,et al.  Chilling and hastening: The influence of third-party power and interests on negotiation , 1990 .

[15]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Conflict termination: an epistemological analysis of international cases , 1989 .

[16]  Peter J. Carnevale,et al.  Contingencies in the Mediation of Disputes , 1990 .

[17]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining , 1995 .

[18]  K. Kressel,et al.  Labor Mediation: An Exploratory Survey. , 1975 .

[19]  V. Tomé.  Maintaining credibility as a partial mediator: United States mediation in Southern Africa, 1981–1988 , 1992 .

[20]  S. Oskamp.  Attitudes toward U.S. and Russian Actions: A Double Standard , 1965, Psychological reports.

[21]  M. Ross,et al.  Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution , 1979 .

[22]  The context of mediation , 1985 .

[23]  Peter J. Carnevale,et al.  The Selection of Mediation Tactics in Public Sector Disputes: A Contingency Analysis , 1985 .

[24]  J. Rubin,et al.  Mediation in international relations , 1992 .

[25]  The Usefulness of Mediation Theory , 1992 .

[26]  T. Schelling.  The Strategy of Conflict , 1963 .

[27]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[28]  P. Carnevale,et al.  General Alignment and Overt Support in Biased Mediation , 1991 .

[29]  L. Ross,et al.  Barriers to conflict resolution , 1995 .

[30]  William H. Ross,et al.  The effects of partisan third parties on negotiator behavior and outcome perceptions , 1993 .

[31]  International mediation—The view from the Vatican , 1987 .

[32]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. , 1987 .

[33]  T. Tyler.  The psychology of disputant concerns in mediation , 1987 .

[34]  Edward Peters,et al.  Conciliation in Action. , 1953 .

[35]  F. Sistrunk,et al.  The Effects of Perceived Ability and Impartiality of Mediators and Time Pressure on Negotiation , 1980 .

[36]  I. Zartman,et al.  International Mediation: Conflict Resolution and Power Politics , 1985 .

[37]  Dean G. Pruitt,et al.  The Mediation Process , 1987 .

[38]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .