Richard E. Walton served as a consultant in the preliminary stages. The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of Sigmund Arywitz, Calif. State Labor Commissioner, Asst. Commissioner Daniel N. Longaker, Division of Labor Law Enforcement Area Supervisors James J. Callahan and Joseph J. Blake, and also the assistance of Christy Globig and Jane Herman as coders. Donald Houston is especially thanked for his interest and counsel. Research would not have been possible without the understanding and cooperation of the 11 Deputy Commissioners whose hearings were observed.
Decisionmaking by Third Parties in Settling Disputes1
Version of Record online: 31 JUL 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 3, Issue 3, pages 197–218, September 1973
How to Cite
Shaw, J. I., Fischer, C. S. and Kelley, H. H. (1973), Decisionmaking by Third Parties in Settling Disputes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3: 197–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1973.tb02797.x
This research was conducted under National Science Foundation Grant GS-1121X. Shaw's participation was partially by a predoctoral fellowship from U.S. Public Health Service. Computing assistance was obtained from the Health Sciences Computing Facility, UCLA, sponsored by NIMH Special Research Resources Grant FR-3.
- Issue online: 31 JUL 2006
- Version of Record online: 31 JUL 2006
This study concerns decisionmaking by men who serve as third parties in disputes between two other individuals. A study was made of hearings at which a government official (O) attempted to judge the merits of a wage claim brought by a worker (C) against his former employer (D). O's attitudes before and after the hearing were assessed, and a content analysis was made of a script of the hearing process. O was the most active participant in the interaction. O developed more attitudinal structure about the case than he had had initially, and showed an increase in the degree of his evaluative differentiation between the contending parties. Unexpectedly, the consistency of O's attitudes about each party decreased somewhat in cases where he announced a decision. A striking pattern of evidence occurred concerning the special relation that usually developed between O and the “loser” of the case (the party less preferred by O at the end.) He reacted more negatively to the loser than he did positively to the winner. It was suggested that a postdecision contention between O and the loser was triggered by O's revelation of his judgment and that the subsequent interchange resulted in O's having a clear and negative view of the loser at the conclusion of the hearing.