Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keashly, L.
Right arrow Articles by Newberry, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Preference for and Fairness of Intervention: Influence of Third-Party Control, Third-Party Status and Conflict Setting

Loraleigh Keashly

University of Guelph keashly{at}psyadm.css.voguelph.ca

Jason Newberry

University of Guelph

This study considered three important issues in the conflict intervention literature: (1) the contributions of third-party process control and outcome control to disputants' judgments of intervention procedures; (2) the nature of control prior to a decision being made, i.e. the process-content distinction; and (3) the influence of contextual variables (third-party status relative to disputants and conflict setting) on participants' procedural judgments. Participants were asked to imagine themselves as a party in a dispute between roommates or between co-workers in which a third party was needed. They assessed eight intervention methods (varying in combination of third-party process control, content control and outcome control) in terms of degree of preference for and perceived fairness of each method. Disputants' judgments were related to the over-all balance of control between the third party and the disputants. The status of the third party moderated this relationship such that third-party control over the final decision was more `appropriate' when the third party was in a position of authority relative to disputants. Results are discussed with respect to the contingency model of conflict intervention and the importance of the nature and the social context of the relationship of the third party to the disputants.

Key Words: conflict intervention • third-party process control • third-party status

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 12, No. 2, 277-293 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0265407595122008
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Harvard International Journal of Press/PoliticsHome page
J. K. Jameson and R. M. Entman
The Role of Journalism in Democratic Conflict Management: Narrating the New York Budget Crisis After 9/11
International Journal of Press/Politics, April 1, 2004; 9(2): 38 - 59.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The American Review of Public AdministrationHome page
P. M. Mareschal
Solving Problems and Transforming Relationships: The Bifocal Approach to Mediation
The American Review of Public Administration, December 1, 2003; 33(4): 423 - 448.
[Abstract] [PDF]