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

Abstract

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.