Resolving Impasses in e-Negotiation: Does e-Mediation Work?

Daniel Druckman*, Ronald Mitterhofer, Michael Filzmoser, Sabine T. Koeszegi

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)


In this article we evaluate the performance of an e-mediation system, referred to as VienNA, in an e-negotiation environment. A set of hypotheses drawn from the mediation and e-mediation literatures are explored. Bargaining processes, outcomes, and perceptions are compared for bargainers that have access to the VienNA system with those that do not have access during negotiation. Supporting several of the hypotheses, bargainers with access to the system were more flexible during the process, showed more concession reciprocation, sent more messages dealing with relationships and related sources of conflict, and were more satisfied with both the process and outcome. Early use of the system produced more flexible bargaining and better outcomes than later use, a finding that supports research on mediation in international conflicts. More balanced agreements occurred when bargainers consulted a form of advice known as fairness norms. Implications of these results for theory and practice are discussed along with suggestions for further research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)193-210
Number of pages18
JournalGroup Decision and Negotiation
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2014


Dive into the research topics of 'Resolving Impasses in e-Negotiation: Does e-Mediation Work?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this