Antecedents of attitude towards online mediation

Group Decision and Negotiation

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 539-552

  Turel, Ofir ^a   Yuan, Yufei ^b   Rose, Joe ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Attribution; E Negotiations; Online mediation; Technology adoption

Indexed keywords

EID: 35448985009     PISSN: 09262644     EISSN: 15729907     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10726-007-9085-7     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Abowd GD and Mynatt ED (2002). Charting past, present and future research in ubiquitous computing. In: Carroll, JM (eds) Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium, 513-535. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA
2. Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes 50(2): 179-211
3. Alter S (2000). Same words, different meanings: Are basic IS/IT concepts our self-imposed tower of Babel?. Commun AIS 3(10): 1-89
4. Carmel E, Herniter BC and Nunamaker JF (1993). Labor-management contract negotiation in an electronic meeting room: a case study. Group Decis Negot 2(1): 27-60
5. Carnevale PJ and Pruitt DG (1992). Negotiation and Mediation. Ann Rev Psychol 43: 531-582
6. Chin WW (1998). The Partial Least Squares approach for Structural Equation Modeling. In: Marcoulides, A (eds) Modern methods for business research, 295-336. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwa, NJ
7. Chin WW (2002) PLS-Graph User's Guide, Version 3.0. Soft Modelling Inc.
8. Clark E, Cho G and Hoyle A (2003). Online dispute resolution: present realities, pressing problems and future prospects. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 17(1): 7-25
9. Cramer RD, Bunce JD, Patterson DE and Frank IE (1988). Cross-Validation, bootstrapping, and Partial least-squares compared with multiple-regression in Conventional qsar studies. Quant Struct-Act Rel 7(1): 18-25
10. Davis FD (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3): 319-340
11. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35(8): 982-1003
12. Donahey MS (2000). Current development in online dispute resolution. Tomlinson, Zisko, Morsoli & Maser LLP, Palo Alto, CA, USA
13. Druckman D, Druckman JN and Arai T (2004). e-mediation: evaluating the impacts of an electronic mediator on negotiating behavior. Group Decis Negot 13(6): 481-511
14. Eagly AH and Chaiken S (1993). The psychology of attitudes. 1st edn. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers (HBJ), Orlando, Florida, USA
15. Eason K (1988). Information technology and organizational change. Taylor and Francis, London, UK
16. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1): 39-50
17. Fraser NM and Hipel KW (1981). Computer assistance in labor management negotiations. Interfaces 11(2): 22-29
18. Friedman R, Anderson C, Brett J, Olekalns M, Goates N and Lisco CC (2004). The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: evidence from electronically mediated disputes. J Appl Psychol 89(2): 369-376
19. Friedman RA and Currall SC (2003). Conflict escalation: dispute exacerbating elements of e-mail communication. Hum Relat 56(11): 1325-1347
20. Gefen D, Karahanna E and Straub DW (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q 27(1): 51-90
21. Gefen D, Straub D and Boudreau M-C (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Information Syst 4(7): 1-77
22. Heider F (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA
23. Hornle J (2003). Online dispute resolution: the emperor's new clothes? Benefits and pitfalls of online dispute resolution and its application to commercial arbitration. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 17(1): 27-37
24. Howitt D, Billig M, Cramer D, Edwards D, Kniveton B, Potter J and Radley A (1992). Social psychology: conflicts and continuities. 3rd edn. Open University Press, Philadelphia, USA
25. Jarke MM, Jelasi T and Shakun MF (1987). Mediator: towards a negotiation support system. Eur J Oper Res 31(3): 314-334
26. Karahanna E, Straub DW and Chervany NL (1999). Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q 23(2): 183-213
27. Legris P, Ingham J and Collerette P (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage 40(3): 191-204
28. Lim J, Gan B, Chang T-T (2002) A survey on NSS adoption intention, 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Hawaii
29. Marakas GM, Johnson RD and Palmer JW (2000). A theoretical model of differential social attributions toward computing technology: when the metaphor becomes the model. I J Hum-Compu St 52(4): 719-750
30. Meyer RS and First SM (2002). Advising potential defendants. In: Brand, N (eds) How ADR Works, pp 55-73. BNA Books, Washington, DC, USA
31. Miller DT and Ross M (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: facts or fiction?. Psychol Bull 82(2): 213-225
32. Moore DA, Kurtzberg TR, Thompson LL and Morris MW (1999). Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: group affiliations and good vibrations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes 77(1): 22-43
33. Nadler J (2001). Electronically-mediated dispute resolution and e-commerce. Negot J 17(4): 333-347
34. Nass C and Moon Y (2000). Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1): 81-103
35. Nunaly JC (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA
36. Sheppard BH (1983). Managers as inquisitors: some lessons from the law. In: Bazerman, MH and Lewicki, RJ (eds) Negotiating in Organizations. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, USA
37. Straub DW (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Q 13(2): 147-169
38. Thomas RD, Lu IRR, Cedzynski M (2005) Partial least squares: a critical review and a potential alternative. Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (ASAC) Conference, ASAC, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 121-135
39. Turel O and Serenko A (2006). Satisfaction with mobile services in Canada: an empirical investigation. Telecommun Policy 30(5-6): 314-331
40. Turel O, Serenko A and Bontis N (2007). User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: deconstructing perceived value. Inf Manage 44(1): 63-73
41. Turel O, Yuan Y (Forthcomming-a) User acceptance of web-based Negotiation Support Systems: the role of perceived intention of the negotiating partner to negotiate online. Group Decis Negot. doi: 10.1007/s10726-006-9069-z
42. Turel O, Yuan Y (Forthcomming-b) You can't shake hands with clenched fists: potential effects of trust assessments on the adoption of e-negotiation services. Group Decis Negot. doi:10.1007/s10726-007-9079-5
43. Turel O, Yuan Y (2005) Online negotiation services: benefits and challenges of users and service providers. Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution, ICFAI University Press, October, 62-77
44. Venkatesh V and Davis FD (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 46(2): 186-204
45. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GD and Davis FD (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3): 425-478
46. Vetschera R, Kersten G, Koeszegi S User assessment of Internet-based negotiation support systems: an exploratory study. J Organ Comput Electronic Commerce (Forthcoming)
47. Yuan Y, Head M and Du M (2003). The effects of multimedia communication on web-based negotiation. Group Decis Negot 12(2): 89-109
48. Yuan Y, Suraga S, Rose JB and Archer NA (1998). Web-based negotiation support system. Int J Electron Markets 8(3): 13-17
49. Yuan Y, Turel O (Forthcoming) E-negotiations: bridging the practical divide-introduction to the special issue. Group Decis Negot. doi: 10.1007/s10726-007-9081-y