IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v26y1997i2p331-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Disputing through Agents Enhance Cooperation? Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Croson, Rachel
  • Mnookin, Robert H

Abstract

A distinctive characteristic of our mechanisms for conflict resolution is that litigation is carried out by agents chosen by disputing principals. Does the fact that clients choose lawyers to carry on their disputes facilitate dispute resolution or instead exacerbate conflict? The dominant contemporary view is that the involvement of lawyers magnifies the contentiousness of litigation and wastes social resources, prolonging and escalating the conflict in ways that enrich the legal profession but not the clients. But in a recent article, Ronald Gilson and Robert Mnookin suggest another possibility: by choosing lawyers with reputations for cooperation, clients may commit to cooperative litigation in circumstances where the clients themselves would not otherwise trust each other. Using the methodology of experimental economics, this article presents a test of their idea that, by choosing cooperative agents under well-specified procedures, principals may sustain more cooperation than they could on their own. our experimental findings are consistent with the Gilson-Mnookin hypothesis. Copyright 1997 by the University of Chicago.

Suggested Citation

  • Croson, Rachel & Mnookin, Robert H, 1997. "Does Disputing through Agents Enhance Cooperation? Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 331-345, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:26:y:1997:i:2:p:331-45
    DOI: 10.1086/467998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467998
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/467998?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Conley, John P. & Neilson, William, 2009. "Endogenous games and equilibrium adoption of social norms and ethical constraints," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 761-774, July.
    2. Eric Cardella & Carl Kitchens, 2017. "The impact of award uncertainty on settlement negotiations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 333-367, June.
    3. Eisenkopf, Gerald & Friehe, Tim & Wohlschlegel, Ansgar, 2019. "On the role of emotions in experimental litigation contests," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 90-94.
    4. Sahin, M. Abdullah & Sirmans, C.F. & Yavas, Abdullah, 2013. "Buyer brokerage: Experimental evidence," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 265-277.
    5. Bowles, Hannah Riley & Babcock, Linda & McGinn, Kathleen L., 2005. "Constraints and Triggers: Situational Mechanics of Gender in Negotiation," Working Paper Series rwp05-051, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:26:y:1997:i:2:p:331-45. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.