Chinese and American Arbitrators: Examining the Effects of Attributions and Culture on Award Decisions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Chinese and American Arbitrators: Examining the Effects of Attributions on Award Decisions
SSRN Electronic Journal
Most arbitration research has been conducted in United States, despite the growth of arbitration internationally. In this study, we plan to examine one area where cross-cultural differences between Chinese and Americans have been found - attribution - and explore what effects this might have on arbitrator decisions. Cross-cultural attribution literature indicates Americans tend to make more dispositional attributions, while Chinese tend to make more situational or contextual attributions, and that Americans tend to attribute results to a person's ability while Chinese tend to attribute results to a person's effort. We propose that these attribution differences influence arbitrator decisions and will conduct a cross-cultural field experiment to test our hypotheses.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007
In this study, the authors examined differences between Chinese and American commercial arbitrators. They predicted and found that Chinese arbitrators make higher awards for interfirm contract violations than Americans. This difference is partially explained by differences in attributions. Prior theory suggests, and the authors found, that the Chinese tend to have more internal attributions for events when observing group actions. When evidence provided to arbitrators is mixed (evidence is provided for both internal and external attributions), Chinese-American differences in awards become even stronger.
SSRN Electronic Journal
In this study, we examine differences between Chinese and American commercial arbitrators. We predict, and find, that Chinese arbitrators make higher awards for inter-firm contract violations than Americans. This difference is partially explained by differences in attributions. Prior theory suggests, and we find, that Chinese tend to have more internal attributions for events when observing group actions. When evidence provided to arbitrators is mixed (evidence is provided for both internal and external attributions), Chinese-American differences in awards become even stronger.
This paper delves in the comparative study of Asian and Western models of dispute resolution, arbitration in particular, and asks how cross-cultural differences affect arbitrator behavior. It proposes that arbitration styles differ across collectivist and individualist culture, without necessarily saying that one is better than the other, but simply that knowledge of the differences will help users of arbitration make informed decision in choosing their party-appointed arbitrators. It also proposes to conduct further research to address the issue of developing and/or reforming the arbitration infrastructure in Asia, particularly the Southeast Asian region, to address the gap in international commercial arbitration to reflect the non-Western (or non-European) voice. It draws from existing comparative studies of Western and East Asian arbitrator’s role or perception of their roles within the arbitration paradigm, and how that affects the arbitration process, as well as research on how cross-cultural differences affect international arbitration in general. It also draws from existing empirical research comparing the collectivist and individualist perspectives in dispute resolution, as a general discipline, and juxtaposes these findings within the arbitration model.
The Arbitrators Perspective: Cultural Issues in International Arbitration
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PRACTICE IN THE 21ST CENTURY, 2013
This paper addresses the theme of cultural convergence and divergence in international arbitration practice. Applying theoretical insights to unique arbitral practices in Hong Kong and Mainland China, the chapter draws on the authors survey and field work in the region. Examining both the convergence and divergence of approaches to arbitration in diverse settings provides an avenue to understanding the impact of globalization on the international practice of law.
Review of Litigation, 2009
How diverse cultures approach conflict in the context of the integration of global markets is a new arena for research and practice. To date, most research on international arbitration has focused exclusively on Western models of arbitration as practiced in Europe and North America. While such studies accurately reflected the geographic foci of international arbitration practice in the mid-twentieth century, the number of international arbitrations conducted in East Asia has recently been growing steadily and on par with growth in Western regions. This Article presents a cross-cultural examination of how international arbitrators in East Asian and Western countries view the relative advantages of international arbitration. The results of a 115 person survey and 64 follow up interviews shed light on the underlying cultural attitudes and approaches to international arbitration as practiced in diverse regions. The findings indicate that arbitration practitioners’ perceptions of the benefits of treaty-based features of international arbitration - such as enforceability, neutrality, limited discovery, and predictability - demonstrate a high degree of convergence across regions. At the same time, cultural and socioeconomic distinctions are reflected in varying arbitrator perceptions regarding the importance of amicability, confidentiality, voluntary compliance, and efficiency of international arbitration proceedings. In particular, amicability and confidentiality are regarded as having greater importance among East Asian arbitrators, while the limited scope of discovery is regarded with greater importance in the West.
66 Emory Law Journal 1115 (2017)Arbitrators are lead actors in global dispute resolution. They are to global dispute resolution what judges are to domestic dispute resolution. Despite its global significance, arbitral decision making is a black box. This Article is the first to use original experimental research to explore how international arbitrators decide cases. We find that arbitrators often make intuitive and impressionistic decisions, rather than fully deliberative decisions. We also find evidence that casts doubt on the conventional wisdom that arbitrators render “split the baby” decisions. Although direct comparisons are difficult, we find that arbitrators generally perform at least as well as, but never demonstrably worse than, national judges analyzed in earlier research. There may be reasons to prefer judges to international arbitrators, but the quality of judgment and decision making, at least as measured in these experimental studies, is not one of them. Thus, normativ...
Onati Institute Conference on Socio-Legal Perspectives on Dispute Resolution, 2011
This article presents a cross cultural examination of how international arbitrators in East Asian and Western countries view the goal of settlement in international arbitration. The result of a 115 person survey and 64 follow up interviews shed light on the underlying cultural attitudes and approaches to settlement in international arbitration as practiced in diverse regions. The findings indicate that arbitration practitioner's perceptions of the frequency of compromise decision in international arbitration demonstrate a high degree of convergence across regions. At the same time, cultural and socioeconomic distinctions are reflected in varying arbitrator perceptions regarding the arbitrators' role in settlement, whether settlement is regarded as a goal in arbitration and the types of efforts made pre-arbitration to settle disputes. In particular, arbitrators working in the East Asian region regard the goal of facilitating voluntary settlement in the context of international arbitration with greater importance and generally make greater efforts pre-arbitration to settle disputes as compared with counterparts in the West.
An Empirical Study of Arbitrators Acting as Mediators in China
While there are ongoing the debates on the appropriateness of arbitrators acting as mediators in a pending arbitration (this process is often described as ‘arb-med’), such practice seems to work well in China. In this respect, the Chinese model may be useful in contributing to the practice in other jurisdictions. How is the role of arbitrators perceived in China? How do Chinese arbitrators usually promote settlement? Could we generalize some good practice of arb-med based on the Chinese experience? Our perceptions about the conduct of arbitrators are often driven by anecdotes. This is partly because of the confidential nature of arbitration proceedings. The problem with anecdotes is that it is difficult to evaluate whether the event or practice described is ‘typical or atypical, frequent or infrequent, ordinary or extreme, as common as a rabbit or as rare as a rhinoceros’ (DRAHOZAL, 2003). More systematic research is needed by supplementing anecdotes with empirical studies. Based on...