WP1 The conflict stories based on interviews with real life disputants were conducted and the questionnaire for the experiment was built. The intake framework was built and the intake instrument is used as a deliverable to educate students and professionals in various courses and training.
WP2 The scenarios (case studies) for the experiment were built and enriched. They will be released to the public after the publications which emerge from the project will be accepted.
WP3 The Experiment was built and launched. To ensure participant engagement and motivation throughout the experiment, we took several measures to optimize the design and presentation of the study. In addition to providing monetary compensation, we consulted with a professional UI/UX company to develop an intuitive and user-friendly layout for the experiment, ensuring that each stage was clear and accessible.
The experiment was structured into multiple stages. The first stage involved collecting demographic information from the participants. In the second stage, participants completed a personality trait questionnaire based on the Big Five model. The third stage included a negotiation style assessment using the framework developed by Thomas and Kilmann.
In the fourth stage, participants were introduced to various conflict resolution methods. This phase included an explanation of the benefits and drawbacks of each method to provide participants with a comprehensive understanding. To enhance clarity, we produced a series of short videos illustrating the procedures associated with each resolution method. Following the videos, participants completed a brief quiz to ensure they understood the strengths and limitations of each approach. Only participants who successfully passed the quiz proceeded to the subsequent stages of the experiment.
In the fifth stage, participants were presented with three case studies describing interpersonal conflicts. They were instructed to immerse themselves in the scenarios, imagining themselves as part of the conflict. After reading each story, participants were asked to reflect on and identify their needs and feelings in the context of the conflict. Finally, they were presented with several conflict resolution options, including mediation, arbitration, adjudication, letting go, and public complaint. For each story, participants selected the resolution method they considered most suitable.
We successfully recruited 621 unique participants for our study. Each participant was presented with three distinct case studies and was asked to indicate, for each case study, the resolution method they deemed most suitable. On average, we were able to elicit 37 responses for each case study. A response refers to the conflict resolution method that a participant identified as the most suitable for resolving the conflict presented in the case study.
WP4 We have completed the experiment phase of the project by using the Prolific platform. Our experiment proved less successful in terms of predicting the choice of future litigants. Our results reflect the performance of three advanced prediction algorithms: XGBoost, Neural Networks, and Support Vector Machines (SVM). Each of these algorithms offers unique strengths and was chosen for its potential to accurately predict legal solutions by matching case characteristics and the individuals involved to one of six possible outcomes. Despite the sophistication of these algorithms, the maximum accuracy achieved was 55%, a significant improvement over random guessing but potentially insufficient for a commercial product.
