Shvartsman, Eve --- "Ctrl+alt+power: Redefining Negotiation Power Dynamics in Online Dispute Resolution" [2025] UNSWLawJlStuS 15; (2025) UNSWLJ Student Series No 25-15

CTRL+ALT+POWER: REDEFINING NEGOTIATION POWER DYNAMICS IN ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

EVE SHVARTSMAN

I INTRODUCTION

The increasing use of Online Dispute Resolution (‘ODR’) has transformed the landscape of negotiation, offering a platform for parties to resolve disputes without relying on traditional Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’) procedures, settings and constituents. ODR refers to the use of digital platforms, tools and technologies to facilitate the resolution of disputes between parties through methods such as online mediation, arbitration and negotiation. It enables parties to engage in dispute resolution remotely and asynchronously, often without the need for physical presence or traditional legal representation. In traditional ADR settings, it is a participants’ power that greatly influences their effectiveness in performance, persuasion and overall bargaining power.^[1] This power, according to Fisher in his article Negotiating Power: Getting and Using Influence, is determined by the possession and balance of six key categories: the power of skill and knowledge, the power of a good relationship, the power of a good alternative, the power of an elegant solution, the power of legitimacy, and the power of commitment.^[2] While the impact of ADR on these power sources has been well-explored, less attention has been given to how ODR influences a participant’s ability to cultivate power through this framework. This article will argue that ODR fundamentally reconfigures two of Fisher’s categories of power in negotiation – the power of skill and knowledge, and the power of a good relationship – by shifting how these forms of power are accessed, perceived and exercised in digital environments. By examining these elements, it becomes clear that in the absence of physical presence, ODR alters traditional power dynamics, reshaping a participant’s capacity to exert influence and enhance bargaining power in virtual negotiation environments.

II THE POWER OF SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE

The ‘power of skill and knowledge’ in negotiation draws from both interpersonal and technical skills, coupled with an in-depth grasp of the parties, interests, and an understanding of the relevant context.^[3] While ODR provides enhanced access to information and structured guidance, facilitating a parties substantive and procedural knowledge, it can also limit interpersonal engagement and the reduce opportunities to leverage relational skills.

A Knowledge

Negotiation is a process by which parties engage in communication to resolve a dispute, reach an agreement, bargain for advantage, or develop creative solutions to meet differing interests.^[4] It goes without argument that knowledge enhances a participants position in the negotiation process as it enables informed decision-making, strategic leverage, and credibility. Knowledge can be divided into two distinct subsets; (i) knowledge of substance, which relates to the specific content and issues at stake, and (ii) knowledge of process, which encompasses the methods and strategies of negotiation.^[5] ODR platforms, by design, often enhance access to both categories. Substantive knowledge is amplified through integrated resources, databases, and digital tools that enable participants to more easily access relevant information. Simultaneously, procedural knowledge can be bolstered through the platform’s structured guidance, tutorials, and sometimes even automated tools that guide users through the negotiation process.^[6]

Knowledge of Substance

Knowledge of substance refers to what the parties negotiate over, including the agenda, the issues, positions and interests, the available options, and the terms of the final agreement.^[7] Digital dispute resolution platforms have become increasingly adept in equipping participants with substantive knowledge specific to their disputes and have been able to address informational deficits at pre-claim stages. Customised legal information and useful tools are provided to participants at the ‘triage stage’ where their issues are diagnosed, ensuring that they can be treated correctly. The Civil Resolution Tribunal (‘CRT’)^[8] in British Columbia exemplifies how ODR can enhance participants’ understanding of their legal options and foster informed engagement.^[9] Through its ‘Solutions Explorer’ phase, disputants can explore potential claims by completing an interactive questionnaire. Based on responses, the system generates tailored resources and offers structured guidance on proceeding with a case. For example, in workplace bullying disputes, the platform suggests four possible legal avenues: (1) lodging a complaint under an employer’s workplace bullying policy, (2) filing a claim with the workplace safety authority, (3) filing a claim with the human rights tribunal, or (4) exploring constructive dismissal. Each option is accompanied by analysis to help users assess option suitability under different circumstances, allowing claimants to make informed decisions on their best course of action. By clarifying key issues and presenting realistic options, the CRT helps participants understand substantive aspects of their dispute and gain access to critical knowledge that might otherwise be inaccessible, thereby fostering awareness and enhancing a participant’s ability to proactively engage and exert influence in a negotiation. In the Australian context, ODR platforms such as Amica provide specialised resources for separated couples navigating family disputes.^[10] Prior to registration, users complete a similar initial assessment to ensure a foundational understanding of essential concepts, such as the legal definition of a ‘separated couple’ and any relevant limitation periods for filing formal court orders. This preliminary phase enables participants to identify complexities they may have overlooked, such as financial assets held in trust or property located overseas. These diagnostic steps not only surface potential issues and overlooked details that could positively impact their results, but also help identify underlying interests by prompting participants to reflect on their unique circumstances and priorities. In fact, only 13.5% of queries at the pre-claim stage progress into formal claims, suggesting that this early-stage provision of information equips individuals with relevant knowledge that enhances their understanding of key issues and avenues, and thus positively impacts their ability to exert influence and take agency over their dispute.^[11] By bridging informational gaps, ODR platforms enhance a participants’ capacity to understand their circumstances, options and associated risks, facilitating a more informed and constructive dispute resolution process.^[12]

One might argue, however, that the sheer volume of information provided through ODR could overwhelm participants, complicating their ability to utilise it effectively – particularly when compared to the targeted, tailored guidance typically available through a legal professional in ADR settings. While this concern has merit, it is important to recognise that not all disputants have access to legal counsel and may enter negotiations or mediations without such support. This lack of guidance is often evident in residential tenancy disputes, where tenants without legal support struggle to assert their rights effectively. For example, a tenant facing an overbearing landlord might accept unfair terms simply due to a limited understanding of their legal entitlements and available remedies. Without clear information, tenants may feel powerless to challenge issues like unlawful rent increases, improper bond claims, or inadequate maintenance responses. However, if the tenant had access to relevant, accessible information – such as resources provided through ODR platforms – they could be better positioned to challenge the landlord’s firm stance, shift the power dynamic in their favour, and achieve a fairer outcome, even without formal legal representation.^[13] By guiding negotiators toward pertinent options, arguments, and potential pathways, ODR mitigates knowledge gaps and bargaining naivety.^[14] This strengthens participants’ positions and enhances their ability to secure more favourable outcomes even before negotiations begin.^[15]

Equally important, however, is a comprehensive understanding of the processes involved in ODR mediations, an aspect which empowers individuals to effectively manage and sustain their influence throughout the mediation itself.

Knowledge of Process

Knowledge of process refers to an understanding of how negotiations operate, encompassing the context of the negotiation, the identities and roles of participants, the tactics employed, and the stages and sequences through which the negotiation unfolds.^[16] A party’s influence is closely tied to their confidence in the negotiation process^[17] and familiarity with the unfolding process fosters predictability, enhancing decision-making assurance throughout dispute resolution. ODR platforms play a pivotal role in enhancing this confidence by providing comprehensive guidance on procedural aspects related to claims.

For instance, CRT offers a detailed, step-by-step guide for filing or responding to a claim, complete with explicit instructions for each phase of the process. Continuing with the above-mentioned example of workplace bullying, if a user decides to proceed with option (1) and file a complaint with their employer, the platform supplies negotiation resources and strategies, including preparatory techniques, brainstorming sessions for potential solutions, relevant questions to pose to the opposing party, as well as templates for written agreements prior to initiation. This structured approach equips participants with the essential procedural knowledge that empowers them to take control of their actions and fosters confidence in their decisions, thereby enhancing their capacity to exert influence.^[18]

While ODR platforms provide participants with a clear understanding of procedural aspects, they don't necessarily enhance knowledge of negotiation tactics or strategies that influence the process. Just as a novice chess player equipped with an instruction manual may still be outmanoeuvred by a skilled opponent, ODR’s technological tools cannot fully compensate for disparities in negotiation experience. Both parties may have equal access to information, but it’s the depth of experience – knowing when and how to deploy specific skills or tactics – that can shift the balance of power. Technology alone doesn’t level the field; instead, it’s the expertise applied to the information that truly bolsters one’s position.

Overall, ODR platforms equip participants with essential knowledge of substantive issues and procedural frameworks, allowing them to understand their disputes more thoroughly, identify informational gaps, and exercise greater control over the negotiation process. By enhancing participants’ knowledge, ODR shifts power dynamics, enabling more informed decision-making. However, because ODR doesn’t provide guidance on negotiation tactics or strategy, it leaves the influence of experience-based power untouched. Consequently, while participants may be better informed, ODR may still limit the development and application of practical negotiation skills rooted in experience. Offering information on common strategies and tactics, such as anchoring and framing, could improve these platforms by helping participants recognise and respond to these procedural nuances, enhancing their overall negotiating awareness.

B Skills

Negotiation skills encompass a range of knowledge and behaviours that directly impact bargaining performance.^[19] At their core, negotiations aim to create mutual understanding and agreements between parties, with effective communication – especially the interpretation of non-verbal cues – playing a key role in a negotiator’s ability to influence and adjust to the demands of the other party.^[20] However, digital platforms like ODR alter how these cues are expressed and interpreted, affecting power dynamics during negotiations. As Ebner notes, ODR’s reliance on digital communication lacks the ‘human touch’, which includes essential soft skills like empathy and active listening.^[21] These skills are critical for shaping attitudes, mindsets, and behaviours, and ultimately, for exerting influence in negotiations.^[22]

ODR’s mode of communication – whether asynchronous, such as through email or chat, or synchronous, such as via video conference – significantly influences the presence of these human or connecting elements. In asynchronous interactions, aspects such as tone, facial expressions, and body language are entirely absent, while synchronous interactions may only provide a limited capacity for these cues.^[23] Regardless of the mode employed, the opportunity to cultivate and utilise soft negotiation skills is substantially diminished in virtual environments, impacting the overall effectiveness of the dispute resolution process.

Despite these limitations, it can be argued that post COVID-19, there is an enhanced capacity to understand elements of the ‘human touch’ in a digital environment, as the pervasive reliance on video conferencing and remote communication has become a central aspect of many workplaces and daily communication.^[24] This shift in communication practices may foster greater sensitivity to the nuances of interpersonal interactions, with emotional intelligence rising and adapting to the increasingly pervasive digital environments.^[25] This development, however, should not be overstated, as certain facets of in-person interaction remain compromised, even in a society that is highly technologically literate.^[26] Sharing a physical space for example, allows participants to inhabit a collective environment where they can focus on and respond to the same world. In a physically shared environment, certain interactions, such as a wave or a smile directed at a specific individual, enhance a participant’s understanding of the social context. In contrast, an online environment can hinder one’s ability to discern the intended recipient of such actions, thereby undermining social understanding and meaningful engagement with others.^[27] While virtual presence continues to expand and virtual reality technology advances, digital platforms cannot yet be considered spaces that enhance negotiation power through the development and application of interpersonal skills.

The limitations inherent in digital environments restrict the nuanced interpersonal dynamics that are central to effective negotiation, such as the real-time interpretation of non-verbal cues and the spontaneous adaptation of communicative strategies. The effect of this limitation is discussed in more detail below in Part IIIB, but for now it is pertinent to note that ODR is not an effective environment in which to exercise these skills. Effective negotiation requires the broader utilisation of a range of skills that extend beyond those available in ODR platforms, which, at best, present only a limited or myopic offering.

In evaluating ODR’s capacity to enhance participants’ negotiation power through Fisher’s ‘knowledge and skill’ category of power, it becomes clear that ODR increases accessibility and technical competencies by offering structured guidance and legal resources. However, it may simultaneously limit opportunities for developing interpersonal and adaptive negotiation skills, potentially leaving parties with a more procedural rather than strategic understanding of the dispute resolution process. Further, ODR cannot yet patch the void generated by the lack of non-verbal cues, and inability to employ communication skills, limiting any power that may derive from this facet of influence. Thus, while ODR positively augments the power derived from knowledge, it falls short in empowering participants with the full spectrum of skills and strategies necessary to navigate and influence complex negotiations.

III THE POWER OF A GOOD RELATIONSHIP

The second category of power in negotiation according to Fisher, is a strong working relationship, which is fundamentally rooted in two interrelated pillars; trust and communication.^[28] In the ODR environment, spatial and temporal limitations affect how these relational dynamics are perceived and developed, and participants are forced to redefine the concept of trust and effective communication.^[29]

A Trust

ODR, like negotiation in general, relies on a foundational level of interpersonal trust, rooted in the parties’ mutual dependence to reach a resolution.^[30] While this baseline trust is essential for moving negotiations forward, it is a party’s perceived trustworthiness which is central to their negotiating power, as it directly influences their ability to gain their counterpart’s confidence and sway outcomes.^[31] ODR platforms reshape how participants perceive the trustworthiness of the other party by altering the traditional dynamics of communication and interaction. In the context of digital platforms, the perception of trustworthiness is influenced by three key dimensions: ability, benevolence, and integrity, which are reframed through the constraints and affordances of online communication.^[32]

1 Ability

A negotiator’s perceived ‘ability’ encompasses their negotiation skills and competencies, the demonstration of which fosters perceptions of legitimacy and trustworthiness.^[33] As demonstrated in Part II of this article, ODR platforms equip participants with extensive resources and provides guidance through varying stages of the dispute to deepen process comprehension and boost issue-specific knowledge. On the assumption that a participant engages with the provided material, ODR improves competency and may positively affect the perceived ability of parties.^[34] While this does not necessarily mean that parties are experts in negotiation and its context, ODR allows for a higher base-level understanding of expectations and legal avenues, providing for more rational and therefore more trustworthy behaviours.^[35]

2 Benevolence

Perceived ‘benevolence’ in negotiations refers to the belief that the other party is engaging in the process with mutual respect and positive intent, rather than pursuing objectives with harmful motives.^[36] While benevolence is typically conveyed through behaviours like active listening and commitment to shared goals, ODR requires unique approaches to signal these qualities due to limited communication cues and reduced personal contact.^[37]

ODR’s impact on perceived benevolence is nuanced and hinges on factors such as the presence or absence of a pre-existing relationship and the emotional dynamics involved.^[38] In situations where parties have no prior social connection, ODR may hinder perceptions of benevolence due to the ‘sinister attribution bias’ – a cognitive tendency to ascribe negative interpretations in the absence of clear social cues.^[39] In e-commerce disputes, for instance, a complainant may distrust a large corporate respondent, such as eBay, due to the inherent bureaucratic impersonality, lack of rapport and familiarity. Additionally, the digital environment in ODR can heighten distrust when parties employ ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics – like bluffing or concealment – without the benefit of clarifying nonverbal cues, further complicating perceived goodwill and fostering distrustful attributions.^[40]

Conversely, for parties with an emotionally charged pre-existing relationship, ODR may mitigate tensions by reducing face-to-face confrontations, thus fostering a more collaborative, less adversarial atmosphere.^[41] The asynchronous nature of online communication in ODR affords participants time to review and reflect before responding, which may foster more respectful and neutral replies, thereby strengthening the perception of goodwill and reducing the emotional charge of responses.^[42]

A party’s ability to foster perceived benevolence – and thereby strengthen influence – depends on the nature of their prior relationship. In emotionally charged disputes, ODR can stabilise interactions and promote constructive engagement. However, between unfamiliar parties, the lack of rapport can heighten distrust through sinister attribution bias. Thus, ODR’s impact on perceived benevolence varies significantly based on whether parties share an emotionally complex history or are ‘meeting’ for the first time.

3 Integrity

Perceived ‘integrity’ refers to behaviours such as truthfulness, honouring promises, fulfilling commitments, and adhering to a clear set of professional or ethical principles, which collectively establish confidence in the negotiator’s honest motivations and intentions.^[43] Perception of one’s integrity is likely the most influential factor in whether a party will be perceived as trustworthy, as it goes directly to one’s character. For this reason, a violation of one’s perceived integrity is most harmful to a trusting relationship.^[44]

ODR platforms, through their inherent record-keeping capabilities, offer unique advantages in reinforcing these perceptions. The digital environment allows parties to track commitments transparently, document follow-through, and demonstrate reliability, enhancing confidence in the other party’s professionalism and honesty. The structured format of ODR interactions also fosters accountability, reducing the likelihood of parties reneging on agreements or disputing past exchanges. However, the online space limits relational cues and informal interactions that contribute to character judgments in face-to-face settings, meaning integrity in ODR is often judged by procedural consistency and communication style alone. A single breach in integrity – such as inconsistent responses or a lack of follow-through – can thus severely damage trust within ODR, where traditional means of trust-building are absent.^[45] Consequently, ODR’s emphasis on procedural transparency supports integrity, yet it requires participants to build trust primarily on formal interactions and digital conduct, which can sometimes fail to fully convey a negotiator's ethical character.

Examining trustworthiness within ODR through ability, benevolence, and integrity reveals varied impacts. Ability is often strengthened by ODR’s structured resources, empowering participants to navigate negotiations confidently. Benevolence may improve in emotionally charged disputes, as ODR’s formal setting can stabilise interactions. However, integrity is limited by the digital medium, where the lack of in-person cues restricts assessments of character to procedural compliance. Overall, a participant's ability to display trustworthiness and, consequently, their ability to gain confidence and sway decisions, depends on the interplay of these factors, which will be achieved differently in ODR contexts compared to traditional ADR settings.

B Communication

Communication is the backbone of the entire negotiation process, so the ability to engage effectively is crucial to one’s capacity to exert influence and gain bargaining power. In ODR, communication relies on either asynchronous or synchronous methods, each impacting what is known as ‘media richness’ – a concept that measures a medium’s capacity to convey information across four criteria: immediacy of feedback, the number of social cues transmitted, the range of meaning conveyed through language, and the ability to express personal feelings and emotions.^[46] Face-to-face communication is considered the ‘richest’ medium, as it allows for immediate responses and conveys personal presence that extends beyond the basic content of a message.^[47]

With its reliance on text-based platforms like online chat or email, and occasional use of videoconferencing, ODR is void of face-to-face interaction. This limits its media richness, potentially affecting both the clarity of communication and the collaborative or relational dynamics essential to negotiation.^[48] While videoconferences can approximate the richness of face-to-face interactions, minor yet significant elements like subtle gestures, posture, and eye contact may yet be compromised. Chat platforms, however, lack aural, visual, and non-verbal cues altogether, which are integral to ‘rich’ communication. Consequently, essential elements such as intonation and body language must be adapted to the online space.^[49]

According to the social information processing theory, individuals can build meaningful digital connections and communicate effectively by using online cues such as typographic alteration and chronemic indicators.^[50] Typographic alterations, such as capitalisation, onomatopoeia, repetition, punctuation, and emoticons, play a crucial role in conveying emotional and non-verbal cues within ODR.^[51] For instance, capitalised words or phrases, like ‘I DON’T AGREE WITH THIS AT ALL’, convey a sense of anger and signal a clear stance, while onomatopoeic expressions like ‘ummm’ or ‘oooh’ indicate confusion, surprise, or interest.^[52] Punctuation, including exclamation and question marks, can further convey emphasis or request clarification, while emoticons, such as smiley faces, enhance rapport and provide non-verbal emotional cues.^[53] These typographical variations enhance the richness of ODR as a communication medium, however the context is important, as capitalisation, repetition and onomatopoeia as mechanisms for conveying non-verbal cues may be omitted in more formalised settings.^[54] Chronemics, or time-related cues like response delays or pauses, also play a critical role in shaping impressions.^[55] In chat-based ODR, asynchronous interactions may lack immediate feedback, which can detract from the conversational flow and potentially impact perceptions of progress or engagement.^[56] However, asynchronous communication offers mediators a unique tool: the ability to reframe potentially divisive messages, allowing emotionally charged statements to be moderated before reaching the other party.^[57] Further, it is arguable that the written word, when properly expressed can be the most persuasive way to express a participant’s true intent and feelings, as it omits other possibly distracting visual cues that may or may not be relevant to the information conveyed.^[58]

Overall, ODR’s reliance on text-based communication and absence of face-to-face interaction limits the ‘richness’ of communication, making it harder for parties to interact effectively based on social, environmental, or body cues that are typically influential in traditional negotiations. While the power derived from parties’ abilities to communicate clearly and effectively is diminished, there is still room for emotional and affective nuances to be conveyed through typographic cues and chronemics, offering negotiators opportunities to influence and gage sentiments and maintain some degree of power in the negotiation process.

IV CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this article has demonstrated how ODR fundamentally reshapes the traditional power dynamics central to negotiation. By examining Fisher’s categories of the ‘power of skill and knowledge’ and the ‘power of a good relationship’, it is clear that ODR’s digital environment both empowers and constrains participants in unique ways. On one hand, ODR enhances negotiators’ access to information and structured procedural guidance, empowering participants by bolstering their substantive and procedural knowledge. This increased accessibility levels the playing field for those who may lack formal legal support, allowing them to engage more knowledgeably in negotiation. However, the very nature of ODR imposes limitations, particularly on the relational power that stems from interpersonal skills such as active listening, non-verbal cues, and rapport-building – all crucial in traditional negotiation settings for establishing trust and credibility. The reliance on text-based, asynchronous communication restricts these relational dynamics, diminishing the power derived from building authentic connections and fostering trust.

While ODR facilitates efficiency and accessibility, it also underscores the need for improved tools that can replicate the richness of in-person interactions. Future developments in ODR could focus on integrating multimedia elements – such as video or voice options – which could benefit less contentious disputes by restoring some of the immediacy and interpersonal engagement crucial to effective negotiation. Additionally, research into how specific ODR technologies impact trust-building, emotional expression, and strategic communication could yield insights that refine and humanise virtual negotiation processes. By addressing these gaps, ODR has the potential to evolve into a platform where power dynamics are redefined to better support fair and balanced negotiation outcomes.

^[1] Michael Schaerer et al, ‘Power and Negotiation: Review of Current Evidence and Future Directions’ (2020) 33 Current Opinion in Psychology 47, 47.

^[2] Roger Fisher, ‘Negotiating Power: Getting and Using Influence’ (1983) 27(2) American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills) 149, 153.

^[3] Ibid 154.

^[4] Constantin Bratianu and Stefan Iordache, ‘Knowledge Dynamics in Negotiations’ (Academic Conferences Limited, 2012) 51, 51.

^[5] Ibid 53.

^[6] Laurie R Weingart, Elaine B Hyder and Michael J Prietula, ‘Knowledge Matters: The Effect of Tactical Descriptions on Negotiation Behavior and Outcome.’ (1996) 70(6) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1205, 1212–14.

^[7] Bratianu and Iordache (n 4) 53.

^[8] ‘Home’, British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (Web Page) <https://civilresolutionbc.ca/>.

^[9] Orna Rabinovich-Einy, ‘The Past, Present, and Future of Online Dispute Resolution’ (2021) 74(1) Current Legal Problems 125, 133.

^[10] ‘Amica: The Simple, Low Cost, Smart Way to Separate or Divorce Online’, Amica (Web Page) <https://amica.gov.au/>.

^[11] Rabinovich-Einy (n 9) 134.

^[12] Dorcas Quek Anderson, ‘The Convergence of ADR and ODR within the Courts: The Impact on Access to Justice’ (2019) 38(1) Civil Justice Quarterly 126, 138.

^[13] Plate on the Head (New Year Productions, 1987).

^[14] Weingart, Hyder and Prietula (n 6) 1212–13.

^[15] Ibid.

^[16] Bratianu and Iordache (n 4) 53.

^[17] Rudolf Vetschera and Luis C Dias, ‘Confidence in Bargaining Processes and Outcomes: Empirical Tests of a Conceptual Model’ (2023) 11 EURO Journal on Decision Processes 100028, 1.

^[18] Brian S Mandell, Stephen Petraeus and Guhan Subramanian, ‘Sources of Power in Public Negotiations: A Framework Applied to Public–Public and Public–Private Negotiations’ (2020) 36(4) Negotiation Journal 397, 399.

^[19] Michael E Roloff, Linda L Putnam and Lefki Anastasiou, ‘Negotiation Skills’ in John O Greene and Brant R Burleson (eds), Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills (Routledge, 2003) 801, 801.

^[20] Fisher (n 2) 154; Noam Ebner, ‘The Human Touch in ODR: Trust, Empathy and Social Intuition in Online Negotiation and Mediation’ in Daniel Rainey, Ethan Katsh and Mohamed S Abdel Wahab (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice (Eleven International Publishing, 2^nd ed, 2021) 73, 81.

^[21] Ebner (n 20) 76.

^[22] Orna Kopolovich, ‘Learning Soft Skills in the Digital Age: Challenges and Insights from Development and Teaching “Negotiation Management”’ (2020) 8(2) Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management 91, 92.

^[23] Ebner (n 20) 81.

^[24] David Westgarth, ‘Has the Pandemic Changed the Way We Communicate?’ (2021) 34(8) BDJ In Practice 14, 14–16.

^[25] Aneta Stolba et al, ‘Beyond Content Delivery: Harnessing Emotional Intelligence for Community Building in Fully Online Digital Spaces’ (2024) 21(1) International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 48.

^[26] Lucy Osler and Dan Zahavi, ‘Sociality and Embodiment: Online Communication during and after COVID-19’ (2023) 28(4) Foundations of Science 1125, 1133.

^[27] Ibid.

^[28] Fisher (n 2) 155.

^[29] Alan Gaitenby, ‘The Fourth Party Rises: Evolving Environments of Online Dispute Resolution’ (2006) 38 University of Toledo Law Review 371, 373.

^[30] Roy J Lewicki and Beth Polin, ‘Trust and Negotiation’ in Handbook of Research on Negotiation (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013) 161, 166.

^[31] Andrea M Braeutigam, ‘What I Hear You Writing Is ... Issues in ODR: Building Trust and Rapport in the Text-Based Environment’ (2006) 38 University of Toledo Law Review 101, 102.

^[32] Lewicki and Polin (n 30) 165.

^[33] Ibid.

^[34] Roy J Lewicki and Beth Polin, ‘The Role of Trust in Negotiation Processes’ in Handbook of Advances in Trust Research (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013) 29, 36.

^[35] Ibid.

^[36] Lewicki and Polin (n 30) 165.

^[37] Braeutigam (n 31) 106.

^[38] Ibid.

^[39] Roderick M Kramer, ‘The Sinister Attribution Error: Paranoid Cognition and Collective Distrust in Organizations’ (1994) 18(2) Motivation and Emotion 199, 211.

^[40] Lewicki and Polin (n 30) 177.

^[41] Marta Poblet and Pompeu Casanovas, ‘Emotions in ODR’ (2007) 21(2) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 145, 145.

^[42] Braeutigam (n 31) 115.

^[43] Lewicki and Polin (n 30) 166.

^[44] Daniel Druckman, Roy J Lewicki and Sarah P Doyle, ‘Repairing Violations of Trustworthiness in Negotiation’ (2019) 49(3) Journal of Applied Social Psychology 145, 155.

^[45] Ibid 12.

^[46] Jill M Purdy, Pete Nye and PV Balakrishnan, ‘The Impact of Communication Media on Negotiation Outcomes’ (2000) 11(2) International Journal of Conflict Management 162, 164.

^[47] Ibid.

^[48] Yoram M Kalman et al, ‘Online Chronemics Convey Social Information’ (2013) 29(3) Computers in Human Behavior 1260, 1261; Purdy, Nye and Balakrishnan (n 46) 182.

^[49] Carmen Maíz-Arévalo, ‘Typographic Alteration in Formal Computer-Mediated Communication’ (2015) 212 Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 140, 140.

^[50] David A Larson, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Do You Know Where Your Children Are?’ (2003) 19(3) Negotiation Journal 199, 200.

^[51] Kalman et al (n 48); Maíz-Arévalo (n 49).

^[52] Maíz-Arévalo (n 49) 144.

^[53] Ibid 142–143.

^[54] Ibid 144.

^[55] Kalman et al (n 48) 1260.

^[56] Ibid.

^[57] Poblet and Casanovas (n 41) 150; Frank G Evans et al, ‘Enhancing Worldwide Understanding through ODR: Designing Effective Protocols for Online Communications’ (2006) 38 University of Toledo Law Review 423, 425–6.

^[58] Evans et al (n 57) 425.