The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Which Side Are You On? Bias, Credibility, and Mediation
Abstract
Mediators are often thought to be more effective if they are unbiased or have no preferences over the issue in dispute. This article presents a game theoretic model of mediation drawing on the theory of “cheap talk” which highlights a contrary logic. Conflict arises in bargaining games because of uncertainty about the resolve of the parties. A mediator can reduce the likelihood of conflict by providing information on this score. For a mediator to be effective, however, the parties must believe that the mediator is telling the truth, especially if the mediator counsels one side to make a concession because their opponent has high resolve and will fight. An unbiased mediator who is simply interested in minimizing the probability of conflict will have a strong incentive to make such statements even if they are not true, hence the parties will not find the mediator credible. Only mediators who are effectively “on your side” will be believed if they counsel restraint.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Strategic information transmission
Crawford, V. P., & Sobel, J. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913390 · Cited by 4,293
Rationalist explanations for war
Fearon, J. D. (1995) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300033324 · Cited by 3,995
The Rational Design of International Institutions
Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001) · International Organization · doi:10.1162/002081801317193592 · Cited by 2,358
Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem
Myerson, R. B. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912346 · Cited by 1,983
Information and Legislative Organization
Krehbiel, K. (1991) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.8850 · Cited by 1,718
Farrell, J., & Rabin, M. (1996) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.10.3.103 · Cited by 1,012
Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars
Walter, B. F. (2002) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400824465 · Cited by 786
Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars
Ikenberry, G. J., & Walter, B. F. (2002) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20033178 · Cited by 753
Third-party Interventions and the Duration of Intrastate Conflicts
REGAN, P. M. (2002) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002702046001004 · Cited by 586
In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics
Powell, R. (1999) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9780691213989 · Cited by 540
Cited by
Powell, R. (2006) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818306060061 · Cited by 585
Crossing the Water's Edge: Elite Rhetoric, Media Coverage, and the Rally-Round-the-Flag Phenomenon
Groeling, T., & Baum, M. A. (2008) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381608081061 · Cited by 243
International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes
Kreps, S. E., & Wallace, G. P. R. (2016) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343316657405 · Cited by 128
Metadata
- Authors
- Kydd, A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-09-09
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 597-611
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W2142822385
- Cited by
- 441
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 10.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Which Side Are You On? Bias, Credibility, and Mediation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1540-5907.00042
- The paper
- Kydd, A. (2003). Which Side Are You On? Bias, Credibility, and Mediation. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00042
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.