Artificial Intelligence Acceptability in Online Dispute Resolution

Artificial Intelligence in Online Dispute Resolution

COVID-19’s global adoption helps to promote electronic commerce across the world. Artificial intelligence and online dispute resolution have naturally been integrated as a result of the growth of high volume and low-value internet commerce (ODR). The following are the findings of research by Yongkyun Chung (2020) on the impacts of Artificial Intelligence acceptance in online dispute resolution:

  1. Customers familiar with Online dipute resolution are still apprehensive to pick artificial intelligence at the current time as framework for resoling disputes.
  2. ODR users think that using artificial intelligence into dispute resolution might help to speed up the process.
  3. Artificial Intelligence may have the cognitive capacity to manage internet commerce conflicts, but not the sympathetic or emotive aptitude.

More about issues affecting Oline Dispute Resolution in Online Dispute Resolution: An Overview and Online Dispute Resolution: Obstacles and Solutions.

E-Commerce and Oline Dispute Resolution



COVID 19’s global impact helped to promote electronic commerce across the world. To prevent the risk of infection, most consumers choose to buy goods online rather than offline. Electronic commerce’s growth of ‘high volume, low value‘ transactions has promoted online dispute resolution in consumer complaints.

In practice, it is unreasonable to expect that customers seeking redress for products or services acquired for $100 in a cross-border e-commerce transaction will traverse borders and go to a foreign court to have their claims addressed.

However, one disadvantage of online dispute resolution is that it is less trustworthy due to the lack of face-to-face conversation in negotiating purchasing and selling activities.

According to Loutocky (2016), just 18% of EU customers utilized the Internet to buy goods from another country in 2014, before COVID 19.

The primary reason for this is that people are hesitant to purchase online. According to the Media Richness Theory (MRT), face-to-face contact transmits more meaningful messages than other forms of communication.

Video conferences and face-to-face communication have a high level of media richness, whereas email and fax have a low level of media richness. In a nutshell, most academics acknowledge that online dispute resolution has inherent flaws when it comes to communication.

Nonetheless, efforts to integrate technology into conflict resolution in a broad sense have continued.

Artificial intelligence in conflict resolution is not a new concept. According to Bruno Latour (1991; 1999) and others, humans and things coexist since humans are inextricably linked to objects like computers and cellphones in everyday life.

Artificial intelligence can be viwed as a neutral or problem solver in the context of online dispute resolution.

Artificial Intelligence in Online Dispute Settlement Literature solely looks at the “supply” side of artificial intelligence in online dispute resolution. The final question is whether most customers believe artificial intelligence can handle small-value, high-frequency e-commerce conflicts effectively.

The research on arbitrator acceptability has already looked into age, gender, and education. Similarly, the use of AI in Online Dispute Resolution is the subject of various studies. It should be noted that consumers (who might use ODR) are not homogenous because youthful college students are digital natives, but elderly individuals who did not get formal information, communication technology (ICT) education are digital immigrants.

Thus the study referred to earlier aims to prove the age effect on the acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in the context of online dispute resolution across the age spectrum.

For other studies on AI use in ODR platforms; Here.

Artificial Intelligence and Online Dispute Resolution

The emergence of online dispute resolution is concurrent with the rise of cross-border electronic commerce.

The motivation for establishing a global redress system for cross-border electronic commerce disputes is the sharp increase in the volume of e-commerce in the 21st century. At the same time, most of the value of conflicts is held by a tiny group of people. As a result, consumers avoid/ can’t go to a national court to resolve their disputes.

Cortes (2010), Rule et al. (2010), Duca et al. (2012), Cortes and Rosa(2013), Raymond(2014), and Tan(2019) are among the latest academics that propose a worldwide ODR system to manage cross-border e-commerce disputes.

Dispute Resolution.

Although there have been many online consumer complaints, the worldwide redress mechanism for cross-border electronic commerce disputes has two limitations.

First, because of the large number of transactions in internet commerce, humane neutrals can’t deal with too many instances originating from around the world.

Second, maintaining fairness in dealing with the diversity of customers globally, in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, education, and nationality, is difficult for human neutrals. That is one of the primary reasons why artificial intelligence is used in online dispute settlement.

Accordingly, various scholars look into a variety of artificial intelligence applications in conflict resolution. They weigh in on the advantages and disadvantages of decision support systems, expert systems, Case-Based Reasoning (CBR), and legal ontologies.

Mania (2015), a recent book, looks at online conflict resolution from the standpoint of the future of justice. Others such as Pandit (2019) investigates the influence of artificial intelligence on the legal profession.

Moreover, most of the prior research has focused chiefly on the supply side of the problem and the technological feasibility of implementing Artificial Intelligence in online dispute resolution.

One unresolved challenge in online dispute resolution stems from the demand side of artificial Intelligence.

Do customers embrace Artificial Intelligence as a neutral or issue solver in online dispute resolution? This type of problem has been addressed in previous arbitrator acceptance literature over several decades.

The previous model of arbitrator acceptance looked into whether arbitrator qualities are essential in arbitrator selection. Age, gender, education, and prior employment arbitration experience are all factors to consider.

The results are inconclusive. The favorable link between arbitration background and arbitrator acceptance is supported by Briggs and Anderson (1980).

The link between them is not supported by Bemmels (1990). The second-generation model aimed to provide a theoretical model that might explain arbitrator acceptance (Posthuma and Dworkin, 2000; Houghton and Elkin, 2013; Chung and Ha, 2016).

They put antecedents like experience, knowledge, and procedural justice to the test, as well as arbitrator acceptability.

Nowadays, the relevance of the age spectrum of customers is underlined when it comes to artificial intelligence acceptance because consumers are expected to demonstrate disparities in online dispute settlement. Digital natives’ behaviors differ from those of digital immigrants.

Digital natives are exposed to a variety of influences as they grow up. As a result, their brains are most likely to operate differently because they think differently than digital immigrants.

Because artificial intelligence is a byproduct of the computer era, digital natives are supposed to have a comfortable relationship. Digital native literature suggests that digital natives are inclined to accept artificial Intelligence as impartial in online dispute resolution, whereas digital immigrants are apprehensive.

Artificial Intelligence: Electronic commerce disputes and online transaction

Artificial Intelligence as a neutral or problem solver in online dispute resolution.

There are several behavioral distinctions between digital natives and digital immigrants. The importance of information and communication technology has been stressed in the literature (ICT).

The majority of digital natives have no trouble utilizing information technology-enabled devices such as cellphones, laptop computers, etc.

Digital immigrants, on the other hand, struggle to use embodied information technology goods. We believe that digital natives and digital immigrants behave differently. As a result, the primary premise of this article is that digital natives and digital immigrants have different views on the role of artificial Intelligence in cyberspace dispute resolution.

Validity, trust, competency, speed, cost-savings, and expertise are the six criteria used to distinguish the differences and similarities between college students and adult age groups regarding the use of artificial Intelligence in resolving e-commerce disputes.


  1. Does Artificial Intelligence help to resolve disputes in small value online transactions?
  2. Are you willing to accept Artificial Intelligence as a decision-maker in small value cross-border electronic commerce disputes?

In the literature on arbitrator acceptance, acceptability is a critical variable. The conventional model of arbitrator acceptability explores whether the qualities of arbitrators, such as age, gender, education, and experience, are essential determinants in arbitration selection.

In terms of acceptability, we want to know if respondents think artificial agents can resolve e-commerce conflicts. Is Artificial Intelligence as a decision-maker in conflicts is difficult for disputants to accept?


Is Artificial Intelligence software effective in resolving cross-border e-commerce disputes?

On the topic of trust, we imply that disputants must have faith in artificial intelligence software to solve the problem. Trust is a crucial component of a human buyer-seller connection in their relationship.

According to the human-computer interaction (HCI) literature, human-computer contact is conceivable. As a result, we believe that trust is necessary for disputants to rely on artificial Intelligence in ODR. As a result, we assume that a human being must have faith in an artificial intelligence agent.


  1. Does Artificial Intelligence have the cognitive competence to understand the contents of cross-border e-commerce disputes?
  2. Does Artificial Intelligence have the adequate competence to understand the contents of cross-border e-commerce disputes?
  3. Does Artificial Intelligence have the sympathetic competence to understand the contents of cross-border e-commerce disputes?

Competence is one of the critical factors in the research on arbitrator acceptance that influences disputants’ decision-making on arbitrator acceptability. Competence is split into two elements: cognitive and affective competence.

Because artificial Intelligence is invisible software with no physical substance, we anticipate that customers’ views will change depending on their cognitive and emotional sides.


Does Artificial Intelligence have the speed in solving e-commerce disputes?

The majority of the literature on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) emphasizes speed as an essential factor in deciding which routes to pursue from various alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

According to arbitration literature, the primary advantage of arbitration over litigation is speed. Unlike offline ADR, ODR has the potential to resurrect the wisdom of speed in dispute resolution since the online framework guarantees speed when compared to the offline environment.


Is Artificial Intelligence the cost-saving technology in solving the small value cross-border e-commerce disputes?

The cost element is a necessary component of embracing AI as a problem-solving tool.


Is an Artificial Intelligence mediator capable of solving e-commerce disputes?

Does artificial intelligence(AI) mediator have the expertise in solving e-commerce disputes?

Expertise is mentioned in the literature on arbitrator acceptance as an essential factor when choosing an arbitrator. The use of technical experts as arbitrators is necessary because they provide the best possibility for the parties’ different viewpoints to be heard.

On the other hand, a new area of research, such as the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution, is still in its early stages. As a result, generating hypotheses for testing is complex.

Based on results and output, here is the conclusion made:


On the acceptability of artificial Intelligence for settling disputes in small-value online transactions, all respondents across all age categories of the study have good opinions about artificial Intelligence.

Table 1 shows that most respondents, regardless of age group, agree that artificial Intelligence may assist in resolving disputes in low-value online transactions. One interesting finding is that in the “strongly agree” column, the youngest age group had the highest frequency. Compared to other age groups, digital natives strongly embrace artificial Intelligence as a neutral in conflict settlement.

AgeStrongly disagreeDo not agreeMediumAgreeStrongly agreeSum
Acceptability of Artificial Intelligence in Online Dipute Resolution

On the other hand, respondents’ opinions about the other measure of acceptability are a little bit different. The majority of respondents had a “moderate” view toward artificial intelligence as a decision-maker in conflicts rather than humans. However, a sizable percentage of respondents are enthusiastic about artificial intelligence’s potential as a dispute-resolution tool. However, It is clear that a sizable proportion of respondents are skeptical about artificial intelligence as a neutral in conflict settlement.                         

AgeStrongly disagreeDo not agreeMediumAgreeStrongly agreeSum
Table 2 Acceptability2

2. Trust

Across all age categories, the most significant percentage of respondents pick “medium” from a 5-item scale. It suggests that most respondents in our sample are unsure if artificial intelligence software is suitable for cross-border e-commerce conflicts, regardless of age. One interesting finding is that across age groups, the 20-29-year-old group had the highest frequency in the “strongly agree” area. It suggests that, as compared to other age groups, digital natives are more likely to trust artificial intelligence.                                                         

AgeStrongly disagreeDo not agreeMediumAgreeStrongly agreeSum
<Table 3> Trust


Let’s look at the first criterion of artificial intelligence competency, cognitive competence. Table 4 shows that the majority of respondents chose medium from a list of five options. It suggests that most people are unsure if artificial intelligence has the cognitive ability to comprehend the details of cross-border e-commerce conflicts. The youngest age group had the highest frequency in the “strongly agree” section among all age groups is a common occurrence. Compared to the other age groups, digital natives are more inclined to believe that artificial intelligence possesses cognitive ability.

AgeStrongly disagreeDo not agreeMediumAgreeStrongly agreeSum
<Table 4> Cognitive Competence

In the practical ability of artificial intelligence, respondents in the 40-49 and 50-59 age groups pick “medium” out of five-item assessments at a higher rate than those in the 20-29 age groups. It suggests that some elderly individuals are cautious about saying if artificial intelligence can grasp the details of cross-border e-commerce conflicts in practice. One noteworthy finding is that conservative beliefs are prevalent across all age groups. In other words, the majority of respondents do not select a “strongly agree” option from a list of five options. The “strongly agree” even the lowest age group does not choose metric.   

AgeStrongly disagreeDo not agreeMediumAgreeStrongly agreeSum
<Table 5> Affective Competence

Furthermore, the study investigates whether respondents believe AI is capable of empathy. It’s worth noting that most respondents in the youngest age range had a definite negative response, which is consistent with prior affective measure results.

On the other hand, the medium answer is preferred by the 40-49 and 50-59 age groups. It shows that they are hesitant to respond. These findings suggest that digital natives see a clear dividing line in their thoughts between cognitive and dynamic artificial intelligence capability. One idea is that as people get older, they become more generous with their environment. These findings demonstrate that digital native hypotheses are not straightforward. They have a more delicate dynamic structure instead.                              

AgeStrongly disagreeDo not agreeMediumAgreeStrongly agreeSum
<Table 6> Sympathetic Competence


Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) literature has demonstrated that ADR, to some extent, is better than litigation in resolving e-commerce issues because mediation or arbitration is faster than litigation. All age groups across three age spectrums are supportive of artificial intelligence’s quick procedure.

Table 7 demonstrates that respondents of all ages agree on the quickness with which e-commerce issues are resolved. It suggests that the artificial intelligence-based architecture of the ODR platform prioritizes the role of ensuring quick resolution.                                                            

AgeStrongly disagreeDo not agreeMediumAgreeStrongly agreeSum
<Table 7> Speed


Except for the 40-49 age group, the youngest age group and the 50-59 age group favor artificial intelligence’s cost-saving qualities. When it comes to cost-cutting and speed-measures, the youngest age group of 20-29 years old has the highest frequency in the “strongly agree” area compared to adult groups.

These findings suggest that, compared to older age groups, the younger generation of digital natives is more likely to value the practical aspects of life, such as cost and speed.                             

AgeStrongly disagreeDo not agreeMediumAgreeStrongly agreeSum
<Table 8> Cost-Saving


Except for the 40-49 age group, both the 20-29 and 50-59 age groups think that using artificial intelligence to resolve e-commerce conflicts is professional. Furthermore, the highly agree item pattern reveals that the 20-29 age group has the highest frequency. Second, the 40-49 age group is second, followed by the 50-59 age group, which accounts for 2.3 percent of the entire sample.                                                    

AgeStrongly disagreeDo not agreeMediumAgreeStrongly agreeSum
<Table 9> Expertise


Because of the widespread COV19 virus, most individuals choose to acquire commodities online rather than in person. Because face-to-face contact is lacking in the negotiation of purchasing and selling behaviors in electronic commerce, one of the primary impediments to the expansion of e-commerce is that dispute resolution is less trustworthy.

Because artificial intelligence ensures speed and cost-saving in dispute resolution, artificial intelligence may minimize disagreements among partners in an online shopping platform.

Therefore, one can conclude that:

  • First, seven of the nine variables included in this study demonstrate a consistent dynamic pattern over the age range.
  • Second, the medium response makes up a sizable part of the responses to nine study questions. At present, it appears that a significant number of Korean respondents are apprehensive about using artificial intelligence as a neutral in conflict settlement.
  • Third, most respondents believe that incorporating AI into dispute resolution will help speed up the process.
  • Fourth, while most respondents think that artificial intelligence (AI) has cognitive abilities, AI lacks the empathy and affective abilities needed to resolve electronic commerce conflicts.
  • Fifth, in terms of cost-cutting, respondents generally have favorable opinions.

In general, the youngest age group, so-called digital natives, have consistent attitudes that appear to be sympathetic toward artificial intelligence neutral in online dispute resolution; this implies that an ODR platform augmented with artificial intelligence will be possible to design and construct in the future.

On the other hand, the online redress system isn’t ideal for dealing with online consumer grievances. First and foremost, the ODR platform must hold the consumer’s information.

As a result, customer privacy is likely to be jeopardized. Furthermore, dealing with cultural elements is difficult for artificial intelligence. These issues must be resolved to break one of the major obstacles affecting ODR adoption.


Avid reader and practitioner of alternative dispute resolution methods.

Recent Posts