Contingencies in the mediation of disputes.

Abstract

Although it is widely recognized that the behavior of mediators in resolving disputes is often contingent on the characteristics of disputes, little systematic research has examined mediators' perceptions of the contingent use or effectiveness of their behavior. We surveyed 255 professional mediators about the features of the disputes they encountered, the tactics they used, and the outcomes they achieved in their most recently completed case. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test a hypothesized factor structure for mediator behavior, and exploratory factor analyses provided information about the underlying structures of dispute features and mediation outcomes. The results of the factor analyses served as the basis for an assessment of perceived contingencies among dispute sources, mediator tactics, and outcomes. The results of correlational analyses suggest that the mediators used many tactics contingently. The results of moderated multiple regression analyses indicate that mediators believed some tactics were effective in certain dispute situations and not in others. Tactics viewed as positively related with success in some disputes were viewed as unrelated or even negatively related with success in other disputes. Mediation has long been regarded as an effective technique for helping people resolve disputes in organizational and other settings. It is probably best known as a component of collective bargaining in formal labor-management interactions, and there is growing interest in mediation as an informal mechanism of coordinating social and organizational goals (Kressel & Pruitt, 1989). However, research on mediation is in its infancy. In this article, we report an exploratory empirical investigation of mediation as it is practiced in an assortment of arenas, including labor, marital, community, judicial, family, environmental, marketplace, and landlord-tenant disputes. Many writers have acknowledged that mediators often use

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 93 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.