The effects of neutral, evaluative, and pressing mediator strategies

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of three mediator strategies-neutral, evaluative, and pressing-upon agreement and satisfaction in 100 civil case mediations. The authors found a significant difference in that a neutral strategy resulted in agreement only 28 percent of the time, whereas the evaluative strategy had an agreement rate of 69 percent and the pressing strategy a 57 percent rate. They also found that consistent use of each strategy throughout the mediation increased the agreement rate. When producing high agreements, the two assertive strategiesevaluative and pressing-modestly reduced disputant satisfaction. The study also disclosed that mediators obtained more agreements in motor vehicle, medical malpractice, and personal liability cases than in contract and employment disputes.

What works in alternative dispute resolution? The impact of third‐party neutral strategies in small claims cases

“…The literature regarding directive or evaluative mediator strategies is mixed (American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution, 2017). In an observation study of general civil mediation, pressing and evaluative mediator behaviors increased settlement, but modestly reduced disputant satisfaction (Wall et al, 2011). In an observation study of community mediation, directive mediator behaviors (making suggestions, expressing opinions, telling participants how to behave, and advocating for a particular outcome) were negatively associated with participants reporting that they could express themselves, that the mediator understood what they were expressing, and that they were satisfied with the mediation process (Charkoudian & Wayne, 2010).…”

“…In an observation study of general civil mediation, pressing and evaluative mediator behaviors increased settlement, but modestly reduced disputant satisfaction (Wall et al, 2011). In an observation study of general civil mediation, pressing and evaluative mediator behaviors increased settlement, but modestly reduced disputant satisfaction (Wall et al, 2011).…”

“…Mediation has been described as "an art rather than a science" with rigorous research "treated as a futile exercise or as hopelessly complex" (Slaikeu, Culler, Pearson, & Thoennes, 1985, p. 55). ADR is a confidential and dynamic process that varies by context, case type (Wissler, 2004), third-party neutral characteristics and interventions (Charkoudian & Wayne, 2010;Wall, Dunne, & Chan-Serafin, 2011), and party attitudes, goals, and behaviors (McEwen, 1999;Wall & Chan-Serafin, 2009).…”

The Role of Mediation Strategies in Solving Interpersonal Conflicts

“…Th e eff ectiveness of a mediator may be aff ected by his or her choice of mediation strategy. A number of studies established that the pressing strategy of mediators more often leads to agreements than the neutral strategy does (Bercovitch and Houston 1993;De Dreu and Carnevale 2003;Kressel and Pruitt 1989;Wall, Dunne, and Chan-Serafi n 2011). Bercovitch and Houston (1993) suggested that pressing and directive strategies help parties equalize power imbalances and generally move the disputants toward a more cooperative attitude toward one another.…”

“…The effectiveness of a mediator may be affected by his or her choice of mediation strategy. A number of studies established that the pressing strategy of mediators more often leads to agreements than the neutral strategy does (Bercovitch and Houston ; De Dreu and Carnevale ; Kressel and Pruitt ; Wall, Dunne, and Chan‐Serafin ).…”