Disputant and Mediator Behaviors Affecting Short-Term Success in Mediation

This research examined antecedents of short-term success in mediation. Seventy-three hearings were observed at two community dispute resolution centers in New York State. Measures of short-term success were: reaching agreement, goal achievement, and immediate satisfaction with the agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. Results indicated that the likelihood of short-term success increased with disputant joint problem solving and decreased with disputant hostile and contending behavior and the prominence of intangible issues in the case. Satisfaction with the hearing increased with disputants' involvement in a continuing relationship; and goal achievement and both types of satisfaction decreased with escalation of the conflict prior to hearing. As predicted, joint problem solving increased with involvement in a continuing relationship and decreased with disputants' hostile and contentious behavior, the prominence of intangible issues, and escalation of the conflict prior to the hearing. Five mediator behaviors were either unrelated or negatively related to short-term success: providing reassurance, displaying expertise, keeping order, criticizing, and asking embarrassing questions. Mediator behaviors that were positively related to short-term success were those that demonstrated empathy, structured the discussion, and stimulated thinking. Multiple regression analyses revealed several interactions of mediator behaviors with disputant behaviors and prior conditions in predicting agreement and goal achievement.

[1]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  Long-term success in mediation , 1993 .

[2]  C. Stevens,et al.  Strategy and Collective Bargaining Negotiation. , 1978 .

[3]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[4]  K. Kressel,et al.  Labor Mediation: An Exploratory Survey. , 1975 .

[5]  J. Hiltrop.  Mediator Behavior and the Settlement of Collective Bargaining Disputes in Britain , 1985 .

[6]  J. Pearson,et al.  The decision to mediate: Profiles of individuals who accept and reject the opportunity to mediate contested child custody and visitation issues. , 1982 .

[7]  Justin W. Schulz,et al.  The effects of mutual concern on joint welfare , 1978 .

[8]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. , 1975 .

[9]  Steven A. Lewis,et al.  Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives , 1977 .

[10]  Peter J. Carnevale,et al.  The Selection of Mediation Tactics in Public Sector Disputes: A Contingency Analysis , 1985 .

[11]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  Accountability to constituents! A two-edged sword , 1984 .

[12]  Kim,et al.  Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement , 1986 .

[13]  Dean G. Pruitt,et al.  Looking Tough: The Negotiator Under Constituent Surveillance , 1979 .

[14]  Steven D. Seilheimer,et al.  Looking and Competing: Accountability and Visual Access in Integrative Bargaining , 1981 .

[15]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiation. , 1984 .

[16]  R. Walton,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. , 1966 .

[17]  Pruitt,et al.  Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention , 1989 .

[18]  C. Gruder.  Relationships with opponent and partner in mixed-motive bargaining , 1971 .

[19]  T. Jick,et al.  The Public Sector Mediation Process , 1978 .

[20]  Peter J. Carnevale,et al.  Effects of trust, aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics. , 1980 .

[21]  Deborah M. Kolb,et al.  To Be a Mediator: Expressive Tactics in Mediation , 1985 .

[22]  Dean G. Pruitt,et al.  Third-party intervention: a field experiment comparing three different models , 1987 .