What do disputants want? Preferences for third party resolution procedures

Traditional adjudicative procedures for resolving small claims disputes have been augmented with less formal means of dispute resolution. Two such alternatives are arbitration and mediation. Study 1 (N = 74) investigated undergraduates' initial perceptions of the consequences that are likely to follow from employing adjudication, arbitration and mediation and how these perceptions relate to preference when faced with an abstract dispute. Results revealed that participants preferred mediation over adjudication. Mediation was viewed as having greater interpersonal focus, while adjudication was perceived as more fair and solution focused. Study 2 (N = 122) examined the impact of three dispute characteristics (strength of position, nature of relationship, other party's cooperativeness) on preferences for these same three procedures. Overall, preference was mediated by case strength, with differences in case strength related to perceived differences in the extent to which the various procedures were believed to facilitate a favourable outcome.