Just Court ADR

How can mediation be saved? This is the question that Nancy Welsh attempts to answer in her recent article, “Do You Believe in Magic?: Self-Determination and Procedural Justice Meet Inequality in Court-Connected Mediation,” (SMU Law Review, Vol 70, 2017).Welsh laments the lack of self-determination in mediation and looks at social science research to question whether mediation really provides procedural justice in a world of inequality, bias and prejudice. Gilat J. Bachar and Deborah R. Hensler take a slightly different tack in their article, “Does Alternative Dispute Resolution Facilitate Prejudice and Bias? We Still Don’t Know” (SMU Law Review, Vol 70, 2017). They look at empirical research on ADR to see if there is evidence that ADR does indeed facilitate bias and prejudice.

In her article, Welsh argues that the promise of mediation to ensure self-determination isn’t being upheld. Instead, she claims that self-determination has been sidelined by judges and lawyers, and calls for reform have fallen on deaf ears. So Welsh turns to procedural justice, which includes having voice, being heard, being treated in an even-handed manner and being treated with dignity, as another way of providing self-determination. If the elements of procedural justice are present, the parties are more likely to have self-determination because they can have an open discussion that leads to an outcome that truly represents the interests of all involved.

The provision of procedural justice, however, is not straightforward. Recent social science research has found that the provision of procedural justice can be impeded by inequality, bias and prejudice. First, one’s experience of procedural justice and how much it influences one’s view of the substantive outcome is affected by one’s status. Procedural justice is more important to those of lower status, who use it to determine if the outcome was fair. Second, one’s ability and desire to have voice is dependent upon one’s status. Third, those with lower status may not be heard by those with higher status. Indeed, research has found that those with higher status are less likely to hear those of lower status due to their prejudices and biases.

Welsh proposes a number of ways to address inequality, bias and prejudice, in the hope that mediation can live up to its promise of providing procedural justice, substantive justice and self-determination. These include: increasing the diversity of the mediator pool and training mediators to recognize and address implicit bias; utilizing pre-mediation caucusing to build trust; encouraging active listening in mediation; promoting the use of online tools for communication (as research has shown that people with lower status are more likely to exercise voice using online media); and empowering mediators to avoid unconscionably lopsided outcomes.

Where Welsh looks to social science research to inform how prejudice and bias may play out in the provision of procedural justice in mediation, Bachar and Hensler examine empirical research to find evidence of prejudice and bias in mediation and arbitration outcomes. They looked at 38 studies conducted over three decades that looked at a variety of case types. They found that the studies arrived at “mixed and contradictory” results and lacked methodological rigor. Therefore, they could draw no robust conclusions from them. However, they believed that the results of these studies indicate that both women and minority men fare worse in mediation than white men. There is no research on racial or ethnic bias in arbitration, but recent research points to women – both parties and lawyers – faring worse than men in the process.

Both articles point to a need for a greater focus on whether inequality, bias and prejudice impact the provision of justice through ADR, and how they may be addressed. This intersection of ADR and prejudice is examined in the two 2017 ADR Symposium issues of SMU Law Review, which are definitely worth the time to read.

Last year, I wrote about two studies looking into the use of motivational interviewing in family mediation. The two summaries are presented together here. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a counseling technique designed to induce clients to change their behavior by exploring and resolving their ambivalence toward change. It has been found to be effective in a variety of contexts, including reducing aggression in intact couples.

An experiment in Australia found that when mediators used MI during the mediation, the parties were twice as likely to reach a full agreement. However, this technique does not reduce psychological distress, child adjustment problems or co-parental conflict. The study, undertaken by Megan Morris as part of her PhD thesis (Motivational Interviewing and Family Mediation: Outcomes for Separated Families, 2016 (see Chapter 4)), is the first to examine the use of MI in family mediation.

To determine the impact of MI on mediation outcomes, Morris randomly assigned 177 separated families to either the treatment group (n=94), in which the mediator used MI, or the control group (n=83), in which the mediator did not. The mediations were conducted over the phone and recorded and coded by multiple trained coders as to the integrity of the MI treatment. In all, 108 sessions were recorded, including 68 intake sessions and 40 joint sessions by 15 mediators. Eight of the mediators were randomly assigned to be trained in MI before the study; the other seven were offered training after the study was completed. Those trained prior to the study incorporated MI into their mediations during the study, while the other group continued to use their usual mediation techniques.

Recordings of intake interviews and joint sessions indicated that mediators trained in MI techniques ranked much higher on the MI Treatment Integrity Scale than those who were not, demonstrating that there was a difference in the services provided to the treatment and control groups. Parents in the treatment group were twice as likely to reach full agreement as those in the control group (33% v 16%) and less likely to reach no agreement (33% v 42%). There were no other statistically significant differences in satisfaction with the mediation, psychological distress or child adjustment.

Although the research was well-designed, it suffered from technical and logistical issues, including problems with recording equipment that significantly reduced the number of recorded sessions, and families who were accidentally provided the wrong service for at least one of their sessions. Further, there was a high attrition rate for the study: of those who agreed to participate, only 26% completed the post-mediation satisfaction surveys and psychological assessment instruments. This may have affected the research findings. In particular, the high attrition rate may have masked differences in outcomes that existed between the two groups, leading to the erroneous finding that there were no differences in the long-term outcomes (i.e., psychological distress and co-parental conflict).

Researchers at the University of Nebraska are also looking into combining mediation with MI. Their research, however, is looking at how to best train mediators to employ MI in family mediations. In an article in The Nebraska Lawyer (January/February 2017), they provide a primer on MI and how it can be used in mediation, then discuss the outcomes of their training research.

The researchers – Kristen M. Blankley, Lisa PytlikZillig and Kate Speck – are following eight mediators through the training process and into their practice post-training. The mediators completed self-efficacy surveys before starting training. They then participated in a follow-up discussion. The researchers are not just looking at change in skills and knowledge during training, but are gathering data on the mediators’ ability to use MI in their own mediation practice. Thus, after each mediation the mediators are also filling out reflection worksheets that are based on an assessment developed to improve MI proficiency. The research will also include two more follow-up discussions and another self-efficacy survey.

Through their research, Blankley, et al, have concluded that the most important things in MI training for mediators were:

• Clarify what the new strategies are. MI and mediation share a lot of skills and terminology, but there are important differences. The mediators initially didn’t understand what those differences were and thus how to change their practice.
• Be careful with terminology. MI and mediation can use different terms for the same concepts. This can be confusing. Either explain the differences or change the terminology to fit mediation.
• Demonstrate MI skills. The mediators benefitted greatly from a fishbowl in which an expert in MI demonstrated change talk and the mediators could discuss options for mediator responses.
• Address concerns about appearance of bias. This was a major concern of the mediators. They felt uncomfortable exploring change with one party while the other looked on. The mediators discussed strategies for managing appearance of bias, including the use of caucus.

What is apparent from this article is that the research is not only providing a template for future training, but it is also identifying strategies for incorporating MI into mediation. The article is only six pages and worth a read.

To cap off 2017, I thought I’d look back at what we learned through research over the past 12 months.

We learned that use of motivational interviewing in family mediation in Australia led to a much greater likelihood of the parents reaching full agreement.  As a follow-up, researchers in Nebraska provided insight into how best to train mediators to use motivational interviewing in their practice.

Researchers from the Pacific Rim gave us a new way of thinking about cultural approaches to conflict resolution. Their intake instrument for mediators can be used to understand each individual disputant’s “unique cultural preferences” in the way in which they respond to a particular dispute.

James Wall and Kenneth Kressl delved into mediators’ conscious and unconscious thinking to see how they influenced the mediators’ view of the conflict and how they approached mediation. They found patterns that led them to put mediators into one of three categories: reflective persuaders, pressers and laissez-faires.

A review of restorative justice studies found that victim-offender conferencing, family group conferencing, arbitration/mediation programs, and circle sentencing programs showed promise for reducing recidivism. The researchers also concluded that pre-mediation or pre-conference meetings increased the effectiveness of the programs.

Another review of studies – this time of those that connected mediator behaviors with mediation outcomes – gave us insight into what behaviors might be more effective.  These included eliciting disputants’ suggestions or solutions; giving more attention to disputants’ emotions, relationship, and sources of conflict; working to build trust and rapport, expressing empathy or praising the disputants, and structuring the agenda; and using pre-mediation caucuses focused on establishing trust.

We also found out about the effectiveness of a specific program design for providing services to divorcing families. This Denver-based program provided an array of services to the families, which led to a significant improvement in parental well-being and co-parenting.

On the other hand, courts’ and attorneys’ communication to litigants about their ADR options has been ineffective, according to research in three courts. Despite rules requiring attorneys talk with their clients about their options, only 24% of those surveyed knew that they had the opportunity to mediate their case, and only 27% knew about arbitration.
That’s what we learned this year. Here’s to more insights in 2018!