Advertisement

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Trial and Appellate Courts

  • Robert J. MacCoun
  • E. Allan Lind
  • Tom R. Tyler

Abstract

In recent decades, American courts have made substantial efforts to develop alternatives to traditional trial and appellate hearing procedures. Mediation and arbitration programs have become common features of state and federal court procedure. Many of these alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures have been the target of empirical program evaluation studies, and there is now a substantial body of research on the workings and consequences of such procedures. As will be seen in many of the studies we review, ADR programs frequently have unexpected effects. In addition, unexpected or not, ADR research has produced many interesting insights into the psychology of law and the psychology of disputing.

Keywords

Procedural Justice Dispute Resolution Alternative Dispute Resolution Society Review Plea Bargaining 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abel, R. (1982). Introduction. In R. Abel (Ed.), The politics of informal justice: The American experience, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Adler, J.W., Felstiner, W.F., Hensler, D.R., & Peterson, M. (1982). The pace of litigation: Conference proceedings. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. Adler, J.W., Hensler, D.R., & Nelson, C.E. (1983). Simple justice: How litigants fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  6. Alfini, J.J. (1989). Summary jury trials in state and federal courts: A comparative analysis of the perceptions of participating lawyers. Ohio State University Journal of Dispute Resolution, 4, 213–234.Google Scholar
  7. Alschuler, A. (1983). Implementing the criminal defendant’s right to trial: Alternatives to the plea bargaining system. University of Chicago Law Review, 50, 831–1050.Google Scholar
  8. Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group (1986). Dispute resolution in Massachusetts: Final report of the Governor’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group. Boston: Office of the Governor.Google Scholar
  9. American Bar Association National Conference of State Trial Judges (1984). Standards relating to court delay reduction. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. Barkai, J., & Kassebaum, G. (1989). Using court-annexed arbitration to reduce litigant costs and to increase the pace of litigation. Pepper dine Law Review, 16, S43-S74.Google Scholar
  11. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Brazil, W. (1981). Improving judicial controls over the pretrial development of civil actions: Model rules for case management and sanctions. American Bar Association Research Journal, 1981, 873–965.Google Scholar
  13. Brazil, W. (1987). Hosting settlement conferences: Effectiveness in the judicial role. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 3, 1–77.Google Scholar
  14. Brett, J.M., & Goldberg, S.B. (1983). Mediator-advisors: A new third-party role. In M. Bazerman & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 165–176). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Bryant, D.L. (1989). Judicial arbitration in California: An update. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  16. Burger, W.E. (1982). Isn’t there a better way? American Bar Association Journal, 68, 274–277.Google Scholar
  17. Casper, J.D., Tyler, T.R., & Fisher, B. (1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review, 22, 483–507.Google Scholar
  18. Cerino, A.M., & Rainone, S.M. (1983–1984). The new wave: Speedy arbitration hearings—but are they fair? Villanova Law Review, 29, 1495–1503.Google Scholar
  19. Church, T.W. (1978). Civil case delay in state trial courts. Justice System Journal, 4, 166–196.Google Scholar
  20. Church, T.W. (1982). The “old and the new” conventional wisdom of court delay. Justice System Journal, 7, 395–412.Google Scholar
  21. Clarke, S.H., Donnelly, L.F., & Grove, S.A. (1989, June). North Carolina’s program of court-ordered arbitration: An evaluation of its effects. Presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  22. Coates, D., & Penrod, S. (1980–1981). Social psychology and the emergence of disputes. Law & Society Review, 15, 655–680.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, R. (1985). Procedural justice and participation. Human Relations, 38, 643–663.Google Scholar
  24. Connolly, P.R.J., & Smith, S. (1983). The litigant’s perspective on delay: Waiting for the dough. Justice System Journal, 8, 271–286.Google Scholar
  25. Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  26. Cooter, R., Marks, S., & Mnookin, R. (1982). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: A testable model of strategic behavior. Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 225–252.Google Scholar
  27. Davis, R.C., Tichane, M., & Grayson, D. (1980). Mediation and arbitration as alternatives to prosecution in felony arrest cases. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  28. Ebener, P.A., & Betancourt, D.R. (1985). Court-annexed arbitration: The national picture. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  29. Emery, R.E., & Wyer, M.M. (1987). Divorce mediation. American Psychologist, 42, 472–480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Erlanger, H.S., Chambliss, E., & Melli, M.S. (1987). Participation and flexibility in informal processes: Cautions from the divorce context. Law & Society Review, 21, 585–604.Google Scholar
  31. Esser, J.P. (1988). Evaluations of dispute processing: We don’t know what we think and we don’t think what we know. Working Paper 8–10, Disputes Processing Research Program, Institute for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  32. Felstiner, W.L.F. (1974). Influences of social organization on dispute processing. Law & Society Review, 9, 63–94.Google Scholar
  33. Felstiner, W.L.F., Abel, R.L., & Sarat, A. (1980–1981). The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming. Law & Society Review, 15, 631–654.Google Scholar
  34. Fiss, O.M. (1984). Against settlement. Yale Law Review, 93, 1073–1984.Google Scholar
  35. Flanders, S. (1977). Case management and court management in United States district courts. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  36. Friedland, N., Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1973). Some determinants of the violation of rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 103–118.Google Scholar
  37. Galanter, M. (1987). Jury shadows: Reflections on the civil jury and the “litigation explosion.” In The American Civil Jury: Final Report of the 1986 Chief Justice Earl Warren Conference on Advocacy in the United States (pp. 15–42). Washington DC: The Roscoe Pound-American Trial Lawyers Foundation.Google Scholar
  38. Gifford, D.G. (1983). Meaningful reform of plea bargaining: The control of prosecutorial discretion. University of Illinois Law Review, 1983, 37–98.Google Scholar
  39. Gluckman, M. (1969). Ideas and procedures in African customary law. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Goldberg, S.B., Green, E.D., & Sander, F.E.A. (1985). Dispute resolution. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  41. Goldman, J. (1977). An evaluation of the Civil Appeals Management Plan: An experiment in judicial administration. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  42. Gould, J.P. (1973). The economic of legal conflicts. Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 279–300.Google Scholar
  43. Gulliver, P.H. (1979). Disputes and negotiations: A cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Heinz, A.M., & Kerstetter, W.A. (1979). Pretrial settlement conference: Evaluation of a reform in plea bargaining. Law & Society Review, 13, 349–366.Google Scholar
  45. Hensler, D.R. (1986). What we know and don’t know about court-administered arbitration. Judicature, 69, 270–278.Google Scholar
  46. Hensler, D.R., Lipson, A.J., & Rolph, E.S. (1981). Judicial arbitration in California: The first year. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  47. Hensler, D.H., Vaiana, M.E., Kakalik, J.S., & Peterson, M.A. (1987). Trends in tort litigation: The story behind the statistics. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  48. Heuer, L.B., & Penrod, S. (1986). Procedural preference as a function of conflict intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 700–710.Google Scholar
  49. Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  50. Houlden, P. (1980–1981). Impact of procedural modifications on evaluations of plea bargaining. Law & Society Review, 15, 267–291.Google Scholar
  51. Houlden, P., LaTour, S., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Preferences for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 13–30.Google Scholar
  52. Jacoubovitch, M.-D., & Moore, CM. (1982). Summary jury trials in the Northern District of Ohio. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  53. Kakalik, J.S., Selvin, M., & Pace, N.M. (1990). Averting gridlock: Strategies for reducing civil case delay in Los Angeles Superior Court. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  54. Keilitz, S., Gallas, G., & Hanson, R. (1988). State adoption of alternative dispute resolution: Where is it today? State Court Journal, 12, 4–11.Google Scholar
  55. Kelley, H.H., & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Komorita, S.S., & Barnes, M. (1975). Effects of pressures to reach agreement in bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 699–705.Google Scholar
  57. Lambros, T.D. (1986). The summary jury trial— An alternative method of resolving disputes. Judicature, 69, 286–290.Google Scholar
  58. Lambros, T.D., & Shunk, T.H. (1980). The summary jury trial. Cleveland State Law Review, 29, 43–59.Google Scholar
  59. Landis, J.M., & Goodstein, L. (1986). When is justice fair? An integrated approach to the outcome vs. procedure debate. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1986, 675–708.Google Scholar
  60. Lane, R.E. (1989). Procedural goods in a democracy: How one is treated versus what one gets. Social Justice Research, 2, 177–192.Google Scholar
  61. LaTour, S. (1978). Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1531–1545.Google Scholar
  62. Lerner, M. (1986, July). Some thoughts about the social psychology of justice. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Justice in Human Relations, Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  63. Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models in conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898–908.Google Scholar
  64. Leung, K., & Lind, E.A. (1986). Procedural justice and culture: Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1134–1140.Google Scholar
  65. Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange-Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  66. Lieberman, J.K. (1981). The litigious society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  67. Lind, E.A. (1982). The psychology of courtroom procedure. In R. Bray & N. Kerr (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 13–38). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  68. Lind, E.A. (1990). Arbitrating high-stakes cases: An evaluation of court-annexed arbitration in a United States District Court. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  69. Lind, E.A., Erickson, B.E., Friedland, N., & Dickenberger, M. (1978). Reactions to procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 318–341.Google Scholar
  70. Lind, E.A., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J.W. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 643–653.Google Scholar
  71. Lind, E.A., Lissak, R.I., & Conlon, D.E. (1983). Decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 338–350.Google Scholar
  72. Lind, E. A., MacCoun, R. J., Ebener, P. A., Felstiner, W.L.F., Hensler, D.R., Resnik, J., & Tyler, T.R. (1990). In the eye of the beholder: Tort litigants’evaluations of their experiences in the civil justice system. Law and Society Review, 24, 953–996.Google Scholar
  73. Lind, E.A., & Shapard, J.E. (1981). Evaluation of court-annexed arbitration in three federal district courts. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  74. Lind E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  75. Loftus, E.F., & Wagenaar, W.A. (1988). Lawyers’ predictions of success. Jurimetrics Journal, 28, 437–453.Google Scholar
  76. Maatman, G.L., Jr. (1988). The future of summary jury trials in federal courts: Strandell v. Jackson County. The John Marshall Law Review, 21, 455–487.Google Scholar
  77. MacCoun, R.J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decisionmaking. Science, 244, 1046–1050.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. MacCoun, R.J., Lind, E. A., Hensler, D.H., Bryant, D.L., & Ebener, P.A. (1988). Alternative adjudication: An evaluation of the New Jersey automobile arbitration program. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  79. MacCoun, R.J., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The basis of citizens’ perceptions of the criminal jury: Procedural fairness, accuracy, and efficiency. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 333–352.Google Scholar
  80. Mahoney, B. (1988). Changing times in trial courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
  81. Maisch, M. (1988, June 9). Can lawyers predict the outcome of their cases? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law & Society Association, Vail, CO.Google Scholar
  82. McEwen, CA., & Maiman, R.J. (1981). Small claims mediation in Maine: An empirical assessment. Maine Law Review, 33, 237–268.Google Scholar
  83. McEwen, CA., & Maiman, R.J. (1984). Mediation in small claims court: Achieving compliance through consent. Law & Society Review, 18, 11–49.Google Scholar
  84. McEwen, CA., & Maiman, R.J. (1986). The relative significance of disputing forum and dispute characteristics for outcome and compliance. Law & Society Review, 20, 439–447.Google Scholar
  85. Menkel-Meadow, C. (1983). Legal negotiations: A study of strategies in search of theory. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1983, 905–937.Google Scholar
  86. Menkel-Meadow, C. (1985). For and against settlement: Uses and abuses of the mandatory settlement conference. UCLA Law Review, 33, 485–514.Google Scholar
  87. Merry, S.E., & Silbey, S.S. (1984). What do plaintiffs want? Reexamining the concept of dispute. Justice System Journal, 9, 151–178.Google Scholar
  88. Miller, G.P. (1986). An economic analysis of Rule 68. Journal of Legal Studies, 15, 93–126.Google Scholar
  89. Myers, S., Gallas, G., Hanson, R., & Keilitz, S. (1988). Divorce mediation in the states: Institutionalization, use, and assessment. State Court Journal, 12, 17–25.Google Scholar
  90. Nader, L. (1969). Styles of court procedure: To make the balance. In L. Nader (Ed.), Law in culture and society (pp. 69–91). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  91. Nader, L., & Todd, H.F. (1978). The disputing process: Law in ten societies. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Neubauer, D.W. (1986). Are we approaching judicial gridlock? A critical review of the literature. Justice System Journal, 11, 363–381.Google Scholar
  93. Nisbett, R. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  94. Notz, W.W., & Starke, F.A. (1987). Arbitration and distributive justice: Equity or equality? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 359–365.Google Scholar
  95. O’Barr, W.M., & Conley, J.M. (1985). Litigant satisfaction versus legal adequacy in small claims court narratives. Law & Society Review, 19, 661–701.Google Scholar
  96. O’Barr, W.M., & Conley, J.M. (1988). Lay expectations of the civil justice system. Law & Society Review, 22, 137–161.Google Scholar
  97. Partridge, A., & Eldridge, W.B. (1974). The Second Circuit sentencing study: A report to the judges of the Second Circuit. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  98. Partridge, A., & Lind, A. (1983). A réévaluation of the Civil Appeals Management Plan. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  99. Posner, R.A. (1986). The summary jury trial and other methods of alternative dispute resolution: Some cautionary observations. University of Chicago Law Review, 53, 366–393.Google Scholar
  100. Priest, G.L. (1982). Regulating the content and volume of litigation: An economic analysis. Supreme Court Economic Review, 1, 163–183.Google Scholar
  101. Priest, G.L., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies, 13, 1–55.Google Scholar
  102. Provine, D.M. (1986). Settlement strategies for Federal District judges. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  103. Pruitt, D.G., & Johnson, D.F. (1970). Mediation as an aid to face saving in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 239–246.Google Scholar
  104. Resnik, J. (1982). Managerial judges. Harvard Law Review, 96, 374–448.Google Scholar
  105. Rosenberg, M. (1964). The pretrial conference and effective justice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Rowe, T.D. (1984). Predicting the effects of attorney fee shifting. Law and Contemporary Problems, 47, 139–171.Google Scholar
  107. Rowe, T.D. (1988). Empirical research on offers of settlement: A preliminary report. Law and Contemporary Problems, 51, 13–40.Google Scholar
  108. Ryan, J.P., & Alfini, J.J. (1979). Trial judges’ participation in plea bargaining: An empirical perspective. Law & Society Review, 13, 479–508.Google Scholar
  109. Sarat, A. (1976). Alternatives in dispute processing: Litigation in a small claims court. Law & Society Review, 11, 339–375.Google Scholar
  110. Sarat, A. (1988). The “new formalism” in disputing and dispute processing. Law & Society Review, 21, 695–715.Google Scholar
  111. Schuller, R.A., & Vidmar, N. (1988). Reactions to mediation procedures. Unpublished manuscript, Law and Social Science Program, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  112. Shavell, S. (1982). Suit, settlement, and trial: A theoretical analysis under alternative methods for the allocation of legal costs. Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 55–81.Google Scholar
  113. Sherman, L., & Berk, R.A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Stites v. Sundstrand Heat Transfer, Inc., No. K84–299 (W.D. Michigan, 1987).Google Scholar
  115. Strandell v. Jackson County, 838 F. 2d 884 (7th Cir. 1988).Google Scholar
  116. Tell, L.J., & Angiolillo, Paul (1987 September 7). From jury selection to verdict—in hours: Summary jury trials are making dockets lighter. Business Week, p. 48.Google Scholar
  117. Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  118. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  119. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566.Google Scholar
  120. Trubek, D.M., Sarat, A., Felstiner, W.L.F., Kritzer, H.M., & Grossman, J.B. (1983). The costs of ordinary litigation. UCLA Law Review, 31, 72–127.Google Scholar
  121. Tyler, T.R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendant’s evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law & Society Review, 18, 51–74.Google Scholar
  122. Tyler, T.R. (1988). The quality of dispute resolution processes and outcomes: Measurement problems and possibilities. Working Paper 8–8, Disputes Processing Research Program, Institute for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  123. Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why citizens obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy and compliance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Tyler, T.R., Rasinski, K., & Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72–81.Google Scholar
  125. Umbreit, M.S. (1988). Mediation of victim offender conflict. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1988, 85–105.Google Scholar
  126. Vidmar, N. (1986). Assessing the effects of case characteristics and settlement forum on dispute outcomes and compliance. Law & Society Review, 21, 156–164.Google Scholar
  127. Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E.A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295–310.Google Scholar
  128. Walker, L., Lind, E.A., & Thibaut, J. (1979). The relation between procedural and distributive justice. Virginia Law Review, 65, 1401–1420.Google Scholar
  129. Wall, J.A., & Schiller, L.F. (1983). The judge off the bench: A mediator in civil settlement negotiations. In M.H. Bazerman & R.J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 177–192). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  130. Walster, E., Walster, G.A., & Berscheud, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  131. Weiler, S., Ruhnka, J.C., & Martin, J.A. (1982). American experiments for reducing civil trial costs and delays. Civil Justice Quarterly, 1, 151–174.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. MacCoun
  • E. Allan Lind
  • Tom R. Tyler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations