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 strategies—evaluative 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.