context of more complex criminal cases. For example,
it is unclear how evaluators would deal with multiple
pieces of alibi evidence or how they would look upon
innocent alibi providers who need to change their ali-
bis in some way. Although the psychological research
is limited at present, the literature is growing and will
continue to uncover how alibis interact with other
pieces of evidence in criminal trials.Elizabeth A. OlsonSee also Detection of Deception: Use of Evidence in;
Detection of Deception in Adults; Interrogation of
Suspects; Police Decision Making; Postevent Information
and Eyewitness Memory; Reconstructive MemoryFurther Readings
Burke, T., Turtle, J., & Olson, E. A. (2007). Alibis in criminal
investigations and trials. In M. Toglia, J. D. Read,
M. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.),The handbook of
eyewitness psychology: Vol. 1. Memory for events
(pp. 157–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Culhane, S. E., & Hosch, H. M. (2004). An alibi witness’
influence on mock jurors’ verdicts. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 34,1604–1616.
Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2004). What makes a good
alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Law and Human Behavior,
28,157–176.ALTERNATIVEDISPUTERESOLUTION
Alternative dispute resolution(ADR) has come to refer
broadly to a range of processes (e.g., bilateral negotia-
tion, fact finding, mediation, summary jury trial, arbi-
tration) that are used in transactional (e.g., design
contracts, develop regulations), dispute prevention,
and dispute resolution contexts. ADR processes oper-
ate in public and private settings, such as courts,
government agencies, community mediation centers,
schools, workplaces, and private providers, to address
an array of substantive issues (e.g., custody, torts, con-
tracts, misdemeanors, environmental issues).
This entry focuses on a subset of ADR processes:
those that involve a neutral third party and serve as an
alternative to court adjudication of civil, divorce, and
minor criminal disputes. The processes that are most
commonly used are described in the following section.The goals and asserted benefits of ADR include
enhancing disputants’ satisfaction with the resolution
process and its outcome; producing better outcomes
and increased compliance; improving the disputants’
relationship and reducing future disputes; providing
faster, less expensive, and confidential case resolu-
tion; increasing disputants’ access to a hearing on the
merits; and reducing caseloads and the use of court
resources. These goals do not all apply to, and are not
of equal importance in, every ADR process and set-
ting. Criticisms of ADR, particularly when its use is
mandatory, include that it lacks procedural safe-
guards, decreases public participation and scrutiny,
reduces the available legal precedents and reference
points, creates pressures to settle, provides second-
class justice, and impedes access to trial by adding
another step in the litigation process. Empirical field
research on the efficacy of ADR, and on the impact of
process, third-party, and dispute characteristics, is dis-
cussed in a subsequent section.Third-Party ADR Processes
Third-party ADR processes fall into two main cate-
gories. The first involves processes such as arbitration,
in which the third party decides the case for the dis-
putants. The second category involves processes such
as mediation, in which the third party assists the
disputants in reaching their own resolution. If the
disputants reach an agreement, it is legally enforce-
able; if they do not, the case continues in litigation.
Although most disputes settle before trial, a neutral
third party can help disputants overcome the logisti-
cal, strategic, and cognitive barriers to bilateral nego-
tiation that often impede early or optimal settlements.
Disputants can enter ADR as the result of a predispute
contractual agreement to use ADR or, after a dispute has
arisen, as a result of mutual agreement, judicial referral
of a specific case, or court-mandated use for an entire
category of cases. In both court-connected and private
ADR, the proceedings are private, and the content of any
agreement reached is confidential and not reported to the
court. Below is a general description of several com-
monly used processes. How each is implemented varies
with the type of setting and disputes, as well as with the
specific ADR provider.
Arbitration involves a hearing during which the dis-
putants’ lawyers present evidence and arguments to a
single arbitrator, or sometimes a panel of three arbitrators,
who renders a decision. In voluntary private arbitration,Alternative Dispute Resolution——— 15A-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 15