that use mediation, neutral evaluation, or arbitration
settle. A majority of studies find that the settlement
rate in mediation cases is higher than in comparable
cases that do not use mediation, but other studies find
no differences between mediated and litigated cases in
settlement rates. Studies of court-connected arbitration
tend to find a lower settlement rate in arbitrated cases
than in comparable nonarbitrated cases. Because arbi-
tration hearings divert cases from settlement but not
from trial, arbitration increases disputants’ access to a
hearing on the merits. Studies generally find that judi-
cial settlement conferences do not increase the rate of
settlement but that lawyers think they do.
Some studies find that compared with traditional lit-
igation, ADR resolves cases faster; reduces discovery,
motions, pretrial conferences, and trials; and reduces
disputants’ legal fees and litigation costs. Other studies,
however, find no differences between ADR and litiga-
tion in these measures. No study has found that judicial
settlement conferences resolve cases faster. In media-
tion and neutral evaluation, time and cost savings are
more likely in cases that settle than in cases that do not
settle. In court-connected arbitration, however, cases
that settle before the arbitration hearing often are not
resolved more quickly than cases resolved by the arbi-
trator’s decision; cases that appeal the decision take
substantially longer to conclude, regardless of whether
they eventually settle or are tried.
Most disputants and lawyers who participate in ADR
have highly favorable assessments of the process (e.g.,
they feel that it was fair and gave them sufficient
opportunity to present their case), the third party (e.g.,
they think that she or he was neutral, understood their
views and the issues, did not pressure them to settle,
and treated them with respect), and the outcome (e.g.,
they feel that it was fair, and they were satisfied with
it). Thus, ADR tends to get high ratings on procedural
justice and its correlates. Whether ADR participants’
assessments are as favorable as or more favorable than
those of non-ADR participants, however, varies across
studies and settings. In most settings, disputants in
mediation who settle have more favorable assess-
ments than disputants who do not settle. Disputants in
arbitration who have a hearing have more favorable
views of the process, but not necessarily of the out-
come, than disputants who settle before the arbitration
hearing.
Studies involving divorce and small claims cases
tend to find that disputants in mediated cases report
a higher rate of compliance with the outcome, less
anger, improved relationships, and less relitigationthan disputants in litigation. These benefits associated
with divorce mediation tend to disappear after several
years, although disputants remain more satisfied. In
general civil cases, most studies find no differences
between mediated and nonmediated cases in terms of
postresolution compliance or relationships. Several
studies suggest that postresolution outcomes are less
strongly influenced by whether disputants use media-
tion or litigation than by antecedent characteristics of
the disputants, such as their ability to pay or their level
of anger or adjustment.
The few studies that have examined the relative effi-
cacy of different ADR processes tend to find no differ-
ences among them. However, because these studies
do not involve the random assignment of cases to
processes, these findings might simply reflect the “cor-
rect” matching of disputes to processes for which they
are best suited.
Despite ADR performing at least as well as litigation,
there is relatively little voluntary use of ADR after
disputes have arisen. This appears to say less about
disputants’ or lawyers’ preferences regarding dispute
resolution procedures and more about the logistical,
strategic, cognitive, and economic barriers to using
ADR once litigation has begun. Rules designed to over-
come these barriers by requiring lawyers to inform their
clients about ADR or to discuss ADR with opposing
counsel have had mixed success in increasing early
settlements or voluntary ADR use.The Effect of Process, Third-Party,
and Dispute Characteristics
The mixed research findings regarding ADR’s effi-
cacy might reflect, in part, differences across studies
in how the ADR process was implemented or in the
mix of disputes handled. A small number of studies
have examined the relationships between ADR out-
comes and characteristics of the process, third party,
and disputes, though few have systematically varied
these characteristics.PPrroocceessss CChhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss
Studies find that several benefits are associated with
holding the ADR session sooner after the legal complaint
is filed: Cases are resolved faster; fewer motions are
filed; and, as found in some studies, more cases settle.
Delaying ADR until after discovery is substantially com-
pleted is not associated with an increased rate of settle-
ment. Most studies find no differences in settlement ratesAlternative Dispute Resolution——— 17A-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 17