Show simple item record

Procedural Justice Research and the Paucity of Trials

dc.contributor.authorGuthrie, Chris
dc.identifier.citation2002 J. Disp. Resol. 127 (2002)en_US
dc.descriptionarticle published in law journalen_US
dc.description.abstractProfessor Deborah Hensler tells an important cautionary tale about mandatory mediation in her thoughtful and provocative contribution to this volume. In Suppose It's Not True: Challenging Mediation Ideology, Hensler observes that courts are now requiring litigants to mediate civil cases "on the grounds that litigants prefer [mediation] to traditional litigation," yet there is "a long line of social psychological research on individuals' evaluations of different dispute resolution procedures" consistent with the "idea that litigants might prefer adversarial litigation and adjudication" to mediation.' Hensler acknowledges that "some experimental research has found that subjects prefer mediation," but she argues that "the empirical work to date [does not] provide strong support for the notion that civil disputants prefer mediation to adversarial litigation and adjudication."en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (5 pages)en_US
dc.publisherJournal of Dispute Resolutionen_US
dc.subject.lcshDispute resolution (Law) -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshMediation -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshParties to actions -- Psychologyen_US
dc.subject.lcshHensler, Deborah R., 1942- Suppose it's not trueen_US
dc.titleProcedural Justice Research and the Paucity of Trialsen_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record