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.