measuring mediator attitudes towards mediation:exploring mediator styles and their correlates...

1

Measuring Mediator Attitudes Towards Mediation:Exploring Mediator Styles and Their Correlates

Tiffany Butts

Rutgers University - NewarkPsychology

Committee Members:Kenneth Kressel

Paul BoxerKent HarberJohn HymanHarold SiegelWarren Reich

December 16th, 2009

2

A mediator is:A neutral third-party who attempts to help two or more individuals resolve a current conflict they are having.(Welton, Priutt, McGillicuddy, 1988)

3

Outline

• Mediation Background– History of Mediation– Previous Mediation Research

• Mediator Style– Why is Style important?

• Attitudes Towards Mediation Scale (ATMS)

4

Mediation Background

• History of Mediation

– Professional mediation began in the United States in the early 1900s in the U.S. Department of Labor

– Since then, the field has grown immensely• There are approx. 30,000 to 40,000 mediators in the U.S.

• Multiple areas of practice– Divorce/Family– Education– Environmental– Small Claims/ Civil– Workplace/ Employment

5

Mediation Background• Previous Mediation Research

– Outcome Research• The first major research question was:

– “Does mediation work?” – In other words, “Is mediation effective?”

• To assess the effectiveness of mediation, researchers focused on the outcomes of mediation

– number of settlements reached – disputant satisfaction– number of cases that are subsequently referred to adjudication– time to resolution

– Process Research• The next major research question asked:

– “How is mediation carried out?”– In other words, “What behaviors occur in session?”– This line of research focused on the strategies and tactics used by mediators

6


• Process Research

– Focusing on behavior, process research has used a “bottom up” research strategy

– These studies have primarily reported:• The frequencies of mediator behaviors • The circumstances under which mediator behaviors are used• How mediator behavior may be related to the outcomes of mediation

– “Bottom up” studies tell us little about the “top down” cognition that is central to expert performance in many domains:

• Experts get the big picture (top down thinking)

• (Anecdotally) Expert mediators seem to think like other domain experts

7


• Mediator Style Research

– Using a top down research strategy and going beyond strategies and tactics, researchers began examining mediator style

– Mediator style research asks:• “Why do mediators do what they do?”• In other words, “What is the rationale driving mediator

behavior?”

8

Outline




9

Why is Style Important?

• Mediator style is believed to influence: – the process and outcomes of mediation

– the disputing parties’ satisfaction with the session

• How Many Mediator Styles Exist? – The “One Size Fits All” Perspective

– Set the agenda– Control the climate of the session– Strive for win-win resolutions

– The Ethnographic Research• Kolb (1983) “Dealmakers”• Silbey & Merry (1986) “Therapeutic” Style• Kressel et. al. (1994) “Problem-Solving” Style

10

Mediator Stylistic Behavior in the Lab

• Participants

– 22 mediators (17 experienced and 5 novice mediators)

• The “Angry Roommate Dispute”

– This was a simulated dispute between two female roommates at Rutgers University

– Each mediator was given 30 minutes to meet with the disputants

– Mediators were told to mediator this dispute as they would mediate an actual conflict

11

Low Hi Low Hi Low Hi

Mediator Stylistic Behavior in the Lab• Results

Diagnostic

n= 2

Facilitative

n= 11

Transformative

n= 4

Evaluative

n= 5

Satisfaction

Hi

Low

Desire to Reach a SettlementDesire to Reach a Settlement

Agreement makers

UnderstandersDesire to Reach a Settlement

12

Mediator Stylistic Behavior in the Lab

Evaluators (n=5)

• Critique and evaluate the parties’ positions

• Use pressure tactics to induce agreement

• Focus on issues as presented by the parties (No probing of any latent causes that could be fueling the conflict)

Facilitators (n=11)• Avoid critiquing the parties’ positions

• Avoid using pressure tactics to induce agreement

• Focus on issues as presented by the parties (No probing of any latent causes that could be fueling the conflict)

• Attempt to create an atmosphere where each party feels comfortable

• Encourage the parties to brainstorm possible solutions

Diagnosticians (n=2)

• Emphasize quality problem – solving rather than agreement per se

• Actively seek when, why and how the

parties have gotten polarized

• Propose solutions based on diagnostic understanding

Transformative (n = 4)

• Emphasize dialogue, not agreement

• Actively summarize each party’s feelings and perceptions

• Refrain from proposing any solutions to the parties

HiDesire to Reach a Settlement

Low

13

Summary

• Mediator Style Study has:– In a more controlled laboratory environment, my

own study of professional mediators has confirmed that stylistic variation is normative

– Identified styles that correspond to the styles found in the field studies

14

Outline




15

Value of the Attitudes Towards Mediation Scale

• Allow comparative outcome research

• Facilitate exploration of the behavioral aspects of style

16

Dissertation Overview

• Develop the Attitudes Towards Mediation Scale (ATMS) (Study 1)

• Assessing its Factor Structure (Study 2 and Study 3)

• Validating the Scale (Study 4)

• Exploring Variables that Shape Mediator Style (Study 5)

17

ATMS: First Valid and Reliable Measure of Mediator Style

• Problems the Samples:– Too narrow

• Only examined one area of practice (e.g., Community mediation)

• Only mediators from a single state participated

– Too small• Fewer than 100 participants

• Problems with Scale Development Methods:– Omitted several steps of scale development

• Vague item generation procedure

• Establishing content and/or construct validity

• Establishing reliability

18

Attitude Evaluative Cases often end up in mediation because the parties are unrealistic in their positions.

Facilitative Most conflict is caused by the parties’ inability to discuss the needs that underlie their positions.

Diagnostic Conflicts are often caused by latent causes of which the parties are unaware. It is part of the job of the mediator to help them understand such causes.

Transformative Most times, parties are in conflict because they have not had the chance to have an open and honest discussion about their own and the other party’s perception of the conflict.

Developing the Attitudes Towards Mediations Scale (ATMS)(Study 1)

Example ATMS items: Grouped by style

•Stage 1: Item Generation

•Initially 114 items were created from observer narratives written in the lab study

•The item list was then reduced to 62 items

19


• Stage 2: Establishing Face Validity

– Method:

• Four Psychology graduate students participated

• Participants read descriptions of each style

• They were then asked to complete a forced choice task and sort the 62 items into one of the four styles

• Items were only retained if 3 out of the 4 sorters agreed on the style category in which the item belonged

– Results:

• 50 (85%) of the initial 62 items were retained:

– 14 Evaluative items– 11 Facilitative items– 12 Diagnostic items– 13 Transformative items

20


• Stage 3: Establishing Content Validity

– Method:

• Three professional mediators and four prominent mediation researchers were recruited

• Participants were asked to sort the 50 items from stage 2 into one of the four styles

• They were also asked to create new items they believe should be added to the item pool

• Items are only retained if 5 out of the 7 sorters agree on the item’s style placement

– Results:

• 40 (80%) of the 50 items remain in the item pool:

– 12 Evaluative items– 6 Facilitative items – 11 Diagnostic items– 11 Transformative items

• 4 items were subsequently added to the Facilitative item pool, resulting in 10 items

• At the conclusion of Study 1, the ATMS contained 44 items

21

Assessing the Factor Structure (Study 2)

• Measurement

– The ATMS was hosted on SurveyMonkey.com, a site specifically designed to host web surveys

• Advantages to this format: – Dramatic decrease in response time – Cheaper than traditional surveys– No need for manual data entry

• On the ATMS, participants were asked to express the degree to which their general approach as a mediator was adequately described by item (1=describes my approach poorly; 7=describes my approach well)

– Participants were also asked to fill out the Biographical Data Form (12 items)• Item Examples

– Age – Gender– Field in which highest degree was obtained – Years of Experience– % of total mediation experience in a given area of practice

• Recruitment– Over 650 professional mediators were recruited in Study 2

• 2 methods:– Contacting Key Personnel at Mediation Organizations (n=6)– Public Membership Directories (n=4)

• Only 481 mediators were sent email invitations to complete the ATMS

• Mediators that did not receive an invite for Study 2 were subsequently asked to participate in Study 3

22


• Participants

– 250 professional mediators participated (54% response rate)

– Older mediators (M= 51.1 years old)

– Predominately legal background (42%)

– Trained in a facilitative approach (45.6%)

– Experienced (M= 11.6 years)

– Primarily Family (41.2%), Workplace/Employment (40.8%), Civil (39.6%) and Community (36%) mediators

23


• Results– Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to determine the factor structure

– The resulting factor structure represented a dichotomous split among the four proposed mediation approaches:

• Factor 1: Resolution-oriented approach (25% of the variance)

– Items:» “It is important that a mediator point out the costs of continued disagreement to the

parties in order to keep them on track.”

» “An important task for the mediator is to encourage the parties to generate possible solutions through brainstorming or similar techniques.”

» “Where possible, I will assist solution generation by making the parties aware of hidden feelings or circumstances that have caused their conflict.”

• Factor 2: Dialogue-oriented approach (11% of the variance)

– Items:» “The role of the mediator is to create conditions for the parties to have a genuine

dialogue about whatever it is that each wants to say relative to their conflict.”

» “Reaching a settlement should not be a mediator’s primary goal.”

» I am a promoter of dialogue, not an orchestrator of agreements

• At the conclusion of Study 2, 2 factors comprised the ATMS, with 11 Resolution-oriented and 8 Dialogue-oriented items (19 items in total)

24


• Why only 2 factors, why not 4?

– Measurement Issues• Lab study was more intensive and complicated, whereas

the ATMS is a simpler study– Lab study: Behavioral observation– ATMS: Self-report

– Conceptual Explanation • Mediators in the study could only differentiate between

styles with a settlement focused or non-settlement focused goal

25


• Measurement– The ATMS was again hosted on SurveyMonkey.com

– Participants were also asked to fill out the Biographical Data Form and

• Recruitment– Over 300 professional mediators were recruited in Study 3

• The recruitment pool included: – Mediators that were recruited in Study 2, but did not complete the ATMS in Study

2 (n= 158)

– Mediators that participated in the Mediator Behavioral Study

• Remaining participants were recruited using these methods:– Contacting Key Personnel at Mediation Organizations (n=7)

– Public Membership Directories (n=7)

26


• Participants

– 111 professional mediators participated (36%)

– Older mediators (M= 52 years old)

– Predominately legal background (65.8%)

– Trained in a facilitative approach (38.7%)

– Experienced (M= 11.7 years)

– Primarily Workplace/Employment (36.6%), Civil (26.8%), Community (26.8%), and Family (25.9%) mediators

27


• Results– Confirming the Factor Structure

• The resolution and dialogue-oriented factors were confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

• Initial model: 2 (151, N = 111) = 388.0, p <.001 (CFI = .75, GFI = .72, AGFI=.65, RMSEA = .12)

– Items with low factor loadings (e.g., .50 or lower) were removed and the model was run again

• The amended model was an improvement over the initial model and fit fairly well

2 (26, N = 111) = 263.6, p < .010 (CFI = .95, GFI = .92, AGFI = .86, RMSEA = .08)

• Results– Test – Retest

• Resolution – oriented scale r = .87

• Dialogue – oriented scale r = .80 (Study 2)/.84 (Study 3)

Test – Retest Reliability of ATMS Scales

Scale Pearson’s Coefficent

Resolution – oriented .87**

Dialogue – oriented .80**a/.84**b **p < 0.01 Note: a. participants from Study 2 only

b. participants from Study 3 only

29


Final ATMS Items

Resolution – oriented Items

As a mediator, I often ask questions to test ideas I begin to develop about underlying causes or motives that are fueling a conflict.

It is important that a mediator point out the costs of continued disagreement to the parties in order to keep them on track.

As a means for depolarizing conflict, a mediator must often be a practical diagnostician who attempts to help the parties understand where and why they have gotten stuck.

It is an important part of a mediator’s job to confront parties that are being overly competitive, rigid or disrespectful.

Caucuses can be especially helpful in providing a party candid feedback about their unrealistic or overly rigid negotiating position.

The mediator may need to move parties off unreasonable or overly rigid positions by asking hard questions or providing accurate, realistic information.

30

Finalized ATMS Items

31

Finalized ATMS Items

Final ATMS Items

Dialogue – oriented Items

I am a promoter of dialogue, not an orchestrator of agreements.

A focus on settlement as the primary goal of mediation unnecessarily limits mediation’s potential to help people grow and learn.

Reaching a settlement should not be a mediator’s primary goal.

32

Validating the Scale (Study 4)

• Directiveness vs. Non-Directiveness

– Directiveness is an important variable that mediators of different stylistic orientations might be expected to differ

– Measurement• Social Support Opinion Survey (SSOS) Harber et. al (2008)

– 14 item measure– 5 – point scale (1 = Not at all important; 5 =Extremely important)

– Asks participants to indicate how important it is to them when helping someone to:

» Directive Item: “Encourage the person to get over his/her problem quickly” » Non – Directive Item: “Let the person get over problems at his/her own pace”

– A mediator adapted version was created» E.g., “Decide for the person what kind of help they might need” was changed

to “Decide for the disputant(s) what kind of help they might need.” » 2 items were removed because they were not relevant to mediation practice

• This measure was distributed in Study 3

33


• Hypothesis

– H1: Mediators with a strong resolution-orientation on the ATMS will be more likely to endorse directive social support as measured by the SSOS; conversely, dialogue-oriented mediators will be more likely to favor non-directive social support as measured by the SSOS.

Correlations Among SSOS and ATMS Factors ATMS Resolution – oriented ATMS Dialogue – oriented

SSOS Directive .56** -.43**

SSOS Non – Directive -.05 .30** **p < 0.01

34


• Results

– The ATMS resolution-oriented and dialogue-oriented scale scores were correlated with the SSOS directive and non-directive scale scores

– The ATMS resolution-oriented scale was positively correlated with the SSOS directive scale

– The ATMS dialogue-oriented scale was positively correlated with the SSOS non – directive scale

– The ATMS dialogue-oriented scale was negatively correlated with the SSOS directive scale

– The hypothesis was supported and construct validity was established using the SSOS

35


• Comparing Behavioral Style Lab Results to the ATMS– Participants

• 12 out of the 22 mediators (55%) that participated in the Mediator Behavioral Style Study completed the ATMS in Study 3

– For these 12 mediators I have:

» Observer rated mediator style (Mediator Behavioral Study)

» Self-reported mediator style (ATMS)

– The observer data was correlated with self-report data

36


• Hypothesis

– H2: The ATMS self – reported style will positively correlate with the observer ratings of behavior.

• ATMS resolution-orientation = Observer resolution-orientation

(self-report mediator style) (observed mediator style)

• ATMS dialogue-orientation = Observer dialogue-orientation

(self-report mediator style) (observed mediator style)

• Results

– A correlation analysis was conducted

• ATMS Self-report dialogue-orientation = Observer dialogue orientation

• No relationship between the ATMS self-report resolution- orientation and the Observer resolution orientation 37


Correlation s Among Observer Behavioral Ratings Scores ATMS Resolution – oriented Score ATMS Dialogue – oriented Score

Observer Resolution – oriented Rating .12 -.25

Observer Dialogue – oriented Rating -.31 .60***p < 0.01

and ATMS

38


• Discussion

– The results of Study 4 have tells us the ATMS is a reasonably valid measure of mediator attitudes towards mediation

– However, on the behavioral measure, construct validity was only found for the dialogue-oriented scale

• Dialogue-oriented approach may be more well defined and narrow– Allows consistency across both behavioral measures (Mediator

Behavioral Style Study) and more attitudinal, cognitive measures (ATMS)

39

Exploring Variables that Shape Mediator Style(Study 5)

• Possible Correlates of Mediator Style:– Context Of Mediation

• Area of Practice

• Social Environment

– Mediator Characteristics• Gender

• Discipline of Origin

• Measures– Data was collected in Study 3 via:

• Biographical Data Form

– Area of Practice, Gender and Discipline of origin

• Work Environment Index (WEI,16 items)

– Social Environment

40


• Previous Research Suggests:– Resolution – orientation

• Men and those with a legal background are more likely to use this approach

• Work environment:– Mediators experience more time pressure – Less embeddedness within an organization – Minimal time to consult with colleagues– Mediate cases that involve a single tangible issue– Parties’ do not have an ongoing relationship

– Dialogue – oriented• Women are more likely to use this approach • Work environment:

– Less experienced time pressure – Embeddedness within an organization – More time to meet with colleagues – Cases have multiple intangible issues– Parties have ongoing relationships

Correlations Among Mediator Characteristics, Social Context and the ATMS Factors Resolution – oriented Dialogue – oriented

Mediator Characteristics Age .25** -.18

Gender (Male = 1) -.26** .34**

Discipline of Origin Trained in Psychological Counseling/Therapy .05 -.30*

Trained in Developmental Psychology .08 -.40**

Trained in a Specific Approach to Mediation .10 -.21*

Social Context Embeddedness within the Organization .04 .07

Time Pressure -.26** .10

Consultation with Colleagues -.27** .10

Issue Characteristics -.15 .32**

Parties’ Relationship -.43** .41** *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01

41

• Results

– Resolution-oriented mediators were older, male, and work in environments where time pressure is present, there was an inability to consult with colleagues, and mediated cases which the parties have no ongoing relationship

– Dialogue-oriented mediators were women, received mental health and transformative mediation training and work in environments where cases involve multiple intangible issues and parties do have an ongoing relationship

– Parties’ Relationship was the best predictor for both the resolution (18%,F (1,102) = 23.61, p <.001) and dialogue – oriented approaches (17%, F (1,102) = 20.77, p <.001)


42


• Results: Area of Practice

– A resolution-oriented approach is more likely to be used by mediators who practice in Community mediation, whereas a dialogue-oriented

approach is less likely to be used in Family mediation

Correlation Among Mediation Domain and ATMS Factors Resolution – oriented Dialogue – oriented

Civil Mediation -.12 .07 Community Mediation .30** -.40** Divorce Mediation .02 .02 Education Mediation -.10 .04 Environmental Mediation .09 -.08 Family Mediation -.04 .23* Labor Mediation .10 -.05 Ombuds Mediation .07 -.05 Organizational Mediation .12 -.02 Small Claims Mediation .14 .01 Workplace/Employment Mediation .00 .06

*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01

43


• Discussion– Multiple approaches have been cited in the community mediation

literature • Transformative and Facilitative training (Hedeen, 2004)

• Evaluative behavior (Wissler, 2002)

– Dispute Characteristics

– More research is still needed

Correlations Among Community Mediation and Dispute Characteristics Pearson Coefficient

Dispute Characteristics Mediate a Single Issue .35**

Mediate Multiple Issues -.28*

Mediate Tangible Issue(s) .50**

Mediate Intangible Issue(s) -.32**

Parties’ Do Not Have an Ongoing Relationship .67**

Parties’ Do Have an Ongoing Relationship -.62** *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01

•Cases involve a single tangible issue•Parties do not have an on-going relationship

•Cases involve intangible issue(s)•Parties have an on-going relationship

Correlations Among Family Mediation and Dispute Characteristics Pearson Coefficient

Dispute Characteristics Mediate Tangible Issue(s) -.43**

Parties’ Do Not Have an Ongoing Relationship -.33**

Parties’ Do Have an Ongoing Relationship .37** **p < 0.01

44


• Discussion

– Age• Possibly, older mediators are more familiar with a resolution-oriented

approach

• The dialogue-oriented approach, wherein settlement is not the primary goal is a relatively novel approach in the mediation field

– Mental Health Training• This result reflects the kind of skills implied by a dialogue-oriented

style– In therapy the primary focus is the person/relationship, the structure is a

client led process, and emotions are explored (Forlenza, 1989)

– Mediation Training• A portion of the dialogue - oriented mediators were trained in an

approach that de-emphasized settlement: Transformative mediation– It is feasible that mediators that place a higher priority on dialogue

versus settlement would have received Transformative mediation training

45


• Discussion– Social Context

• These findings further support the argument that social context does play a role in mediator behavior (Kolb, 1983,1989; Klein, 1998; Picard, 2004; Herrman et. al., 2003; Herrman, 2006; Kressel, 2007)

• However, the directional relationship between social context and mediator style stills requires examination

– Social context Mediator Style?– Mediator Style Social Context?– Social Context Mediator Style?

46

Overview of Findings• Study 1

– Items were carefully selected for the ATMS and both face validity and content validity were established

• Studies 2 and 3– Established the factors structure of the Attitudes Towards

Mediation Scale and Test-Retest reliability• F1: Resolution – oriented• F2: Dialogue – oriented

• Study 4 – The construct validity of the ATMS was established

• Study 5 – Relationships between the ATMS’s factor scores, area of

practice, social context, and personal characteristics were established

47

Caveats• Self – report Data

– While the participants’ attitudes were found to be reliable across two different samples, their actual behavior may vary

• Alternative explanations for WEI correlations – Though it was argued that work environment

shapes mediator behavior, it is quite possible that the one-way relationship described could be reversed or occurs in a cycle

48

Conclusions

• This dissertation created the first psychometrically valid and reliable measure of mediator style among a varied national sample of mediators and provided evidence that age, gender, area of practice, mediation training, and work environment are related to mediator style

• The ATMS can serve as a standard metric of mediator style

49

Possible Applications

• Measuring mediator efficacy in relation to mediator style

• Explore the relationship between self-reported mediator style, style flexibility and actual mediator behavior in session

• Determine the exact relationship between the ATMS and a mediator’s work environment

50

Thank youThank youMy advisor: Ken Kressel

My Committee: Paul BoxerJon HymanKent Harber

Warren Reich Harold Siegel

Undergrad Research Assistants:Monica Costa

Christine Wojnicz John Simon

Jon JuahCharlotte Mayanja

Kristen CouceUrsula Gener

Fellow Colleagues:

Dan DePaulo

Jamie Gorman

Kraig Knibb

Adrienne Mcfaul

Sarah Savoy

IMSD

51

Questions

• Lab Study– GEMS Scales

• Study 1 – Observer Narrative

• Study 2– PCA– Item Retention– Balancing the Scales

• Study 3– BFA– Item Retention– Test – Retest Participants

• Study 4– GEMS Resolution and Dialogue-oriented scales

• Study 5– Areas of Practice– WEI Composite Score– WEI Composite Score– Mediator Training

measuring mediator attitudes towards mediation:exploring mediator styles and their correlates...

Documents