Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:55:18.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the Effects of Case Characteristics and Settlement Forum on Dispute Outcomes and Compliance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Neil Vidmar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

McEwen and Maiman (1986) have disagreed with my claim that the case characteristic of admitted liability explains more variability in dispute outcome and compliance than whether the case was resolved through a mediation or adjudication forum. Those authors reanalyzed some of my data from an Ontario small claims court and concluded that forum type is the stronger variable. I take issue with them on a number of conceptual and methodological points. In my own reanalysis of the Ontario data I am able to demonstrate statistically that admitted liability is the stronger predictor of outcomes. I also discuss why this should be so and raise some questions about compliance. Whether we can generalize to McEwen and Maiman's data from Maine courts is a matter of speculation, but I am inclined to infer that we can. Our debate raises important issues in the assessment of dispute resolution.

Type
Research Note
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , 1987 , pp. 155 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 The Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

Research for this paper was supported by grants from the Donner Canadian Foundation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I am indebted to Michael Atkinson and Regina Schuller for their help on the statistical analysis and to Richard Lempert and Craig McEwen for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

COHEN, J. (1977) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, rev. ed. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
LEMPERT, R., and J., SANDERS (1986) An Invitation to Law and Social Science. New York: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCEWEN, C., and R., MAIMAN (1986) “The Relative Significance of Disputing Forum and Dispute Characteristics for Outcome and Compliance,” 20 Law & Society Review 439.Google Scholar
MCEWEN, C., and R., MAIMAN (1984) “Mediation in Small Claims Court: Achieving Compliance through Consent,” 18 Law & Society Review 11.Google Scholar
MCEWEN, C., and R., MAIMAN (1981) “Small Claims Mediation in Maine: An Empirical Assessment,” 33 Maine Law Review 237.Google Scholar
SAS INSTITUTE, INC. (1985) The Users' Guide: Statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
STARR, J., and B., YNGVESSON (1975) “Scarcity and Disputing: Zeroing-in on Compromise Decisions,” 2 American Ethologist 553.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, N. (1987) “The Mediation of Small Claims Court Disputes: A Critical Perspective,” in Lewicki, R., Sheppard, B., and Bazerman, M. (eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, N. (1985) “An Assessment of Mediation in a Small Claims Court,” 41 Journal of Social Issues 127.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, N. (1984) “The Small Claims Court: A Reconceptualization of Disputes and an Empirical Investigation,” 18 Law & Society Review 515.Google Scholar