The Family Journal-2000-Hahn-165-71.pdf

8/13/2019 The Family Journal-2000-Hahn-165-71.pdf

1/8

http://tfj.sagepub.com/The Family Journal

http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1066480700082009

2000 8: 165The Family JournalRobert A. Hahn and David M. Kleist

Divorce Mediation: Research and Implications for Family and Couples Counseling

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors

can be found at:The Family JournalAdditional services and information for

http://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tfj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 1, 2000Version of Record>>

by Minodora Mancas on October 11, 2013tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 11, 2013tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 11, 2013tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 11, 2013tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 11, 2013tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 11, 2013tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 11, 2013tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 11, 2013tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.iamfconline.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tfj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tfj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165.full.pdfhttp://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165.full.pdfhttp://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165.full.pdfhttp://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tfj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.iamfconline.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/165http://tfj.sagepub.com/


2/8

THEFAMILYJOURNAL:COUNSELINGANDTHERAPYFORCOUPLESANDFAMILIES/April2000Hahn,Kleist/DIVORCEMEDIATIONRESEARCH

Literature ReviewResearch

Divorce Mediation: Research and Implications

for Family and Couples CounselingRobert A. Hahn

David M. Kleist

Idaho State University

Thisarticle reviews the past10 years of divorcemediation research.

Relevanttopicsof mediationresearch such as efficiency, clientsatis-

faction, impact on psychological adjustment, levels of conflict and

cooperation and a comparison withthe adversarial process arepre-

sented.Moststudiesfind favorable results for themediation process.

Implications of the mediation process will be discussed for thosewho are counseling families and couples.

When mediation appeared two decades ago as an alter-native to theadversarial process, proponents of medi-ation made many enthusiastic claims as to its effectiveness.

The first model of mediation, divorce mediation, was

advanced as a model for reducing conflict, improving com-

munication, and coparental cooperation (Kelly, 1996). Medi-

ation produced better agreements in less time and expense,

enhancingpsychologicaladjustment forparents andchildren,

and leading to more compliance with agreements (Kelly,

1996). Theuseof mediationhas expanded considerably from

its beginnings in divorce mediation. Currently, mediation is

used in many locations for all types of family, commercial,

environmental, employment, organizational, and community

disputes in both the public and the private sectors (Kelly,

1996).

After 15 years of first generation research, the easiest

research has been done. Basic, useful, and supportive infor-

mation about the effectiveness of mediation has emerged

from a number of different outcome studies. However, much

less attention has been devoted to what is actually said and

done in the mediation sessionto the mediation process

itself. Current empirical studies record and analyze mediatorbehaviors and communications and their effect on clients and

the agreement-making process. Several studies examine cli-

ent behaviors. More expensive to conduct, process studies

have been most often conducted in experimental social psy-

chological settings with controlled variables and scripted cli-

ent roles.

This article briefly summarizes what has been learned to

date about divorce and custody mediation and suggests some

implications for family and couples counseling. Although the

overall number of studies has been limited, research has

helped to advance the field and mediations general accep-

tance to this point. There are still many challenging issues to

address if mediation is to mature further as a field and take its

placeamong themajorservice interventionsofferedto clients

in need.

OUTCOME RESEARCH

The most commonresearch questions can be grouped into

the following categories: (a) mediation as an effective means

of reaching settlement agreements, (b) expectations and effi-ciency in time and money, (c) comparisons and contrast

between mediation agreements and adversarial agreements,

(d) outcome studies of compliance and relitigation, (e) client

evaluations of the mediation process, (f) conflict reduction

and interparental cooperation as enhanced through media-

tion, (g) how mediation enhances the psychological adjust-

ment of the parties and their children, and (h) developing a

criteria for whom mediation is appropriate. Thevast majority

of divorce mediation outcome research in England, Canada,

andthe UnitedStates hasfocusedonchildcustody mediation.

In addition, in Australia, England, and the United States,

research has examined comprehensive divorce mediation

encompassing property division, spousal and child support,

and custody and access issues. Regardless of the focus, few

studies have compared mediation processes with their coun-

terparts in the adversarial system. Nevertheless, this overall

database from four countries does provide an analysis of the

above areas of divorce mediation.

165

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES, Vol. 8 No. 2, April 2000 165-171

2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

AuthorsNote:Forward correspondence to Robert A. Hahn, 1071

East 25th Street, Idaho Falls, ID 83404.


3/8

It is important to note that variations in research popula-

tions, methodologies, and measures have been the norm,

making it problematic to make generalizations about media-

tion or to rely heavily on a singlestudy. Complicatingthetask

is the fact that some research efforts have failed to provide

basic descriptors that might enable a better understanding of

outcome differences.Additionalproblems have included,but

are not limited to, client self-selection, a failure to assess cli-

ents histories of conflict and communication, and a focus on

custody-only versus multiple-divorce disputes. Despite all

these problems, there is a similarity on some of the outcome

areas that have been evaluated (Kelly, 1996).

Settlement Rates

Mediation research across countries indicates that clients

reach agreement in divorce mediation 50% to 85% of the

time, with most studies in the mid to upper range. This is true

of court-based and community-based services (Bordow &

Gibson, 1994; Depner, Cannata, & Simon, 1992; Emery,1994; Kelly & Duryee, 1992; Pearson & Thoennes, 1989;

Richardson, 1988; Walker, McCarthy, & Timms, 1994), pri-

vate mediation (Irving & Benjamin, 1992; Kelly & Gigy,

1989),custody mediation (Depner et al., 1992, Emery, 1994),

and comprehensive divorce mediation (Bordow & Gibson,

1994; Kelly & Gigy, 1989; Love, Moloney, & Fisher, 1995;

Walker et al., 1994) in mandatory (Depner et al., 1992; Kelly

& Duryee, 1992) and voluntary mediation (Bordow & Gib-

son, 1994; Irving & Benjamin, 1992; Kelly & Gigy, 1989;

Pearson & Thoennes, 1989). Based on the above studies, no

clear relationship emerges between settlement rates and the

numberof mediationhours or sessions offered.It appears that

prescreeningto eliminate certain couples forsuch criteria as a

history of violence, very high conflict, or unwillingness to

divorce increases the settlement rates (Kelly, 1996).

There is no evidencethat higherratesof dispute settlement

indicate a better process or outcome (Kelly, 1996). Although

there is general consensus that settlement rates higher than

85% suggest more coercive processes, there have been no

studies comparing thedegree of directiveness of mediators in

relation to settlement rates. In mandatory mediation settings,

the issue of coerciveness is particularly important if settle-

ment rates are viewed as the criteria of success.

California is 1 of 11 states that mandates custody media-

tion for custody or access disputes before using otheradversarial processes. In the largest study to date, of 1,388

custody mediations, 46% of the cases mediated in a 2-week

period reached agreement, 20% scheduled further mediation,

and 30% proceeded toward other adversarial settlement pro-

cesses, including custody evaluations and settlement confer-

ences (Depner et al., 1992). In the unlikely event that all of

those continuing mediation reached agreement, the settle-

ment rate would have been no higher than 66%, suggesting

that coercionwasnot a major factor in this particular setting.

Higher rates of agreement have been reported in compre-

hensive divorce mediation compared with custody-only

mediation (Walker et al., 1994), which is supported by other

general mediation data indicating that agreement is more dif-

ficult to reach in single issue disputes compared with multiple-

issue disputes.

Efficiency in Time and Expense

In one of the rare random assignment studies of custody

disputes, Emery (1994) found mediationparents reached res-

olution of their disputes more quickly than did litigation par-

ents, with mediation taking less time (less than half the time)

and at less cost. Mediation parents failing to reach agreement

were more likely to settle prior to trial than were litigation

parents (Emery, 1994). Several studies of custody andprivate

comprehensive mediation have reported that mediation,

when compared with a similarly focused adversarial process,

was significantly less expensive (Kelly, 1991a; Pearson &

Thoennes, 1989), although in England this finding was not

supported (Walker et al., 1994). Although data is difficult to

find and expensive to collect and evaluate, it would appear

that custody and comprehensive mediation in the public sec-

toralso savesthe government money. In California, forexam-

ple, thenumberof custody trialshasbeen reduced to less than

2% of those parents disputing child issues, saving court

administrative and judicial time and expense (Depner et al.,

1992).

Mediated Agreements Versus Litigated Agreements

It is difficult to assess this question without looking at the

jurisdiction in which mediation is taking place, as mediation

has a legalcontext shadowing thenegotiations. The influenceof the law and case law on client decisions may depend on the

mediators professional discipline or background, the extent

to which law is introduced into mediation as a determining

factor, and the degree to which mediators practice the princi-

ple that decision making belongs to the parties. Some

research reports acknowledge that the mediators saw it to be

their responsibility to tell clients when their agreements were

not perceived by the mediator to be fair or in the childs best

interest.

In general, mediation results in more joint legal custody

compared with adversarial processes (Emery, 1994; Pearson,

1991; Richardson, 1988). Whereas physical custody and vis-

iting agreements did not differ in mediation and litigationgroups in Virginia (Emery, 1994), in California, a less conser-

vative jurisdiction, mediationresultedin the selectionof more

joint custody language and expanded visiting patterns for the

noncustodial parent (Kelly, 1993). In California, Richardson

(1988) found more shared parenting agreements in the medi-

ated group.

Two studies of financial outcomes found no difference in

child support amounts between mediated and litigated pro-

cesses, although mediation fathers appear to pay for more

166 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / April 2000


4/8

extras for their children and are more likely to agree to pro-

vide for college expenses (Kelly, 1991b; Pearson &

Thoennes, 1989). However, one Canadian study reported

higher child and spousal support amounts in the mediated

group (Richardson, 1988). Property agreements reached in

mediation do not differ significantly from either litigated set-

tlements or attorney-negotiated settlements, but mediationclients view them asmore fair (Kelly, 1991b;Pearson,1991).

In all of the research, there is no empirical support for the

claims advanced by critics of mediation (Grillo, 1991) who

purport that mediation forces women to give away custody or

primary care entitlements or that women are disadvantaged

financially by the strategic use of custody conflicts by men

(Emery, 1994; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992).

Another manner in which mediation agreements differ is

in their greater level of specificity compared with attor-

ney-negotiated or litigated settlements (Kelly, 1993; Pearson

& Thoennes, 1989). Negotiatingandrecordingmore detail in

custody, visitingparental decision-making andsupport issues

may also contribute to the higher levels of satisfaction and

compliance reported in mediation samples. Overall, the

research indicates that although there are not significant dif-

ferences in the areas of financial outcomes, property settle-

ments or visitation rights, mediation enhances the perceived

fairness and satisfaction of the parties. Fairness and satisfac-

tion havebeen determined to be key factors in increasedcom-

pliance and decreased relitigation (Kelly, 1996).

Compliance and Relitigation

Most studies report higher rates of compliance with medi-

ated agreements when compared with agreements reached in

the adversarial process (Emery, 1994; Irving & Benjamin,1992; Kelly, 1993; Pearson & Thoennes,1989).This includes

visiting, child support, spousal support, and completing the

finaldivisionof property. Relitigationrates are low in general

among mediated samples and are lower than in adversarial

samples (Irving & Benjamin, 1992; Pearson & Thoennes,

1989).Factors unique to themediation process, such as active

participation, clients sense of fairness of the mediation pro-

cess, andsatisfaction with themediation process haveall been

identified as contributing to the increased compliance rates

and decreased occurrences of relitigation in the mediation

groups (Emery, 1994;Irving& Benjamin,1992;Kelly, 1996).

Client Evaluation of Mediation

With only one exception, all studies of divorce mediation

in all countries and settings indicated that client satisfaction

with both themediation process andoutcomeswas quitehigh,

in the 60% to 85% range (Bordow & Gibson, 1994; Depner,

Cannata, & Ricci, 1994; Emery, 1994; Irving & Benjamin,

1992; Love et al., 1995; Kelly, 1989; Kelly & Duryee, 1992;

Pearson & Thoennes, 1989; Richardson, 1988). In England,

satisfaction was lower, with 50% of the comprehen-

sive-mediation and 38% of custody-mediation clients

expressingsatisfaction (Walker et al., 1994). As might be ex-

pec ted , satisfaction with mediation was higher among those

who reached agreements than among those who did not, but

several studies found client satisfaction in the 40% to 60%

rangeamong thosewhowere unableto reach agreement(Em-

ery, 1994;Depneretal.,1992;Kelly, 1989;Richardson,1988).

In studies comparingmediationand litigation samples, themediation clients are significantly more satisfied than the

adversarial comparison groups (Emery, 1994; Kelly, 1989).

In most studies, no significant gender differences in satisfac-

tion with mediation were found, in contrast to the adversarial

process, in whichmenare significantlymoredissatisfied than

women with the process and outcome (Emery, 1994; Kelly,

1989). In jurisdictions in which custody mediators make rec-

ommendations to thecourts in unsuccessful mediations, there

was no difference in overall client satisfaction when com-

pared with those settings where mediation was confidential.

However, parents in confidentialmediationwere lesslikely to

feel rushed or pressured (Depner et al., 1994).

Positive features of mediation for clients in custody medi-

ation centeron theability to communicate to theother spouse

in a contained setting and include the opportunity for parents

to express their viewpoint, talk about the children, have their

concerns taken seriously, and hear helpful ideas from media-

tors about parenting issues and plans. Clients in general give

mediators high ratings for their impartiality, sensitivity, and

skill (Bordow & Gibson, 1994; Depner et al., 1992; Kelly,

1989; Love et al., 1995). In two mandatory custody settings,

less than 15% of men and women believed that the mediators

had imposed their viewpoints or pressuredclients to go along

with something that they did not want (Depner et al., 1992;

Kelly & Duryee, 1992; Walker et al., 1994). Women werelikely to view mediationas more helpful in empowering them

to stand up to their spouses than using attorneys, and they

rated themselves as morefinancially capable and knowledge-

able as a result of the mediation process (Kelly, 1996).

An unexpected finding in one study of comprehensive

mediation was that, compared with men and women in the

adversarial process, menandwomen in mediationmore often

reported that they felt their rightswere protectedin mediation

(Kelly, 1989). In custody mediation, women in the mediation

and litigation groups were equally likely to feel their rights

were protected, whereas themenin the litigation groupswere

significantly less likely than the men in the mediation groups

to believe that the litigation process protected their rights(Emery, 1994). Mediation parents were more likely to report

that they each had won some of what they wanted; in con-

trast, litigation parents significantly more often described a

win-lose outcome (Emery, 1994.)

Property agreements were perceived to be more fair by

mediation clients (Kelly, 1989; Pearson, 1991), and men and

women using mediation reported more satisfactionwith their

spousal support agreements than did the adversarial men and

women (Kelly, 1989).

Hahn, Kleist / DIVORCE MEDIATION RESEARCH 167


5/8

Conflict, Cooperation, and Communication

In general, research in the United States and Canada has

demonstrated small but more often short-lived increases in

cooperation and improvement in communication following

custody mediation (Irving & Benjamin, 1992; Pearson &

Thoennes, 1989). In a study randomly assigning disputingparents to custody mediation or custody litigation, parents

who mediated reported less conflict 1 year after settlement

compared with those who litigated. Nine years later, these

mediation parents communicated more about the children,

and noncustodial parents were more involved in current

child-related decisions (Emery, 1994).

Variations in the amount and duration of change in

coparental behavior may be related to the number of hours in

mediation. Mostcourt-based custody mediationaverages less

than 4 hours of service, as compared with private mediation

services that typically report more hours and sessions

(Donahue, Drake, & Roberto, 1994; Irving & Benjamin,

1992). In general, lengthier processes appear to promotemore frequent and less conflicted communication. Parents

using comprehensive divorce mediation report less conflict

during the divorce process than do parents using litigation.

At final divorce, mediation parents reported significantly

less conflict, more cooperation, more child-focused commu-

nication, and more noncustodial parent participation in deci-

sion making about the children, compared with the

adversarial sample. These more beneficial results were also

found 1 year postdivorce but were no longer apparent 2 years

postdivorce, with the exception that mediation parents relied

on each other moreat each point for child careand were more

supportive toeachotherin theirparenting roles (Kelly, 1991b,

1993).

Psychological Adjustment

Research from England andtheUnitedStates is consistent

in reporting that neither parent nor child psychological

adjustment is affectedin a statistically meaningful mannerby

either a custody mediation or a comprehensive divorce medi-

ation process (Emery, 1994; Kelly, 1991; Walker et al., 1994).

Two different authors hypothesize about this finding. Emery

(1994) concludes that there is insufficient longitudinal

research exploring the specific area of psychological adjust-

ment. Kelly (1996) determines that the brevity of mediation

interventions prevent the mediation process from signifi-cantly affecting psychological adjustment. Both authors call

for more research into this area.

Appropriate Population for Mediation

Despite the initial belief of critics that those with a history

of conflict andmultipledisputescouldnotsuccessfullymedi-

ate, it is apparent from many studies that high levels of anger

and marital conflict are not necessarily barriers to reaching

agreements (Depner et al., 1992; Irving & Benjamin, 1989;

Kelly & Duryee, 1992; Kelly & Gigy, 1989). There are some

indications that mediations that incorporate more hours and

sessions with trained and experienced mediators are more

successful in achieving settlements and behavioral changes

(Emery, 1994; Irving & Benjamin, 1992; Johnston & Camp-

bell, 1988; Kelly, 1991b, 1993; Kelly& Gigy, 1989). In addi-tion, a focus on communication and relational issues in the

mediationprocess further enhances thesuccess of theprocess

(Depner et al., 1992; Irving & Benjamin, 1989; Kelly &

Duryee, 1992; Kelly & Gigy, 1989). More research is needed

in these areas, as more recent trends in court-based services

have been to severely limit hours of service forwhat aresome

of themostdifficult problemsandcases(Depneretal., 1992).

There is an insufficient understanding of the efficacy of

mediation in relation to different personality or adjustment

problemsin clients (Kelly, 1996). Although it appears empiri-

cally that mediation is less likely to be effective when clients

are highly suspicious or at the extreme end of the anger con-

tinuum (Johnston & Campbell, 1988; Kelly & Gigy, 1989),

little is known of the effectiveness of mediation with the

severely disturbed and with serious character disorders. In

somejurisdictionsmandatingmediation, theseclientspresent

serious technical challenges to the mediator. It is reasonable

to speculate that these more troubled cases often fail to reach

agreement and require evaluation and recommendation.

These issues have not been addressed in the mediation

research, andonly rarelyhave mediationservices been modi-

fied or developed to meet the requirements of such popula-

tions (Johnston & Campbell, 1988). The most intense focus

has been on the appropriateness of mediation for victims of

domestic violence, particularly for battered women.In response to legitimate challenges and questions raised

by advocates for women, a variety of screening and service

procedures have been incorporated in court- and agency-

based services, either as a result of legislation or voluntary

implementation (Kelly, 1996). Some jurisdictions, services,

and professionals have taken the position that in cases with

domestic violence, mediation and/or joint sessions cannot be

an option. Such rules have come about not from empirical

research but from genuine concern and heated political activ-

ism (Kelly, 1996).

Empirical research investigating multiple aspects of

domestic violence andmediation is beginning to accumulate.

It is worthy of a more in-depth exploration than the scope ofthis article permits. A more discriminating approach to this

difficult issue is necessary, for under certain conditions,

mediationmaybe more helpful andbeneficial than detrimen-

tal for couples among whom domestic violence hasoccurred.

Domestic violence is not unidimensional or unidirectional

(Chandler, 1990; Depner et al., 1992; Johnston & Campbell,

1993; Newmark, Harrell, & Salem, 1995). Marital or partner

violence varies in severity, duration, who initiatesand partici-



6/8

pates, and whether it ceases after separation. In two

court-connectedcustody settings,80%of women and72% of

men reported experiencing abuse during marriage or separa-

tion, most of which occurredmore than6 months prior tosep-

aration. Although the most common form of abuse reported

was intimidation, twothirdsof thewomen andmore than half

of the men reported physical abuse from their spouses(Newmark et al., 1995). Research into typologies of violence

in high-conflict marriages and divorces (Johnston & Camp-

bell, 1993) is of considerable value in considering whether

and how mediation should take place during and after the

divorce. This researchsuggests that in those families inwhich

both spouses were aggressive, not fearful, and were interac-

tively violent with each other in the marriage, or in cases

where women were violent or where there was one or at most

two incidents of separation-engendered violence after a non-

violent marriage, mediation may be not only appropriate

when particular safeguards arein place,but maybe more ben-

eficial to theparties than theusualadversarialdivorce process

(Ellis, 1995; Kelly, 1996). These categories of violence are

quite different in their severity, meaning, and intent than

chronic, severe violence and emotional abuse in which bat-

tered women are the clear targets and victims and continue to

need protection.

Several recent studies indicated high levels of satisfaction

with mediation where there was physical and/or emotional

abuse during the marriage or after separation (Davies, Ralph,

Hawton, & Craig, 1995; Depner et al., 1992). When com-

pared with attorney negotiations, mediation made a greater

contribution toward reducingpostprocess verbal andphysical

abuse (Ellis, 1995). Clearly, more studies are needed in this

area, particularly longitudinal ones, as are assessments ofnewly developing models of mediation for this population.

Future studies will need to assess and describe patterns of

marital violence and abuse in more depth, as well as the mod-

els, mediator behaviors, outcomes, and procedural and legal

safeguards in place.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

There are sufficient process questions to construct another

decade of research agendas. Issues of power in the mediation

process and themanner in which mediators go about empow-

ering clients have not received research or scholarlyattention

in the literature, despite considerable informal but superficial

discussion of the topic (Kelly, 1995).Howdo mediators iden-

tify, describe, and deal with imbalances between disputants?

What types of interventions aremost effective in thepresence

of client attempts to intimidate or to use anger to achieve

advantageous settlements, or where there is a history of vio-

lence in therelationship?What thresholds or criteriadomedi-

ators use to terminate cases in such circumstances, if at all,

and what happens to these clients?

It is clear that different mediation models have developed

butarerarely acknowledged or described.Advice is given/not

given; attorneys are present/absent; emotions are accepted/

avoided; mediators are directive/non directive, individu-

als/teams; sessions are sequential/marathon, caucus/joint,

group/individual; and the law is presented/not presented.

Research should identify and fullydescribe different practicemodelsso they canbe evaluated for their effectiveness in spe-

cific dispute-resolution settings, for the type and complexity

of dispute, and in relation to the dynamics of the disputants.

And although a cursory look is given to cultural diversity,

there is no research on how mediators and the mediation pro-

cess adapt to different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic

groups of clients.

There is a need to look more closely at mediation/arbitra-

tion models in custody and divorce disputes for those chroni-

cally litigating clients with intractable disputes (Kelly, 1996).

Surprising to many, clientssatisfaction was not significantly

different in those jurisdictions in California where mediators

made recommendations to the judges following unsuccessful

mediation when compared with clients in jurisdictions in

which mediation was confidential and no recommendation

was made (Depner et al., 1994). Furthermore, Pruitts (1995)

research in the community mediation field indicates that

mediation/arbitration models are more effective and produce

differentclientandmediator behaviors than do straight medi-

ation or arbitration models.

As is evident, there is still a great deal to be learned about

divorcemediation. Researchon theabove andotherquestions

will enhance mediator practices and promote the overall

development of the mediation field in the next decade.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COUPLES

AND FAMILY COUNSELORS

There are only a handful of studies that haveexamined the

mediation process itself. There is a lack of sufficient empiri-

cal understanding of what mediators do, how mediators

interventions affect clients and outcomes in family disputes,

and whether mediator behaviors are influenced by different

contexts.

Studies that analyzed audiotapes of custody mediations

indicated that mediators were more effective in reaching

agreements when they were more active in structuring the

process, focused more on problem solving, discussing

options and solutions rather than facts, and maintained flexi-

ble control (Slaikeu, Culler, Pearson, & Thoennes, 1985).

More effective mediators intervened more frequently when

conflict was high; had greater communication competence;

shaped communication in productive, agreement-oriented

directions; and focused on interests (Kelly, 1996). Couples

with serious relationship problems were less likely to reach

agreements, particularly when there was no opportunity in



7/8

mediation to deal with the problems or when the style of the

mediator was to deal only with facts. Agreement rates in cus-

tody disputes were affectedby thenumber of issuesin dispute

(Donahue et al., 1994). However, mediation involving an

ongoing relationshipbetween disputants and involvingmulti-

ple issues to resolve was more predictive of resolution than

mediation involving single issue, nonrelated disputants(Whiting, 1994). Nonfamily mediation research indicated

that mediators with more knowledge about the issue in dis-

pute and more experience are more likely to reach settlement

(Carnevale, Lim, & McLaughlin, 1989).

For family and couple counselors, a number of specific

implicationsarepossible.Mediationcan anddoes havea pos-

itive impact on divorcing couples. Family and couple coun-

selors should consider mediation as a viable referral for cli-

ents who are experiencing divorce. Not only are benefits

possible for the couple but the children of divorcing parents

alsobenefit.As interparentalconflict is reduced whenparents

attend mediation (Kelly, 1991, 1993), the potential for nega-

tive effects on children is also reduced (Lansky, 1996). Medi-

ation can work but has a higher probability for success if cli-

ents have adequate communication skills. Thus, family and

couple counselors need to assess their clients communica-

tion skills and determine readiness for mediation or suggest

workon communicationskills prior toengagingin mediation.

In addition toassessingones clients, family andcouple coun-

selors need to proactivelyassess the mediationskills andpre-

parednessof mediatorsin theircommunities to preventpoten-

tial harm to their clients.

As is evident, there is still a great deal to be learned about

divorcemediation. Many of the issues exploredand theques-

tions raised by this article would benefit from furtherresearch. Answering many of these questions and exploring

these issues through research will benefit the practice of

mediatorsin allfields,as well asadvance thefield asa whole.

REFERENCES

Bordow, S., & Gibson, J. (1994).Evaluation of the family court mediation

service. Sydney: Family Court of Australia Research and Evaluation

Unit.

Carnevale, P., Lim, R., & McLaughlin, M. (1989). Contingent mediator

behavior and its effectiveness. Mediation research: The process and

effectiveness of third-party interventions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chandler, D. (1990).Violence, fearand communication:The variableimpact

of domestic violence on mediation.Mediation Quarterly,7, 331-346.

Davies, B.,Ralph,S., Hawton, M.,& Craig,L. (1995). A studyof clientsatis-

faction with family court counseling in cases involving domestic vio-

lence.Family and Conciliation Courts Review,33, 324-341.

Depner, C., Cannata, K., & Ricci, I. (1994). Client evaluation of mediation

services.Family and Conciliation Courts Review,32, 306-325.

Depner, C., Cannata, K., & Simon, M. (1992). Building a uniform statistical

reporting system: A snapshot of California Family Court Services.Fam-

ily and Conciliation Courts Review,30, 169-184.

Donahue, W., Drake, L., & Roberto, A. (1994). Mediator issue intervention

strategies: A replication and someconclusions.Mediation Quarterly, 11,

261-274.

Ellis, D. (1995).Family Mediation Pilot Project, Hamilton Unified Family

Court. North York, Canada: York University.

Emery, R. (1994).Renegotiatingfamily relationships:Divorce,child custody

and mediation. New York: Guilford.

Grillo, T. (1991). The mediation alternative: Process dangers for women.

Yale Law Journal,100, 1545-1609.

Irving,H., & Benjamin,M. (1989).Therapeutic familymediation: Fittingthe

service to the interactional diversity of client couples.Mediation Quar-

terly,7, 115-131.

Irving, H.,& Benjamin, M. (1992). An evaluation of process andoutcome in

a private family mediation service.Mediation Quarterly,10, 35-55.

Johnston,J., & Campbell,L. (1988).Impasses of divorce: The dynamics and

resolution of family conflict. New York: Free Press.

Johnston, J., & Campbell, L. (1993). A clinical typology of interparental vio-

lence in disputed custodydivorces.AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry,

63, 190-199.

Kelly,J. (1989). Mediatedand adversarial divorce:Respondentsperceptions

of their processes and outcome.Mediation Quarterly,24, 71-88.

Kelly, J. (1991a). Is mediation less expensive? Comparison of mediated and

adversarial divorce processes.Mediation Quarterly,8, 15-26.

Kelly, J. (1991b). Parent interaction after divorce: Comparison of mediated

and adversarial divorce processes. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 9 ,

387-398.

Kelly,J. (1993).Developingand implementingpost-divorce parentingplans:Does the forum make a difference? In C. E. Depner & J. H. Bray (Eds.),

Non-residential parenting: New vistas in family living(pp. 136-155).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kelly, J. (1995). Power imbalance in divorce and interpersonal mediation:

Assessment and intervention.Mediation Quarterly,13, 85-98.

Kelly,J. (1996).A decadeof divorcemediation research.Familyand Concili-

ation Courts Review,34, 373-385.

Kelly, J., & Duryee, M. (1992). Womens and mens views of mediation in

voluWntary and mandatory mediation settings.Family and Conciliation

Courts Review,30, 34-49.

Kelly,J., & Gigy, L. (1989).Divorce mediation: Characteristicsof clientsand

outcomes.In K.Kressel,D. Pruitt,& Associates (Eds.),Mediationresearch:

The process and effectiveness of third-party interventions(pp. 32-54).San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lansky, V. (1996).Divorce book for parents. Minnetonka, MN: Book

Peddlers.

Love, A., Moloney, L., & Fisher, T. (1995). Federally-funded family media-

tion in Melbourne: Outcomes, costs and client satisfaction.Family and

Conciliation Courts Review,30, 50-61.



8/8

Maccoby, E., & Mnookin, R. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal

dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Newmark, L., Harrell, A., & Salem, P. (1995). Domestic violence and

empowerment in custody and visitation cases.Family and Conciliation

Courts Review,30, 30-62.

Pearson, J. (1991). The equality of mediated divorce agreements.Mediation

Quarterly,7, 347-363.

Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (1989). Reflections on a decade of research. In

K. Kressel, D. Pruitt, & Associates (Eds.),Mediation research: The pro-

cess and effectiveness of third-party interventions. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Pruitt, D. (1995).Process andoutcomein communitymediation.Negotiation

Journal,11, 365-377.

Richardson, C. (1988). Court-based divorce mediation in fourCanadiancit-

ies: An overview of research results. Ottawa, Canada: Department of

Justice.

Slaikeu, K., Culler, R., Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (1985). Process and out-

come in divorce mediation.Mediation Quarterly,10,121-134.

Walker, J., McCarthy, P., & Timms, N. (1994).Mediation: The making and

remaking of co-operative relationships. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Uni-

versity of Newcastle upon Tyne, Relate Centre for Family Studies.

Whiting, R. (1994). Family disputes, nonfamily disputes and mediation suc-

cess.Mediation Quarterly,11, 247-260.

Robert A. Hahnis a 2nd-year masters student at Idaho StateUniversity.

David M. Kleist is an assistant professorin theDepartment of Coun-seling at Idaho State University.


Documents

The Family Journal-2000-Hahn-165-71.pdf