Measuring Mediator Attitudes: The ATMS Scale

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

Tiffany Butts
Rutgers University - Newark
Psychology

Committee Members:
Kenneth Kressel
Paul Boxer
Kent Harber
John Hyman
Harold Siegel
Warren Reich

December 16th, 2009
1

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)

2

Outline
• Mediation Background
– History of Mediation
– Previous Mediation Research

• Mediator Style
– Why is Style important?

• Attitudes Towards Mediation Scale (ATMS)
3

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
4

• 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 5

• 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 6

• 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?”

7

Outline

• Mediator Style

8

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 9

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
10

• Results Agreement makers
Diagnostic Facilitative
Hi
n= 2 n= 11

Satisfaction
Transformative Evaluative

Low n= 4 n= 5

Understanders Low
Low Hi
Hi
Desire to ReachaaSettlement
Desire to Reach Settlement 11

Diagnosticians (n=2) Facilitators (n=11)
• Avoid critiquing the parties’ positions
• Emphasize quality problem – solving
rather than agreement per se • Avoid using pressure tactics to induce
agreement
• Actively seek when, why and how the
• Focus on issues as presented by the
parties have gotten polarized parties (No probing of any latent causes
that could be fueling the conflict)
• Propose solutions based on diagnostic
understanding • Attempt to create an atmosphere where
each party feels comfortable
• Encourage the parties to brainstorm
possible solutions
Transformative (n = 4) Evaluators (n=5)
• Emphasize dialogue, not agreement • Critique and evaluate the parties’
positions
• Actively summarize each party’s feelings
and perceptions
• Use pressure tactics to induce
• Refrain from proposing any solutions to agreement
the parties

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

Low Hi 12
Desire to Reach a Settlement

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

13

Outline

• Mediator Style

14

Value of the Attitudes Towards Mediation Scale

• Allow comparative outcome research

• Facilitate exploration of the behavioral aspects
of style

15

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) 16

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
17
• Establishing reliability

Developing the Attitudes Towards Mediations Scale (ATMS)
(Study 1)
•Stage 1: Item Generation
•Initially 114 items were created from observer narratives written in the lab study
Example ATMS items: Grouped by style

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.
•The item list was then reduced to 62 items 18

(Study 1)
• 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
19
– 12 Diagnostic items

(Study 1)
• 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 4420
items

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 21

(Study 2)

• 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%), 22

(Study 2)
• 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)
23

(Study 2)
• 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

24

(Study 3)

• 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)
25

(Study 3)

• 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%), 26

(Study 3)

• Results
– Confirming the Factor Structure
• The resolution and dialogue-oriented factors were confirmed
by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
• Initial model: χ2 (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
χ2 (26, N = 111) = 263.6, p < .010 (CFI = .95, GFI = .92, AGFI
= .86, RMSEA = .08)
27

(Study 3)

• Results
– Test – Retest

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

• Resolution – oriented scale r = .87
• Dialogue – oriented scale r = .80 (Study 2)/.84 (Study 3) 29

Finalized ATMS Items
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

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.

31

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 32

(Study 4)

• 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.

33

(Study 4)
• Results
– The ATMS resolution-oriented and dialogue-oriented scale scores were
correlated with the SSOS directive and non-directive scale scores

Correlations Among SSOS and ATMS Factors
ATMS Resolution – oriented ATMS Dialogue – oriented
SSOS Directive .56** -.43**
SSOS Non – Directive -.05 .30**
**p < 0.01

– 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 34
the SSOS

(Study 4)

• 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

35

(Study 4)

• 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)

36

(Study 4)
• Results
– A correlation analysis was conducted

Correlations Among Observer Behavioral Ratingsand ATMS Scores
ATMSResolution– orientedScore ATMSDialogue – oriented Score
Observer Resolution– oriented Rating .12 -.25
Observer Dialogue – oriented Rating -.31 .60*
**p < 0.01

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

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

(Study 4)
• 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)

38

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)
39
–

(Study 5)
• 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 40
– Parties have ongoing relationships

(Study 5)
• Results
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

– 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
41
– 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)

(Study 5)

• Results: Area of Practice
Correlation Among Mediation Domain and ATMS Factors
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

– 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 42

(Study 5)

• Discussion
– Multiple approaches have been cited in the community mediation
literature
• Transformative and Facilitative training (Hedeen, 2004)
• Evaluative behavior (Wissler, 2002)

– Dispute Characteristics
Correlations Among Community Mediation and Dispute Characteristics Correlations Among Family Mediation and Dispute Characteristics
Pearson Coefficient Pearson Coefficient
Dispute Characteristics Dispute Characteristics
Mediate a Single Issue .35** Mediate Tangible Issue(s) -.43**
Mediate Multiple Issues -.28* Parties’ Do Not Have an Ongoing Relationship -.33**
Mediate Tangible Issue(s) .50** Parties’ Do Have an Ongoing Relationship .37**
Mediate Intangible Issue(s) -.32** **p < 0.01
Parties’ Do Not Have an Ongoing Relationship .67**
Parties’ Do Have an Ongoing Relationship -.62**
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01 •Cases involve intangible issue(s)
•Cases involve a single tangible issue •Parties have an on-going relationship
•Parties do not have an on-going relationship

43
– More research is still needed

(Study 5)
• 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
44

(Study 5)

• 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?

45

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 46

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
47

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 48

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
49

Thank you
My advisor: Ken Kressel

My Committee: Fellow Colleagues:
Paul Boxer Dan DePaulo
Jon Hyman Jamie Gorman
Kent Harber Kraig Knibb
Warren Reich Adrienne Mcfaul
Harold Siegel Sarah Savoy
Undergrad Research Assistants:
Monica Costa
Christine Wojnicz
John Simon
Jon Juah
Charlotte Mayanja
Kristen Couce
Ursula Gener
IMSD 50

Questions
• Lab Study • Study 3
– GEMS Scales – BFA
– Item Retention
• Study 1 – Test – Retest Participants
– Observer Narrative
• Study 4
• Study 2 – GEMS Resolution and
– PCA Dialogue-oriented scales
– Item Retention
– Balancing the Scales • Study 5
– Areas of Practice
– WEI Composite Score
– WEI Composite Score
– Mediator Training
51

GEMS Scales
Style A: Style A mediators believe that a frequent cause of polarized conflict are important latent
source of difficulty in the parties’ relationship or circumstances of which they are unaware
(e.g. a flawed communication pattern; an unrecognized need for resources) Consequently, mediators
enacting Style A give priority to determining whether such latent causes are fueling the conflict. If
diagnostic inquiry suggests that this is the case the mediator tries to make use of this knowledge in
helping the parties reach agreements.

Style C: Style C mediators believe that a frequent cause of polarized conflict is the tendency of
disputants to have unrealistic confidence in the validity and reasonableness of their respective
positions. Consequently, mediators enacting Style C give priority to providing the parties with a
balanced and realistic evaluation of their respective positions, and, if necessary, in marshaling
arguments in favor of particular solutions.

Style D: Style D mediators believe that a frequent cause of polarized conflict is the failure of
disputants to see that disputes can be viewed as opportunities for moral growth and
transformation. Consequently, mediators enacting Style D do not see their primary role as
producing agreements, but give priority to helping each party attain a degree of personal
empowerment (e.g. thru becoming aware of their range of options or developing a new awareness of
personal strengths or resources) and a degree of recognition of the other (e.g. by acknowledging
the situation of the other or offering a genuine apology to the other).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Describes them Describes them 52
poorly well

Observer Narrative – Study 1
•Stage 1: Item Generation

Observer Narrative

“I see my primary goal as helping the parties resolve their differences in a mutually

acceptable way. I see my primary job as to ensure a good process of conflict

management, not the reaching of settlements, per se. For me, a good conflict resolution

process involves thorough information gathering about the relevant history of the dispute. I

serve as a communication facilitator and diagnostician of where they have gone off track with

each other. Where possible, I believe it is useful to develop with the parties some

understanding for the possible reasons for their conflict. I find that such insight often helps to

depolarize the conflict and restore a measure of mutual appreciation.”
53

PCA – Study 2
• Results
– Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to determine the factor
structure

• Promax (oblique) rotation was conducted
– Factors were dropped if
» Eigenvalue was less than one
» Only had minor item loadings (e.g. <.40)
» Had less than three items with adequate loadings (e.g. >.40)

– Two factors with both adequate (>.40) and major (>.50) loadings met this
criterion and accounted for 36% of the variance
• A third factor only had two items with adequate loadings and
accounted for 5% of the variance, it was not retained

– Additionally, there was a moderate positive correlation between the
factors (r =.35) 54

Item Retention – Study 2
• Results
– Item Retention
• Resolution – oriented Items
– Had to have a difference of at least .30 between their loading on the resolution –
oriented scale and their loading on the dialogue – oriented scale

– Scale was reduced to 17 items

– Scale Reliability
• Cronbach’s α was computed
– Items were retained if the item to total correlation was between .50 and .80

• Two items were removed from the resolution – oriented scale and one item
was removed from the dialogue – oriented scale

• Resolution – oriented scale α = .91
55
• Dialogue – oriented scale α = .73

Balancing the Scales – Study 2
• Results
– In a balanced scale, the number of favorable and
unfavorable categories is equal; in an unbalanced scale, the
number is unequal.
• In general, the scale should be balanced in order to obtain objective
data.

– For the resolution – oriented scale, five items with similar
wording were removed; α = .88

– For the dialogue – oriented scale, 3 items were created
using descriptions of the transformative style

• In conclusion, the resolution – oriented scale
consisted of 11 items and the dialogue – oriented
scale was comprised of 8 items 56

Factor Loadings – Study 2
Factor Loadings, ATMS Scales
Item Resolution – oriented Dialogue – oriented
Factor Loading Factor Loading
Resolution – oriented Scale
Applying pressure on the parties to make concessions is an essential part of the .40 -.38
mediator’s role.
A mediator should try to draw on the parties’ commonalties in order to help them .65 .15
reach agreement.
A hallmark of a good mediation is the use of positive reinforcement (e.g., praising .67 .20
the parties for collaborative problem – solving) to encourage the parties.
A good way for a mediator to proceed is to explore the history of the dispute in .61 .32
order to identify situational factors or events that may have fueled tensions or
distrust.
In cases where the parties are being unreasonable or inflexible in their positions, it .67 -.40
is the mediator’s job to be the voice of reality.
Exuding optimism and enthusiasm are important tools a mediator should use when .53 .08
attempting to encourage problem – solving between the disputants.
It is important that a mediator point out the costs of continued disagreement to the .64 -.22
parties in order to keep them on track.
Where possible, I will assist solution generation by making the parties aware of .63 .28
hidden feelings or circumstances that have caused their conflict.
I strive to be seen as impartial by both sides, but at times, I may have to lean more .56 -.29
heavily on one side than the other in the interests of getting a realistic settlement.
Mediator warmth and a little humor can be helpful in encouraging disputant .60 -.04
problem – solving.
Conflicts are often caused by latent causes of which the parties are unaware. It is .54 .40
part of the job of the mediator to help them understand such causes.


The mediator may need to move parties off unreasonable or overly rigid positions .71 -.26
by asking hard questions or providing accurate, realistic information.
As a mediator, I often ask questions to test ideas I begin to develop about .73 .08
underlying causes or motives that are fueling a conflict.
Caucuses can be especially helpful in providing a party candid feedback about .69 -.20
their unrealistic or overly rigid negotiating position.
Before addressing the substantive issues, I spend a lot of time trying to understand .59 .35
what has fueled the conflict.
An important task for the mediator is to encourage the parties to generate possible .61 .25
solutions through brainstorming or similar techniques.
It is an important part of a mediator’s job to confront parties that are being overly .63 -.16
competitive, rigid or disrespectful.
Caucuses can be useful as a way of helping each party become more aware of their .52 .05
underlying interests and the variety of ways they can be satisfied.
Asking a lot of questions about the history of the conflict can be extremely useful .60 .34
in helping the parties learn what has caused their dispute and what to do about
ameliorating it.
Mediation is not therapy but there is some relevant diagnostic work that needs to .60 .24
be done about what produced the conflict and the circumstances and behaviors that
maintain it.
A mediator should probe the parties about the history of their conflict in order to .61 .38
surface patterns of interaction that may have led to the dispute.
The mediator should postpone any consideration of possible terms of resolution .47 .19
until the parties have articulated their underlying needs and interests.


As a means for depolarizing conflict, a mediator must often be a practical .63 .06
diagnostician who attempts to help the parties understand where and why they
have gotten stuck.
As a mediator, I try to inject something of my own energy and optimism about life .55 -.12
and relationships; I am something of a “cheerleader” at times.
It is part of a mediator’s job to confront people who are being unreasonable. .60 -.28
It is important that a mediator help the parties gain insight into to what has caused .58 .44
their conflict.
Encouraging disputant problem – solving around substantive issues is the essence .61 -.01
of good mediation.

Dialogue – oriented Scale
As a mediator, I am particularly interested that the parties learn something useful .30 .47
about themselves and the other.
The role of the mediator is to create conditions for the parties to have a genuine -.12 .62
dialogue about whatever it is that each wants to say relative to their conflict.
A mediator should adhere to strict neutrality and not make any evaluations of the -.32 .43
parties or the issues.
Empowerment and recognition are the hallmarks of good mediation. -.14 .49
A focus on settlement as the primary goal of mediation unnecessarily limits -.19 .66
mediation’s potential to help people grow and learn.
I am a promoter of dialogue, not an orchestrator of agreements. .26 .59

Summary Statistics
Eigenvalue 10.97 4.79
Variance Accounted for by Factor 25% 11%
Note: ATMS = Attitudes Towards Mediation Scale. Bolded values indicate adequate to significant factor loadings.

BFA – Study 3
The resampling was conducted 250 times using the 111
participants from Study 3. The n of each resample was 111,
with some participants being drawn more than once or not at all.
Sample Eigenvalues and Mean Bootstrap Results Across 250 Resamples
Since the sample eigenvalues and the mean eigenvalues are
Sample Eigenvalue M(BR) SE M(BR)/SE close, this suggests stability across the resamples. However, the
5.88 6.01 0.65 9.27 third factor’s eigenvalues were low in comparison to the other
4.05 4.07 0.39 10.53 factors and possibly only contained one or two items that also
1.19 1.39 0.17 8.00
loaded unto the another factor, it was not retained.
Table 8, cont.
Sample Mean and Bootstrap Results Across 250
Sample Mean and Bootstrap Results Across 250 Resamples
Resamples
Factor 1 Factor 2
Factor 1 Factor 2
Item Sample Bootstrap SE M(BR)/SE Sample Bootstrap SE M(BR)/SE Item Sample Bootstrap SE M(BR)/SE Sample Bootstrap SE M(BR)/SE
Mean Mean Mean Mean
As a mediator, I often ask .98 .99 .02 45.02 -.17 -.17 .02 -1.55 The mediator may need to move parties off -.46 -.46 .09 -5.15
.88 .89 .05 18.73
questions to test ideas I begin to unreasonable or overly rigid positions by asking
develop about underlying causes
hard questions or providing accurate, realistic
or motives that are fueling a
information.
conflict
A hallmark of a good mediation is the use of .87 .89 .07 12.82 .47 .45 .12 3.89
Exuding optimism and .98 .99 .03 33.04 .11 .11 .15 .75
positive reinforcement (e.g., praising the parties
enthusiasm are an important tools
a mediator should use when for collaborative problem – solving) to
attempting to encourage problem encourage the parties.
– solving between the disputants. I am a promoter of dialogue, not an orchestrator -.12 -.13 0.10 -1.26 .99 .99 .01 85.03
Where possible, I will assist .96 .97 .03 29.76 .24 .24 .11 2.15 of agreements.
solution generation by making the The role of the mediator is to create conditions .12 .10 0.11 1.07 .99 .99 .02 57.19
parties aware of hidden feelings for the parties to have a genuine dialogue about
or circumstances that have caused whatever it is that each wants to say relative to
their conflict. their conflict.
As a means for depolarizing .94 .95 .04 26.78 -.33 -.32 .10 -3.22 Empowerment and recognition are the .16 .15 0.13 1.23 .98 .99 .02 39.27
conflict, a mediator must often be hallmarks of good mediation.
a practical diagnostician who
A mediator should adhere to strict neutrality -.18 -.18 0.16 -1.13 .97 .98 .04 23.16
attempts to help the parties
and not make any evaluations of the parties or
understand where and why they
the issues.
have gotten stuck.
The responsibility for the outcome(s) of -.22 -.20 0.14 -1.64 .96 .98 .03 28.23
It is an important part of a .94 .94 .04 22.67 -.33 -.34 .12 -2.66
mediation should be left with the parties.
mediator’s job to confront parties
that are being overly competitive, A focus on settlement as the primary goal of -.20 -.23 0.15 -1.39 .97 .97 .03 31.36
rigid or disrespectful. mediation unnecessarily limits mediation’s
potential to help people grow and learn.
It is important that a mediator .94 .94 .03 31.10 -.33 -.33 .08 -4.03
point out the costs of continued Reaching a settlement should not be a -.46 -.46 .10 -4.67 .88 .89 .05 16.41
disagreement to the parties in
order to keep them on track.
An important task for the .90 .93 .07 12.64 .40 .37 .15 2.70
mediator is to encourage the
parties to generate possible The close Procrustes – rotated structure statistics and
solutions through brainstorming
or similar techniques. mean bootstrap results, along with the small SEs indicate
Caucuses can be especially
helpful in providing a party
.90 .91 .05 16.93 -.42 -.42 .11 -3.77 parameter stability across resampling. The large t statistic
candid feedback about their
unrealistic or overly rigid
values indicated statistical significance. Moreover, 11
negotiating position. items loaded unto Factor 1 and eight items loaded unto
A mediator should try to draw on .87 .89 .10 8.82 .46 .45 .16 2.92 60
the parties’ commonalties in order Factor 2.
to help them reach agreement.

Item Retention – Study 3
• Results
– Scale Reliability
• Cronbach’s α was computed
– Again, items were retained if the item to total correlation was between .50 and .80

• One item was removed from the resolution – oriented scale and one item was
removed from the dialogue – oriented scale

• Resolution – oriented scale α = .87

• Dialogue – oriented scale α = .80

• As a result, the ATMS’s resolution – oriented scale
was comprised of 6 items and the dialogue –
oriented scale consisted of 3 items 61

Test – Retest Participants – Study 3
• Participants
– Subset of 109 participants from Study 2 and 78
participants from Study 3 were sent an email
invitation to complete the ATMS a second time

– Fifty – eight participants (53.2%) from Study 2 and
40 participants (51.3%) from Study 3 completed the
ATMS a second time.

– In total, 98 participants formed the test – retest
sample
62

GEMS Resolution and Dialogue – oriented scales – Study 4

• Results

– The GEMS Latent Cause (Diagnostic), Facilitative, and
Evaluative scale ratings were summed and divided by 4;
this resulted in an observer GEMS resolution – oriented
composite score
• These scales were used because the ATMS resolution – oriented
scale is compromised of diagnostic, facilitative, and evaluative
items

– The remaining observer GEMS transformative scale was
used as the observer GEMS dialogue – oriented score
• This scale was used because the ATMS dialogue – oriented scale
is compromised of largely transformative items 63

Areas of Practice – Study 5
On average, mediators reported practicing in three
areas of mediation

– 32.4% only mediated in one area – More than one area
• Civil (n=18) • Two (16.7%)
• Divorce (n=7) • Three (13%)
• Family (n=5) • Four (16.7%)
• Workplace/Employment (n=2) • Five (11.1%)
• Community (n=1) • Six (3.7%)
• Ombuds (n=1) • Seven (2.8%)
• Small Claims (n=1) • Eight (.9%)
• Ten (1.9%)
• Eleven (.9%) 64

Composite WEI Score – Study 5
• Results
– A composite WEI score was computed
 All items had a five – point scale
– Resolution – oriented items were given the lowest score on the scale (e.g., 1)
– Dialogue – oriented items were given the highest score on the scale (e.g., 5)
– Ex.
» Do you feel pressured to reach a resolution during sessions?
Always (1), Often (2), Sometimes (3), Rarely (4), Never (5)

» What % of your cases involve parties who currently have a continuing
relationship beyond mediation (e.g., neighbors, parents, co - workers)?
Always: 81 to 100% (5), Often: 61 to 80% (4), Sometimes: 41 to 60% (3),
Rarely: 21 to 40% (2), Almost Never: 0 to 20% (1)

 Lower composite WEI scores indicated a propensity towards a resolution –
oriented approach

 Higher WEI composite scores signified a dialogue – oriented approach

65
 Avg. WEI Score: 38, Min: 20, Max: 52, Std. Dev.: 7.13

Composite WEI Score – Study 5
• Results
Correlation Among WEI and ATMS Factors

WEI Composite Score -
.41** .42**
**p < 0.01

• The WEI composite score was negatively correlated with the resolution –
oriented scale meaning the lower the WEI score, the more likely the
mediator uses a resolution – oriented approach

• The WEI composite score was positively correlated with the dialogue –
oriented scale meaning the higher the WEI score the more likely the
mediator uses a dialogue – oriented approach 66

Mediator Training – Study 5
• Results
Cross – Tabulation of Mediation Training by Dialogue– oriented Score
Group Low Score Median Score High Score Total
Facilitative/Interest Base d 3 18 3 24
Transformative 0 2 5 7
Facilitative and Transformative 0 6 4 10
Evaluative 1 0 0 1
Facilitative and Evaluative 0 2 0 2
Transformative and Evaluative 0 2 0 2
Other 3 4 1 8
More than two approaches listed 0 7 1 8

Total 7 41 14 62
Note : Only participants that indicated they were trained under a specific philosophy/approach to mediation were
included

• Mediators with high Dialogue – oriented scores indicated being
trained under a Transformative mediation approach or receiving both
Transformative and Facilitative mediation training
(χ2(18, N = 111) = 32.32, p > .05) 67

Measuring Mediator Attitudes: The ATMS Scale

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Measuring Mediator Attitudes: The ATMS Scale

Ähnlich wie Measuring Mediator Attitudes: The ATMS Scale (20)

Measuring Mediator Attitudes: The ATMS Scale

Hinweis der Redaktion