Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Trial and Appellate Courts

  • Chapter
Handbook of Psychology and Law

Abstract

In recent decades, American courts have made substantial efforts to develop alternatives to traditional trial and appellate hearing procedures. Mediation and arbitration programs have become common features of state and federal court procedure. Many of these alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures have been the target of empirical program evaluation studies, and there is now a substantial body of research on the workings and consequences of such procedures. As will be seen in many of the studies we review, ADR programs frequently have unexpected effects. In addition, unexpected or not, ADR research has produced many interesting insights into the psychology of law and the psychology of disputing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abel, R. (1982). Introduction. In R. Abel (Ed.), The politics of informal justice: The American experience, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, J.W., Felstiner, W.F., Hensler, D.R., & Peterson, M. (1982). The pace of litigation: Conference proceedings. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, J.W., Hensler, D.R., & Nelson, C.E. (1983). Simple justice: How litigants fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfini, J.J. (1989). Summary jury trials in state and federal courts: A comparative analysis of the perceptions of participating lawyers. Ohio State University Journal of Dispute Resolution, 4, 213–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alschuler, A. (1983). Implementing the criminal defendant’s right to trial: Alternatives to the plea bargaining system. University of Chicago Law Review, 50, 831–1050.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group (1986). Dispute resolution in Massachusetts: Final report of the Governor’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group. Boston: Office of the Governor.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Bar Association National Conference of State Trial Judges (1984). Standards relating to court delay reduction. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkai, J., & Kassebaum, G. (1989). Using court-annexed arbitration to reduce litigant costs and to increase the pace of litigation. Pepper dine Law Review, 16, S43-S74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazil, W. (1981). Improving judicial controls over the pretrial development of civil actions: Model rules for case management and sanctions. American Bar Association Research Journal, 1981, 873–965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazil, W. (1987). Hosting settlement conferences: Effectiveness in the judicial role. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 3, 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J.M., & Goldberg, S.B. (1983). Mediator-advisors: A new third-party role. In M. Bazerman & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 165–176). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D.L. (1989). Judicial arbitration in California: An update. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, W.E. (1982). Isn’t there a better way? American Bar Association Journal, 68, 274–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, J.D., Tyler, T.R., & Fisher, B. (1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review, 22, 483–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerino, A.M., & Rainone, S.M. (1983–1984). The new wave: Speedy arbitration hearings—but are they fair? Villanova Law Review, 29, 1495–1503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, T.W. (1978). Civil case delay in state trial courts. Justice System Journal, 4, 166–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, T.W. (1982). The “old and the new” conventional wisdom of court delay. Justice System Journal, 7, 395–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S.H., Donnelly, L.F., & Grove, S.A. (1989, June). North Carolina’s program of court-ordered arbitration: An evaluation of its effects. Presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, D., & Penrod, S. (1980–1981). Social psychology and the emergence of disputes. Law & Society Review, 15, 655–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. (1985). Procedural justice and participation. Human Relations, 38, 643–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, P.R.J., & Smith, S. (1983). The litigant’s perspective on delay: Waiting for the dough. Justice System Journal, 8, 271–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooter, R., Marks, S., & Mnookin, R. (1982). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: A testable model of strategic behavior. Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 225–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R.C., Tichane, M., & Grayson, D. (1980). Mediation and arbitration as alternatives to prosecution in felony arrest cases. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebener, P.A., & Betancourt, D.R. (1985). Court-annexed arbitration: The national picture. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, R.E., & Wyer, M.M. (1987). Divorce mediation. American Psychologist, 42, 472–480.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erlanger, H.S., Chambliss, E., & Melli, M.S. (1987). Participation and flexibility in informal processes: Cautions from the divorce context. Law & Society Review, 21, 585–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, J.P. (1988). Evaluations of dispute processing: We don’t know what we think and we don’t think what we know. Working Paper 8–10, Disputes Processing Research Program, Institute for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felstiner, W.L.F. (1974). Influences of social organization on dispute processing. Law & Society Review, 9, 63–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felstiner, W.L.F., Abel, R.L., & Sarat, A. (1980–1981). The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming. Law & Society Review, 15, 631–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, O.M. (1984). Against settlement. Yale Law Review, 93, 1073–1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanders, S. (1977). Case management and court management in United States district courts. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, N., Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1973). Some determinants of the violation of rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 103–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, M. (1987). Jury shadows: Reflections on the civil jury and the “litigation explosion.” In The American Civil Jury: Final Report of the 1986 Chief Justice Earl Warren Conference on Advocacy in the United States (pp. 15–42). Washington DC: The Roscoe Pound-American Trial Lawyers Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, D.G. (1983). Meaningful reform of plea bargaining: The control of prosecutorial discretion. University of Illinois Law Review, 1983, 37–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluckman, M. (1969). Ideas and procedures in African customary law. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, S.B., Green, E.D., & Sander, F.E.A. (1985). Dispute resolution. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, J. (1977). An evaluation of the Civil Appeals Management Plan: An experiment in judicial administration. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, J.P. (1973). The economic of legal conflicts. Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 279–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulliver, P.H. (1979). Disputes and negotiations: A cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinz, A.M., & Kerstetter, W.A. (1979). Pretrial settlement conference: Evaluation of a reform in plea bargaining. Law & Society Review, 13, 349–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensler, D.R. (1986). What we know and don’t know about court-administered arbitration. Judicature, 69, 270–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensler, D.R., Lipson, A.J., & Rolph, E.S. (1981). Judicial arbitration in California: The first year. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensler, D.H., Vaiana, M.E., Kakalik, J.S., & Peterson, M.A. (1987). Trends in tort litigation: The story behind the statistics. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L.B., & Penrod, S. (1986). Procedural preference as a function of conflict intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 700–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houlden, P. (1980–1981). Impact of procedural modifications on evaluations of plea bargaining. Law & Society Review, 15, 267–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houlden, P., LaTour, S., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Preferences for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoubovitch, M.-D., & Moore, CM. (1982). Summary jury trials in the Northern District of Ohio. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakalik, J.S., Selvin, M., & Pace, N.M. (1990). Averting gridlock: Strategies for reducing civil case delay in Los Angeles Superior Court. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keilitz, S., Gallas, G., & Hanson, R. (1988). State adoption of alternative dispute resolution: Where is it today? State Court Journal, 12, 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H., & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komorita, S.S., & Barnes, M. (1975). Effects of pressures to reach agreement in bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 699–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambros, T.D. (1986). The summary jury trial— An alternative method of resolving disputes. Judicature, 69, 286–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambros, T.D., & Shunk, T.H. (1980). The summary jury trial. Cleveland State Law Review, 29, 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J.M., & Goodstein, L. (1986). When is justice fair? An integrated approach to the outcome vs. procedure debate. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1986, 675–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, R.E. (1989). Procedural goods in a democracy: How one is treated versus what one gets. Social Justice Research, 2, 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaTour, S. (1978). Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1531–1545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. (1986, July). Some thoughts about the social psychology of justice. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Justice in Human Relations, Leiden, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models in conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., & Lind, E.A. (1986). Procedural justice and culture: Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1134–1140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange-Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, J.K. (1981). The litigious society. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A. (1982). The psychology of courtroom procedure. In R. Bray & N. Kerr (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 13–38). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A. (1990). Arbitrating high-stakes cases: An evaluation of court-annexed arbitration in a United States District Court. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A., Erickson, B.E., Friedland, N., & Dickenberger, M. (1978). Reactions to procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 318–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J.W. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 643–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A., Lissak, R.I., & Conlon, D.E. (1983). Decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 338–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., MacCoun, R. J., Ebener, P. A., Felstiner, W.L.F., Hensler, D.R., Resnik, J., & Tyler, T.R. (1990). In the eye of the beholder: Tort litigants’evaluations of their experiences in the civil justice system. Law and Society Review, 24, 953–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A., & Shapard, J.E. (1981). Evaluation of court-annexed arbitration in three federal district courts. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E.F., & Wagenaar, W.A. (1988). Lawyers’ predictions of success. Jurimetrics Journal, 28, 437–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maatman, G.L., Jr. (1988). The future of summary jury trials in federal courts: Strandell v. Jackson County. The John Marshall Law Review, 21, 455–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R.J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decisionmaking. Science, 244, 1046–1050.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R.J., Lind, E. A., Hensler, D.H., Bryant, D.L., & Ebener, P.A. (1988). Alternative adjudication: An evaluation of the New Jersey automobile arbitration program. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R.J., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The basis of citizens’ perceptions of the criminal jury: Procedural fairness, accuracy, and efficiency. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 333–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, B. (1988). Changing times in trial courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maisch, M. (1988, June 9). Can lawyers predict the outcome of their cases? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law & Society Association, Vail, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, CA., & Maiman, R.J. (1981). Small claims mediation in Maine: An empirical assessment. Maine Law Review, 33, 237–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, CA., & Maiman, R.J. (1984). Mediation in small claims court: Achieving compliance through consent. Law & Society Review, 18, 11–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, CA., & Maiman, R.J. (1986). The relative significance of disputing forum and dispute characteristics for outcome and compliance. Law & Society Review, 20, 439–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1983). Legal negotiations: A study of strategies in search of theory. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1983, 905–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (1985). For and against settlement: Uses and abuses of the mandatory settlement conference. UCLA Law Review, 33, 485–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merry, S.E., & Silbey, S.S. (1984). What do plaintiffs want? Reexamining the concept of dispute. Justice System Journal, 9, 151–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G.P. (1986). An economic analysis of Rule 68. Journal of Legal Studies, 15, 93–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S., Gallas, G., Hanson, R., & Keilitz, S. (1988). Divorce mediation in the states: Institutionalization, use, and assessment. State Court Journal, 12, 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nader, L. (1969). Styles of court procedure: To make the balance. In L. Nader (Ed.), Law in culture and society (pp. 69–91). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nader, L., & Todd, H.F. (1978). The disputing process: Law in ten societies. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neubauer, D.W. (1986). Are we approaching judicial gridlock? A critical review of the literature. Justice System Journal, 11, 363–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notz, W.W., & Starke, F.A. (1987). Arbitration and distributive justice: Equity or equality? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 359–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Barr, W.M., & Conley, J.M. (1985). Litigant satisfaction versus legal adequacy in small claims court narratives. Law & Society Review, 19, 661–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Barr, W.M., & Conley, J.M. (1988). Lay expectations of the civil justice system. Law & Society Review, 22, 137–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, A., & Eldridge, W.B. (1974). The Second Circuit sentencing study: A report to the judges of the Second Circuit. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, A., & Lind, A. (1983). A réévaluation of the Civil Appeals Management Plan. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R.A. (1986). The summary jury trial and other methods of alternative dispute resolution: Some cautionary observations. University of Chicago Law Review, 53, 366–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G.L. (1982). Regulating the content and volume of litigation: An economic analysis. Supreme Court Economic Review, 1, 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G.L., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies, 13, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine, D.M. (1986). Settlement strategies for Federal District judges. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D.G., & Johnson, D.F. (1970). Mediation as an aid to face saving in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 239–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, J. (1982). Managerial judges. Harvard Law Review, 96, 374–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. (1964). The pretrial conference and effective justice. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, T.D. (1984). Predicting the effects of attorney fee shifting. Law and Contemporary Problems, 47, 139–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, T.D. (1988). Empirical research on offers of settlement: A preliminary report. Law and Contemporary Problems, 51, 13–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J.P., & Alfini, J.J. (1979). Trial judges’ participation in plea bargaining: An empirical perspective. Law & Society Review, 13, 479–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarat, A. (1976). Alternatives in dispute processing: Litigation in a small claims court. Law & Society Review, 11, 339–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarat, A. (1988). The “new formalism” in disputing and dispute processing. Law & Society Review, 21, 695–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuller, R.A., & Vidmar, N. (1988). Reactions to mediation procedures. Unpublished manuscript, Law and Social Science Program, Northwestern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavell, S. (1982). Suit, settlement, and trial: A theoretical analysis under alternative methods for the allocation of legal costs. Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 55–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L., & Berk, R.A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stites v. Sundstrand Heat Transfer, Inc., No. K84–299 (W.D. Michigan, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Strandell v. Jackson County, 838 F. 2d 884 (7th Cir. 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tell, L.J., & Angiolillo, Paul (1987 September 7). From jury selection to verdict—in hours: Summary jury trials are making dockets lighter. Business Week, p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trubek, D.M., Sarat, A., Felstiner, W.L.F., Kritzer, H.M., & Grossman, J.B. (1983). The costs of ordinary litigation. UCLA Law Review, 31, 72–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendant’s evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law & Society Review, 18, 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. (1988). The quality of dispute resolution processes and outcomes: Measurement problems and possibilities. Working Paper 8–8, Disputes Processing Research Program, Institute for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why citizens obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy and compliance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R., Rasinski, K., & Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbreit, M.S. (1988). Mediation of victim offender conflict. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1988, 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (1986). Assessing the effects of case characteristics and settlement forum on dispute outcomes and compliance. Law & Society Review, 21, 156–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E.A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L., Lind, E.A., & Thibaut, J. (1979). The relation between procedural and distributive justice. Virginia Law Review, 65, 1401–1420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, J.A., & Schiller, L.F. (1983). The judge off the bench: A mediator in civil settlement negotiations. In M.H. Bazerman & R.J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 177–192). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Walster, G.A., & Berscheud, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, S., Ruhnka, J.C., & Martin, J.A. (1982). American experiments for reducing civil trial costs and delays. Civil Justice Quarterly, 1, 151–174.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Robert J. MacCoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Allan Lind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tom R. Tyler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. 19130, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Dorothy K. Kagehiro

  2. Department of Legal Studies, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 19104-6369, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    William S. Laufer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

MacCoun, R.J., Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R. (1992). Alternative Dispute Resolution in Trial and Appellate Courts. In: Kagehiro, D.K., Laufer, W.S. (eds) Handbook of Psychology and Law. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-4040-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-4038-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation