Date of Award

2026-05-01

Degree Name

Master of Arts

Department

Psychology

Advisor(s)

Krystia M. Reed

Abstract

This thesis examined how laypeople evaluate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures in civil legal disputes, focusing on outcome favorability, procedural format, and procedural choice. Drawing on procedural justice theory, two vignette-based studies tested whether mediation would be evaluated more favorably than arbitration and whether allowing participants to choose the ADR process would improve satisfaction and perceptions of procedural justice. Study 1 used a 2 x 2 between-subjects design with undergraduate participants (N = 140) and manipulated ADR process (mediation vs. arbitration) and outcome (favorable vs. unfavorable). Study 2 extended this design by adding a choice condition in a community adult sample recruited through Prolific (N = 289). Across both studies, outcome favorability consistently predicted higher satisfaction and higher procedural justice ratings. Process effects were weaker and less consistent. In Study 1, mediation produced higher procedural justice ratings than arbitration, but this effect did not replicate in Study 2. In Study 2, allowing participants to choose their ADR process did not significantly improve satisfaction or procedural justice perceptions, although exploratory analyses suggested that choice may increase willingness to comply with a binding arbitration decision. Taken together, the findings suggest that lay evaluations of ADR may be shaped more strongly by outcomes than by procedural features, raising important questions about the boundary conditions of procedural justice theory in civil ADR contexts. These results also highlight the need for future research employing more immersive and realistic dispute-resolution paradigms.

Language

en

Provenance

Received from ProQuest

File Size

70 p.

File Format

application/pdf

Rights Holder

Ashley Gale Vaughan

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS