ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIATION: THE ROLE OF PARTY TRUST AND MEDIATOR EXPERTISE ACROSS LEGAL AND NON-LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

Abstract

This study investigates the effectiveness of mediation by examining the interrelationships between party trust, mediator expertise, and the mediation framework—legal versus non-legal. Using a sample of 300 mediation cases, we conducted descriptive, correlational, and regression analyses to test four hypotheses: (H1) mediation type influences party trust, (H2) party trust enhances mediation effectiveness, (H3) mediator experience moderates the trust-effectiveness relationship, and (H4) effectiveness differs between legal and non-legal frameworks.
Descriptive statistics revealed a near-equal distribution across mediation types and mediator experience levels, along with moderately high ratings for trust and effectiveness. Correlation results showed significant positive relationships among all variables, with party trust and effectiveness exhibiting the strongest association (r = 0.61, p < .01). Regression analysis supported all four hypotheses. Notably, mediation type significantly predicted party trust (B = 0.31, p = .018), and party trust strongly predicted mediation effectiveness (B = 0.65, p < .001, R² = .374). A significant interaction effect confirmed that mediator expertise enhances the influence of trust on effectiveness (interaction B = 0.21, p = .003). Additionally, legal frameworks were rated significantly more effective than non-legal ones (B = 0.33, p = .001).
These findings underscore the importance of trust and mediator skill in fostering effective mediation outcomes and suggest that institutional context plays a meaningful but partial role. The study contributes to mediation theory and practice by integrating interpersonal, professional, and structural dimensions into a unified explanatory model of effectiveness.