Attitude Toward Mediation Scale (AMS)

Abstract

The Attitude Toward Mediation Scale (AMS) (Helsen, 2023) is an empirical psychometric instrument constructed to evaluate public attitudes toward mediation within general adult populations. Anchored in social psychological attitude theory—specifically the classic tripartite framework conceptualized by Harry Triandis (1971)—the AMS models dispute resolution orientations across three interdependent latent dimensions: emotion, cognition, and motivation. The instrument was developed to bridge an empirical gap in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and restorative justice research, where public uptake of mediation often lags behind legislative endorsement, partially due to unmeasured negative or ambivalent civic perceptions. Starting from an initial pool of 27 candidate items derived from literature synthesis and adapted instruments, rigorous expert panel review reduced the measure to a parsimonious 16-item self-report questionnaire. The finalized tool comprises seven items measuring emotional reactions, five items assessing cognitive beliefs and procedural expectations, and four items indexing motivational readiness and behavioral intent. The scale uses a standard 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Psychometric evaluation conducted with Flemish adults (aged 18 to 80 years) in Belgium demonstrated robust psychometric viability. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) established that a second-order factor model—in which a broad, overarching “Attitude Toward Mediation” construct accounts for the covariance among the first-order emotional, cognitive, and motivational factors—exhibits superior fit over unidimensional configurations. The general second-order factor accounted for 85.34% of the total score variance and 94.03% of the first-order factor variance. Internal consistency reliability, evaluated via McDonald’s omega coefficients (ω), proved strong across all subdimensions: ω = .84 for Emotion, ω = .74 for Cognition, and ω = .84 for Motivation. The AMS offers researchers, criminologists, court administrators, and legal policymakers a standardized, theoretically grounded operational tool for diagnosing public sentiment, evaluating community mediation awareness campaigns, and examining systemic barriers to informal justice mechanisms.

Keywords

Attitude toward Mediation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Triandis Tripartite Model, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Psychometrics, Public Opinion, Restorative Justice, Emotion, Cognition, Behavioral Motivation, Legal Psychology, Conflict Resolution

Authors

The Attitude Toward Mediation Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Valerie Helsen — Leuven Institute for Criminology (LINC), Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Criminology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  
  ORCID Identifier: 0000-0003-2466-8382
  
  Email: [email protected]
  
  Correspondence Address: Valerie Helsen, KU Leuven, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Herbert Hooverplein 9 – box 3418, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitude Toward Mediation Scale (AMS) is to provide a reliable, theoretically anchored, and standardized assessment instrument to quantify public attitudes toward mediation across diverse adult demographics. Over several decades, legal jurisdictions internationally have integrated mediation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) into their procedural architectures to alleviate court congestion, humanize legal procedures, diminish adversarial polarization, and advance procedural justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Despite institutional promotion, opt-in rates and organic public utilization of mediation often remain disproportionately low across civil, commercial, familial, and penal domains. Scholars and judicial policymakers frequently attribute this implementation gap to prevailing public skepticism, legal cynicism, misconceptions regarding mediator neutrality, or deep-seated cultural preferences for authoritative judicial adjudication. However, empirical investigations examining these phenomena were historically compromised by the lack of psychometrically validated measurement instruments specifically tailored to general civic populations.

Prior to the introduction of the AMS, empirical research on mediation attitudes largely depended on ad-hoc, single-item questions, unvalidated questionnaires, or context-bound client satisfaction inventories administered only post-hoc to individuals who had already engaged in mediation. Such methodologies inherently introduce selection bias and fail to capture pre-existing dispositions, emotional resistances, and cognitive schemas held by the broader lay public. The AMS directly addresses these methodological limitations by providing a continuous, multidimensional assessment framework that assesses latent sentiment prior to or independent of direct mediation involvement.

From a research perspective, the AMS enables criminology, socio-legal, and psychological researchers to investigate the antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of attitudes toward informal justice mechanisms. It allows scholars to model how dispute resolution preferences interact with legal socialization, trust in judicial authorities, personality traits, and experiences of interpersonal or institutional conflict. In clinical, legal, and applied settings, the instrument provides court administrators, community mediation centers, and policy planners with an empirical diagnostic tool. By identifying whether negative attitudes are predominantly rooted in negative emotional reactions (such as fear of vulnerability or anxiety regarding confronting an adversary), cognitive misconceptions (such as viewing mediation as an ineffective or compromise-ridden compromise), or low motivational readiness (unwillingness to commit personal effort to communicative dialogue), interventions can be specifically calibrated. Consequently, the AMS supports targeted public education campaigns, evidence-based legal reforms, and tailored intake procedures designed to optimize citizen engagement with alternative dispute resolution pathways.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the AMS is Attitude Toward Mediation, conceptualized as an enduring psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating the practice, concept, and institutional process of mediation with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Rooted in multi-component attitude theories, the construct does not represent an undifferentiated, unitary reaction; rather, it manifests as a hierarchical latent disposition comprising three distinct yet intrinsically related psychological subdimensions: affective/emotional evaluations, cognitive beliefs, and motivational/behavioral intentions.

1. Emotion Subdimension

The emotional component captures an individual’s affective experiences, visceral sensations, and subjective emotional states elicited when contemplating or encountering the prospect of mediation. Within legal and criminological contexts, engaging in dispute resolution frequently triggers profound psychological vulnerability, interpersonal anxiety, fear of intimidation, or emotional ambivalence. Conversely, positive affective orientations reflect feelings of relief, safety, personal calm, and emotional empowerment through dialogue. In the AMS, the emotion subdimension consists of seven items that evaluate the degree to which mediation elicits positive versus distressing affective states. For instance, an individual with a highly favorable emotional attitude perceives the mediation setting as a safe, reassuring, and dignified space to voice grievance, whereas an individual scoring low on this subdimension experiences acute apprehension, distress, or discomfort at the prospect of interacting directly with an opposing party outside formal judicial strictures.

2. Cognition Subdimension

The cognitive component reflects the system of beliefs, factual assumptions, intellectual knowledge, and evaluations held regarding the structural efficacy, legitimacy, and fairness of mediation. Cognitions toward dispute resolution encompass evaluations regarding mediator impartiality, procedural equity, speed, economic efficiency, durability of agreements, and capacity to deliver restorative justice outcomes compared to adversarial court litigation. Comprising five items, the cognition subdimension measures the rational calculus citizens apply when evaluating whether mediation produces viable, just, and lasting resolutions. High scores indicate beliefs that mediation fosters mutual understanding, provides an equitable platform for dispute resolution, and represents an intelligent alternative to adversarial litigation, whereas low scores reflect skepticism, cynicism regarding compliance, or perceptions that mediation represents a substandard “soft” alternative that lacks enforcement power.

3. Motivation Subdimension

The motivational component embodies behavioral readiness, conative willingness, and personal commitment to actively consider, enter into, and sustain participation in mediation when confronted with legal or interpersonal conflict. Grounded in behavioral intention theories, motivation translates affective feelings and cognitive appraisals into action tendencies. Within the AMS, this subdimension consists of four items that operationalize an individual’s proactive willingness to recommend mediation to peers, choose mediation over litigation, and invest communicative effort into resolving complex disputes collaboratively. Individuals possessing elevated motivational scores actively embrace dispute resolution mechanisms characterized by party autonomy, self-determination, and shared responsibility, whereas those with low scores display avoidance, resistance, or an immediate preference to delegate decision-making authority entirely to third-party adjudicators such as judges or arbitrators.

Together, these three subdimensions reflect the multifaceted architecture of public dispute resolution orientations. While each subscale assesses a conceptually distinct psychological domain, their integration within a higher-order construct recognizes that robust public acceptance of mediation requires cognitive endorsement, emotional comfort, and behavioral readiness.

Theoretical Framework

The construction and validation of the Attitude Toward Mediation Scale are theoretically grounded in classic social psychology and contemporary socio-legal scholarship. The principal structural anchor of the AMS is the tripartite model of attitude formulated by Harry C. Triandis (1971), which built upon the foundational attitude structural work of Carl Hovland, Milton Rosenberg, and other early attitude theorists. In Triandis’ formulation, an attitude cannot be comprehensively operationalized as a mere unidimensional affective evaluation; instead, it consists of an integrated constellation of:

• Affective / Emotional components: Emotional charges, visceral sentiments, and moods tied to the attitude object.
• Cognitive components: Rational beliefs, expectations, knowledge structures, and perceived attributes regarding the object.
• Behavioral / Action tendencies: Readiness to act, behavioral predispositions, and explicit choices relative to the object.

Applying this model to dispute resolution resolved a critical theoretical limitation in legal research. In adversarial legal cultures, citizens are socialized to associate justice with formal adjudicative rituals, authoritative rulings, retribution, and legal representation. When introduced to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation—which demand voluntary party dialogue, emotional vulnerability, interest-based bargaining, and mutual concession—citizens do not evaluate the alternative solely through a detached cognitive cost-benefit analysis. Rather, their attitudes are shaped by emotional apprehensions regarding confrontation, cognitive judgments about mediator authority and fairness, and motivational thresholds regarding their capacity to negotiate. Triandis’ framework thus provided the multidimensional architecture necessary to systematically capture how these distinct psychological forces interact.

In addition to Triandis’ attitude theory, the theoretical framework incorporates insights from the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and Procedural Justice Theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 2006). Procedural justice theory demonstrates that citizens value legal processes not merely for the material favorability of outcomes, but for the quality of treatment, opportunity to exercise voice, perceived neutrality of the authority figure, and respect for dignity. Mediation inherently embodies procedural justice values by granting disputants direct control over both the narrative process and the resolution terms. Consequently, cognitive evaluations within the AMS directly reflect underlying procedural justice expectations. Concurrently, the Theory of Planned Behavior emphasizes that behavioral intention serves as the proximate predictor of actual engagement; by incorporating conative/motivational readiness as a distinct subscale, the AMS facilitates predictive modeling regarding whether positive public attitudes translate into actual dispute resolution choices.

Finally, the scale draws upon contemporary restorative justice philosophies (Braithwaite, 2002; Zehr, 2002), which conceptualize conflict not solely as an infraction against abstract state laws, but as a rupture in interpersonal and community relations. Through this theoretical lens, public attitudes toward mediation reflect broader cultural orientations toward restorative, communicative justice versus retributive, punitive intervention. By synthesizing Triandis’ tripartite structural architecture with socio-legal and restorative frameworks, the AMS provides an integrated theoretical foundation for measuring dispute resolution psychology.

Validity

The validation process of the Attitude Toward Mediation Scale was structured according to modern psychometric standards and contemporary validity theory (Messick, 1995; Kazdin, 2003), which emphasize that validity represents an integrated, evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of interpretations based on test scores.

Content Validity and Expert Review

To establish rigorous content validity and prevent construct underrepresentation, the scale development began with an extensive synthesis of existing literature across mediation, legal psychology, criminology, and general attitude measurement. Based on Triandis’ theoretical definitions, an initial pool of 27 candidate items was constructed, operationalizing emotional, cognitive, and motivational facets of mediation. This preliminary pool was subjected to systematic expert review involving legal scholars, practicing mediators, criminologists, and psychometricians. Panelists evaluated each candidate indicator for semantic clarity, theoretical alignment with its designated subdimension, linguistic accessibility for general public respondents, and absence of leading legal jargon. Through this expert screening and item analysis, items displaying conceptual redundancy, ambiguous phrasing, or weak face validity were eliminated, refining the inventory to a final set of 16 psychometrically optimized items (7 Emotion, 5 Cognition, 4 Motivation).

Construct and Structural Validity

Evidence for construct validity and structural validity was derived through structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using data gathered from a large, heterogeneous community sample of Flemish adults in Belgium (aged 18 to 80 years). The empirical data supported the hypothesized multidimensional structure. Specifically, three competing structural models were formally evaluated:

1. A single-factor model, postulating that all 16 items reflect a single, undifferentiated attitude factor;
2. A bifactor model, postulating a general attitude factor alongside three orthogonal group factors;
3. A second-order factor model, postulating that the 16 observed items load directly onto their three respective first-order latent constructs (Emotion, Cognition, Motivation), which in turn load onto a single higher-order “Attitude Toward Mediation” factor.

The single-factor model demonstrated poor psychometric fit, confirming that attitudes toward mediation cannot be accurately modeled as a unidimensional psychological entity. In contrast, both the bifactor and second-order models achieved acceptable-to-strong empirical fit. The second-order factor model demonstrated the strongest conceptual coherence, theoretical interpretability, and structural parsimony. Within this model, all 16 items displayed moderate-to-high standardized first-order factor loadings ranging from 0.41 to 0.82, operating in the theorized direction with statistical significance. Furthermore, standardized higher-order factor loadings linking the three subdimensions to the overarching attitude construct were exceptionally high, spanning from 0.89 to 0.95. Crucially, variance decomposition analyses revealed that 85.34% of the total score variance was attributable to the overarching attitude factor, and 94.03% of the variance among the first-order factors was explained by the second-order general attitude construct.

Convergent, Discriminant, and External Validity Directions

In the primary validation study (Helsen, 2023), high inter-factor correlations between the subdimensions (ranging from .79 to .85) provided preliminary evidence of convergent structural cohesion, confirming that emotion, cognition, and motivation operate as harmonious components of a unified psychological disposition. Nevertheless, Helsen (2023) highlighted that subsequent research should expand empirical testing across additional validity categories outlined by Messick (1995). Specifically, future validation studies should evaluate:

• Convergent validity with external constructs such as legal trust, procedural justice orientations, institutional confidence in courts, and dispositional empathy;
• Discriminant validity against conceptually distinct dispositions such as general social desirability, punitive attitudes toward offenders, authoritarianism, and general risk aversion;
• Predictive / Criterion-related validity by tracking whether baseline AMS scores longitudinally predict actual dispute resolution choices when participants encounter real-world legal, neighborhood, or civil disputes.

Reliability

The reliability and internal consistency of the Attitude Toward Mediation Scale were thoroughly evaluated using contemporary psychometric metrics. While behavioral research historically relied upon Cronbach’s alpha (α), psychometric literature has established that alpha is frequently biased and prone to underestimating or overestimating true scale reliability due to its restrictive assumptions of tau-equivalence and uncorrelated error terms (McNeish, 2018; Sijtsma, 2009). Addressing these methodological considerations, Helsen (2023) evaluated internal consistency using McDonald’s omega coefficient (ω), which accurately accommodates varying factor loadings across structural equation models.

The empirical internal consistency estimates for each of the three subscales are as follows:

• Emotion Subscale (7 items): McDonald’s ω = .84
• Cognition Subscale (5 items): McDonald’s ω = .74
• Motivation Subscale (4 items): McDonald’s ω = .84

All three subdimensions exceed the widely accepted psychometric threshold of ω ≥ .70 for research instruments, with the Emotion and Motivation subscales demonstrating strong reliability exceeding .80. These values confirm that within each respective subscale, individual items demonstrate strong inter-item covariance and reliably capture their underlying latent subconstruct without excessive measurement error. Furthermore, the high higher-order factor loadings (γ = .89 to .95) and the finding that 85.34% of the total score variance is explained by the overarching attitude construct confirm that composite whole-scale scores demonstrate excellent overall measurement precision for research and assessment applications.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the AMS was evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), which tested alternative structural models against empirical data collected from Flemish adults aged 18 to 80 years. To determine the most theoretically coherent and parsimonious model, three nested and competing specifications were analyzed:

1. Model Comparisons

• Unidimensional (Single-Factor) Model: Assumed that all 16 items loaded onto a single latent “Mediation Attitude” factor. This model demonstrated unacceptable goodness-of-fit indices, indicating that public sentiment toward mediation cannot be represented by a single undifferentiated psychological dimension.
• Bifactor Model: Assumed a broad general attitude factor alongside three orthogonal group factors (Emotion, Cognition, Motivation). While displaying an acceptable statistical fit, the bifactor model introduced unnecessary structural complexity without providing substantive theoretical advantages over hierarchical modeling.
• Second-Order Factor Model: Assumed that the 16 observed items loaded onto their three respective first-order latent constructs (7 on Emotion, 5 on Cognition, 4 on Motivation), which subsequently loaded onto a single higher-order latent construct representing overall Attitude Toward Mediation. This second-order model exhibited an adequate-to-superior fit to the data, aligning with Triandis’ theoretical framework.

2. Factor Loadings and Structural Parameters

The parameter estimates derived from the second-order CFA supported the scale’s structural integrity:

• First-Order Standardized Loadings: Standardized factor loadings linking individual observed indicators to their designated first-order factors were moderate to high, ranging from 0.41 to 0.82. All loadings were statistically significant (p < .001) and in the hypothesized direction, indicating that each indicator reliably reflects its target subdimension.
• Higher-Order Standardized Loadings: The standardized loadings of the three first-order factors onto the second-order “Attitude Toward Mediation” factor were very high:
  • Emotion onto Second-Order Attitude: γ ≈ .89 to .95
  • Cognition onto Second-Order Attitude: γ ≈ .89 to .95
  • Motivation onto Second-Order Attitude: γ ≈ .89 to .95
• Inter-Factor Correlations: Latent correlations among the three first-order factors were substantial, ranging from .79 to .85, confirming strong mutual association while retaining sufficient distinctiveness.
• Variance Explained: The second-order factor accounted for 85.34% of the total score variance across the 16 items. Additionally, 94.03% of the variance among the first-order latent factors was explained by the higher-order attitude construct.

These findings substantiate the hierarchical structure of the AMS: while researchers can evaluate the three specific subscales independently to isolate targeted emotional, cognitive, or motivational dynamics, calculating an overarching composite score is psychometrically supported by the high proportion of explained common variance.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Attitude Toward Mediation Scale (AMS) is a self-report psychological inventory designed for administration in both digital and paper-based survey formats. The operational characteristics of the tool are summarized below:

• Test Type: Original Psychological Inventory / Rating Scale
• Authorship: Valerie Helsen (2023)
• Number of Items: 16 items
• Subscale Allocation:
  • Emotion Subscale: 7 items (assessing affective reactions, feelings of security, comfort, or apprehension toward mediation)
  • Cognition Subscale: 5 items (assessing beliefs regarding mediation efficacy, fairness, justice, and procedural legitimacy)
  • Motivation Subscale: 4 items (assessing behavioral readiness, willingness to participate, and intent to recommend mediation)
• Response Scale: Five-point Likert scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Target Population: General adult population (aged 18 to 80+ years), encompassing young adulthood, middle age, and older adults across diverse educational and socio-economic backgrounds.
• Available Languages: Dutch (original validation language) and English translation.
• Scoring and Interpretation Procedures:
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by computing the arithmetic mean of items belonging to each respective subscale (Emotion = sum of 7 items / 7; Cognition = sum of 5 items / 5; Motivation = sum of 4 items / 4). Subscale scores range from 1.00 to 5.00.
  • Global Attitude Score: Calculated by computing the mean of all 16 items (or the average of the three subscale means), yielding an overall composite score ranging from 1.00 to 5.00.
  • Score Interpretation: Higher scores indicate a more positive, receptive, and favorable attitude toward mediation, whereas lower scores reflect skepticism, negative affective apprehension, cognitive distrust, or behavioral resistance toward dispute resolution processes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Attitude Toward Mediation Scale was published in 2023 in Conflict Resolution Quarterly.

• Test Year: 2023
• Commercial Use: No. Commercial exploitation, sale, or unauthorized commercial incorporation into fee-charging assessment batteries is prohibited without formal contractual consent.
• Fee: Free for non-commercial academic, psychological, criminological, and educational research purposes.
• Permissions and Test Acquisition: Researchers wishing to utilize, translate, or adapt the AMS must contact the corresponding author, Dr. Valerie Helsen, at KU Leuven ([email protected]) or consult the original publication (Helsen, 2023) to obtain the official licensed questionnaire and Dutch/English source files.

References

The academic references documenting the theoretical foundation, development, and psychometric validation of the AMS are listed below in APA 7th edition format:

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice & responsive regulation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195158396.001.0001
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Helsen, V. (2023). Development of the attitude toward mediation scale. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 40(4), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21380
• Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
• Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4
• McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
• Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
• Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
• Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. John Wiley & Sons.
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828609
• Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.

Items of the Scale