Donna Shestowsky
Biographic Data
| ID | 4126874 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Donna Shestowsky |
| GIVEN NAMES | Donna |
| FAMILY NAME | Shestowsky |
| SIGNATURE | SHESTOWSKY D |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of California, Davis |
| ORCID | 0000-0003-1172-8892 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 6 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 8 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 6 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1998 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2024 |
| H-INDEX | 2 |
Justice via chat? How litigants’ preferences and attorneys’ recommendations influence the choice to use online dispute resolution
There is a significant need for empirical evidence concerning how litigants compare and choose between various modalities of online dispute resolution (ODR) and traditional in-person mediation for resolving legal disputes. To fill this need, we examined three potentially relevant psychological factors: (a) baseline attitudes toward in-person, video, and text-based mediation; (b) past communication style used by litigants; and (c) expert advice vi…
Civil Litigants’ Evaluations of Their Legal Experiences
How do litigants evaluate their experiences with the civil justice system? What we know about this important subject has grown out of foundational academic research in procedural justice and studies of litigant involvement in court programs. The volume of projects dedicated to understanding litigant experiences falls short in relation to the magnitude of civil justice system encounters handled by the legal system. Nevertheless, the extant researc…
Great expectations? Comparing litigants’ attitudes before and after using legal procedures
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether litigants' initial attraction to legal procedures (e.g., mediation, hearings, jury trials) predicted their postexperience evaluations of the procedures and whether attendance moderated this relationship. HYPOTHESIS: Litigants' initial attraction to the legal procedure that later resolved their case would better predict postexperience satisfaction and fairness for litigants who adjudicated versus settled. I also explo…
Procedural Preferences in Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Closer, Modern Look at an Old Idea
Where Is the Common Knowledge? Empirical Support for Requiring Expert Testimony in Sexual Harassment Trials
Need for cognition and interpersonal influence: Individual differences in impact on dyadic decisions
The role of need for cognition (NC; J. T Cacioppo & R. E. Petty, 1982) in dyadic decisions was investigated. Consistent with the notion that individual differences in NC correspond to differences in attitude strength, the prediscussion views of people high in NC were found to be more predictive of dyadic decisions than were the prediscussion views of people low in NC. High-NC people were viewed by their discussion partners (and by themselves) as …
Need for cognition and interpersonal influence: Individual differences in impact on dyadic decisions
The role of need for cognition (NC; J. T Cacioppo & R. E. Petty, 1982) in dyadic decisions was investigated. Consistent with the notion that individual differences in NC correspond to differences in attitude strength, the prediscussion views of people high in NC were found to be more predictive of dyadic decisions than were the prediscussion views of people low in NC. High-NC people were viewed by their discussion partners (and by themselves) as …
Procedural Preferences in Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Closer, Modern Look at an Old Idea
Need for cognition and interpersonal influence: Individual differences in impact on dyadic decisions
The role of need for cognition (NC; J. T Cacioppo & R. E. Petty, 1982) in dyadic decisions was investigated. Consistent with the notion that individual differences in NC correspond to differences in attitude strength, the prediscussion views of people high in NC were found to be more predictive of dyadic decisions than were the prediscussion views of people low in NC. High-NC people were viewed by their discussion partners (and by themselves) as …
Where Is the Common Knowledge? Empirical Support for Requiring Expert Testimony in Sexual Harassment Trials
Procedural Preferences in Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Closer, Modern Look at an Old Idea
Great expectations? Comparing litigants’ attitudes before and after using legal procedures
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether litigants' initial attraction to legal procedures (e.g., mediation, hearings, jury trials) predicted their postexperience evaluations of the procedures and whether attendance moderated this relationship. HYPOTHESIS: Litigants' initial attraction to the legal procedure that later resolved their case would better predict postexperience satisfaction and fairness for litigants who adjudicated versus settled. I also explo…
Civil Litigants’ Evaluations of Their Legal Experiences
How do litigants evaluate their experiences with the civil justice system? What we know about this important subject has grown out of foundational academic research in procedural justice and studies of litigant involvement in court programs. The volume of projects dedicated to understanding litigant experiences falls short in relation to the magnitude of civil justice system encounters handled by the legal system. Nevertheless, the extant researc…
Justice via chat? How litigants’ preferences and attorneys’ recommendations influence the choice to use online dispute resolution
There is a significant need for empirical evidence concerning how litigants compare and choose between various modalities of online dispute resolution (ODR) and traditional in-person mediation for resolving legal disputes. To fill this need, we examined three potentially relevant psychological factors: (a) baseline attitudes toward in-person, video, and text-based mediation; (b) past communication style used by litigants; and (c) expert advice vi…
Political science (5 works) · Psychology (5 works) · Law (4 works) · Social Psychology (4 works) · Dispute Resolution and Class Actions (3 works) · Economic Justice (3 works) · Law and economics (3 works) · Social Psychology (3 works) · Alternative dispute resolution (2 works) · Dispute resolution (2 works)