Computers work for women: Gender differences in e-supported divorce mediation Katalien N.L. Bollen a,⇑ , Alain-Laurent Verbeke b , Martin C. Euwema a a University of Leuven, Research Group Work, Organisational and Personnel Psychology, Department of Psychology, Tiensestraat 102, Box 3725, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium b University of Leuven, Institute for Contract Law, Department of Law, Tiensestraat 41, Box 3450, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium article info Article history: Available online 5 October 2013 Keywords: E-supported mediation Divorce Gender Justice Mediation effectiveness Computer-mediated communication abstract Despite the increasing use of e-mediated services to settle divorce, research on its effectiveness is limited. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of an asynchronous e-supported tool to mediate divorces in the Netherlands. In order to do so, we rely on (a) the number of agreements reached and (objective) (b) with the help of a survey, we ask men and women about their perceptions of justice when involved in an e-mediated divorce (subjective). Results show that in more than 75% of the cases parties reach an agree- ment. Furthermore, findings indicate that both Dutch men and women evaluate e-supported divorce mediation favorably with high levels of perceived distributive, procedural, interpersonal as well as infor- mational justice. Although men and women do not differ regarding perceptions of distributive and infor- mational justice, women perceive significantly more procedural and interpersonal justice than men. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Divorce has become a normative life event for many families in Western society, not the least because of its frequency (Hughes & Kirby, 2000). Whereas in Australia at least one out of five marriages ends in divorce (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007), in the Neth- erlands one out of three marriages dissolves (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2010). In the United States, 50% to two-thirds of all first marriages are disrupted by separation or divorce (Kreider & Fields, 2001). During the past few decades, many Western countries imple- mented a no-fault legislation (the assumption of fault does not have to reside any longer with one of the partners) together with the so called ‘child’s best interest’ standard in deciding on post-di- vorce arrangements (Baitar, Buysse, Brondeel, De Mol, & Rober, 2012; Beck & Sales, 2001). Reason to do this was based on the observation that post-divorce disagreements may be very costly for the parents but particularly damaging to the children (Cash- more, 2011). Such developments facilitated in the Netherlands the imple- mentation of the Promotion of Continued Parenting and Proper Di- vorce Act, which took effect on March 1st, 2009. Under this Act, it is compulsory for divorcing couples with minor children to draw up a parenting plan which contains agreements in three key areas (divi- sion of care and parenting duties, child maintenance, and exchange of information on important issues) and to hand this over to a judge. During this process, parties usually rely on a divorce mediator. During divorce mediation a neutral third party accepted by both disputants helps parties to discuss issues and fosters mutual understanding of the underlying interests (Kressel, 2006). The mediator has no power to prescribe agreements or outcomes (Wall, Stark, & Standifer, 2001). Rather, the mediator helps the parties to determine what they believe is the best solution for themselves and their children (Goldman et al., 2008). This open and consensual approach makes it more likely to find a mutual acceptable agree- ment and/or to promote continuity in relations. This may be very important for divorces as divorces not only require legal solutions, but also need solutions on a personal level (recognition, respect, understanding of feelings and thoughts, etc.), something arbitra- tion fails to impact. In addition to traditional face-to-face mediations, contemporary mediation service providers offer e-supported mediation, going from fully e-supported mediations to mediations which are partly computerized and partly face-to-face (hybrid types). Though increasingly used, empirical research on e-supported divorce medi- ations is limited and few rigorous tests exist of its effectiveness or its effects on the parties involved; this, in contrast to the vast amount of literature on electronic negotiations (Citera, Beauregard, & Mitsuya, 2005; Friedman et al., 2004) and/or online communication (Valley, Moag, & Bazerman, 1998; Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005). 0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.006 ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 16 32 59 95. E-mail addresses: Katalien.Bollen@ppw.kuleuven.be (K.N.L. Bollen), Alain. Verbeke@law.kuleuven.be (A.-L. Verbeke), Martin.Euwema@ppw.kuleuven.be (M.C. Euwema). Computers in Human Behavior 30 (2014) 230–237 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh