Mediating under the Shadow of AI: Public Reactions to Procedural and Substantive Roles of AI in Court-Annexed Mediation
This study investigates public responses to artificial intelligence (AI) in court-annexed mediation—a setting in which disputing parties retain decision-making authority, unlike adjudication contexts examined in prior research. Using a web-based experiment with 1,000 participants, the study examines reactions to two distinct AI roles: procedural (chatbot mediator) and substantive (AI-generated settlement proposal). Results indicate that initial public skepticism toward AI mediation is significant but diminishes notably after participants engage with the process and review the settlement proposal. Indeed, AI-generated plans were often judged fairer and more accurate than those drafted by humans. Additionally, neither chatbot mediation nor AI-drafted plans significantly affected willingness to accept the plan or satisfaction with the mediation process itself. Transparency strategies also influenced
acceptance: global (generalized) explanations effectively increased acceptance when paired with procedural AI, whereas local (case-specific) explanations backfired with human-authored proposals. Thus, this study suggests that integrating AI into mediation can simultaneously enhance efficiency and legitimacy—provided participants maintain ultimate decision control and transparency approaches align with user expectations.