To date, most research has looked at disputants' preferences for a dispute resolution process after they have participated in it. A recent study of litigants in civil cases filed in Cook County, Illinois, examined their preferences before they entered it and compared those perceptions to their satisfaction with the process they ended up using. The reason behind the study was that by understanding disputants' preferences, courts can improve the provision of services and enhance the disputants' experience of justice.

The processes used were almost entirely negotiated settlement or trial, with case dismissal also making up a large percentage of case closures. Mediation and arbitration were used in one case each. These were grouped with negotiation and trial, respectively, to create "adjudicative process" and "non-adjudicative process" categories.

The researchers began with the hypothesis that preference would be based upon who had greater control of the process and outcome - a neutral third party or the disputants themselves. Their findings indicated that this indeed was the case. The study also found that older disputants preferred to maintain control themselves, while younger ones were more likely to prefer third party control. Those involved in contract disputes were also more likely to prefer disputant control, as did those who were in a dispute with a company or organization (as opposed to individuals).

The results also indicated a correlation between the preference before entering a dispute resolution process and the satisfaction with the process. For example, those who preferred third party control were satisfied with the adjudicative process, while those who preferred disputant control but went through an adjudicative process, were not satisfied. The exception to this was that those who indicated a preference for disputant control were not necessarily more satisfied when going through a non-adjudicative process. The probable explanation is that the process was in all but one case negotiated settlement, in which the disputant most likely did not participate in the process. The most significant finding is that the litigants' pre-process preference did not predict what process they used. This was explained by the possibility that the lawyers drive the decision about what process to use.