Caucusing consists of meetings between a mediator and an individual disputant, as opposed to a joint session with all disputants involved. In theory, caucusing should be expected to hold certain advantages over joint sessions because the absence of the opposing party will result in the individual disputant feeling less defensive and more likely to offer possible solutions, and will allow the mediator to build rapport and solicit information without having to worry about appearing impartial. At the same time, caucuses may have a disadvantage in that disputants will be more willing to attack the other party and make them appear to be further in the wrong than they are, as they are not there to correct facts or defend themselves.
This study consists of looking at data from 49 different mediations. Observers kept track of 26 different possible acts for the disputants, such as asking of hostile questions or proposing of a new idea, and 28 possible acts for mediators, such as requesting of a proposal or a threat to terminate mediation. In the end, the results suggested that caucusing resulted in decreased direct hostility and an increase in willingness to suggest ideas and solutions, but also resulted in an increase of indirect hostility and criticism of the opposing party's behavior.