Fed up with the expense and slow pace of civil litigation, corporate and individual disputants alike are increasingly turning to various forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution to help redress their grievances. ADR is a broad construct, encompassing mediation, arbitration, and any other form of formalized dispute resolution except litigation. Congress recently required the federal district courts to drastically expand their use of ADR, and more and more law firms are turning to ADR as a cost-effective alternative to litigation. Nonetheless, in many ways, ADR's effectiveness remains largely untested. This dissertation maps out an approach to civil dispute resolution that identifies and manages disputants' non- rational, covert motives and interests involved without resorting to litigation. It is particularly concerned with three related areas of inquiry. First, it aims to identify and address disputants' true needs and goals. Second, it examines bias and irrational thinking, and looks at the ways in which these factors may impede negotiations. Finally, it proposes a new strategic approach to mediation that bolsters both its effectiveness and efficiency.