The Relationship Between Mediators’ Religiosity and Work Ethic: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Court Mediators in Poland

Abstract

The paper aims to determine the associations of mediators’ religiosity, assessed as self-reported religious belief and religious practice frequency, with their recognition of the existence of a work ethic of mediators, their personal approach to the occupation, their values, their adherence to the rules of mediation, and their perception of its objectives. The article is based on the results of a quantitative study conducted among Polish court mediators (n = 391). It was found that the mediators who were religious believers and regularly practiced their religion were more often convinced about the existence of a work ethic, treated work in their occupation as an opportunity to help people, and remained neutral in disputes, but they were also more inclined to violate the principle of impartiality by being prepared to conduct mediation in their friends or family members’ cases. Our research on mediators’ work ethic may be useful in raising the standards of mediator training in specific areas of specialization, including working with migrants and multicultural communities, enhancing the effectiveness of mediations, improving their quality, and boosting the level of disputants’ satisfaction.

1. Introduction

Building relations with others is an important element of everyday life. Relations are often disturbed by conflicts. An important way of solving conflicts is mediation. On the one hand, conflicts are inherent in relations with other people; on the other, the ability to handle them and treat them as a development opportunity makes mediation as a way of resolving a dispute or conflict situation more important as well.

Mediation has become part of the social systems in different areas of life, including the contexts of work (Bollen and Euwema 2013), divorce (Baitar et al. 2016), school (Wołk 2022), criminal law (Silecka-Marek 2020; Broński 2022b) and misdemeanors (Harmon-Darrow 2024). It is also more widely used for settling disputes or even resolving military conflicts within and between countries (Greig 2021). Religion plays an important role in the lives of many people. Analyzing the relationship between religiosity and the work ethic of mediators provides a better understanding of what values and attitudes can influence the mediation process. Cultural and religious contexts can shape the working practices of forensic mediators. Individual religious beliefs may translate into the level of acceptance of ethical standards in professional work.

Mediators are a social and occupational group that is highly diverse in terms of formal education and in terms of whether the occupation of a mediator is their main or additional job. Due to the development of mediation in recent years, research addressing various aspects of mediation has been conducted in Poland, but mediators’ work ethic has not been investigated in a comprehensible and representative manner. There have been no studies to date on the association of religion and religiosity with the work ethic of this occupational group, either. Our research fills this gap.

This study aimed to determine if religiosity, assessed as self-reported religious belief and the frequency of religious practice, differentiates mediators in terms of their recognition of the existence of mediators’ work ethic, their personal approach to the occupation, their values, their adherence to the principles of mediation, and their perception of the aims of mediation.

Our research, carried out among Polish court mediators, shows that religious faith and practices matter for the way they perceive their work and how they perform it.

Those declaring themselves to be believers and regularly practicing religion were more likely to express the opinion that mediator work ethic exists.

Believers perceived their professional work as an opportunity to help people and to experience new life situations, as well as an opportunity for additional work experience. Nonbelievers, on the other hand, were more likely to explain their work as an opportunity to challenge themselves and learn about themselves and new communities, to earn money, and to achieve the satisfaction of working out a settlement between parties. The prosocial dimension of mediation understood as helping people was more often emphasized by frequently practicing respondents.

Both believers and nonbelievers are guided in their professional work by values such as openness to others, honesty, integrity and respect, and focus on the satisfaction of the parties and adherence to the rules of mediation. More frequent religious practice was associated with greater attention to truthfulness. Non-practitioners were more likely to emphasize supporting the parties in resolving the conflict as the main goal of mediation, while regularly practicing respondents emphasized the need to mitigate the conflict.

Nonbelievers and non-practitioners were more likely to speed up the mediation process by skipping the presentation of all mediation rules. They also suggested a better resolution of the dispute to the parties when the process had not reached an agreement for a long time. Additionally, non-practitioners were more likely to declare that they sometimes treated one of the parties without due respect. Believers and practicing mediators were more likely to admit to violating the principle of impartiality by being willing to mediate the cases of friends or family members. Practitioners were also more likely to accept small tokens of gratitude for mediation. Work ethic is also influenced by commitment to values such as faith and self-development.

The results of this research can be used to improve the training programmes of future and current mediators and to enhance the quality of court mediation in Poland. The religiosity of mediators can be of particular importance when working with minorities, migrants and people from multicultural backgrounds, especially in times of such high mobility of people.

Apart from the legal requirements, what can play an important role in mediators’ work is the good practices and ethical principles adopted in this occupational group, making up the work ethic. An ethic is a set of norms regulating work quality and defining acceptable and desirable behaviors in a given occupational group (Swadźba 2001). An ethic applies to groups rather than individuals and serves as an external expression of social and moral norms (Ossowska 1973; Olearczyk 2006). The work ethic comprises individual and group beliefs and behaviors, which do not always coincide with the requirements of morality formulated by a particular ethical system (Mariański 1994). It establishes the belief in the importance of a given occupation and ensures predictability in professional duties (Lenart-Kłoś 2020). A mediator’s endorsement of and adherence to the good practices and ethical principles adopted in this occupational group may be related to various sociodemographic factors, including religious ones. Max Weber linked religion and economics. According to Weber, the Protestant ethos supports private entrepreneurship to a much greater extent than Catholicism or other religions, which attach little or no value to material goods. Weber argues that the success of Protestants in capitalist entrepreneurship results from their relatively new views on work and salvation compared to Catholics. People’s religious beliefs shape their personal ethics, even in non-religious matters such as economics.

Protestantism emphasizes the concept of work as a divine duty. Work is treated by Protestants as their ‘calling’. Protestants believe that they glorify God just by working in their professions to the utmost of their abilities. Protestants’ work becomes an end rather than a means—instead of working to live, they live to work. Their faith makes them ideal capitalists, as they orient their lives around work and profit, demonstrating the connection between religious ideology and its practical implications. Protestant theology therefore values ambition and discipline, which in turn makes Protestants persistent capitalists; their economic performance is driven by intangible religious ideals (Weber 2010). Differences between religious denominations are significant in shaping individualistic attitudes (Ciftci 2022). Religion influences work ethic by shaping social attitudes and reinforcing commitment to professional duties (Hułas 2015). Employees with a strong intrinsic religious orientation achieve greater job satisfaction, are more committed to their work, and cope with stress more effectively. Religiosity, particularly intrinsic orientation, positively affects normative commitment and workplace values (Bal and Kökalan 2021; Ekizler and Galifanova 2020). Religion is one of the sources of values and moral norms. In individuals with a strong religion-oriented system, values consistent with religion and stemming from religion are visible in behavior because employees who are religious believers adhere to rules also in their professional life (Wnuk 2024). Generally, as research has shown, religiosity has a positive effect on the work ethic of the faithful of all religions (Feess et al. 2014). Religiosity in professional work is relevant. Research findings indicate that social workers as a professional group should be trained in working with clients’ spiritual and religious beliefs and practices in order to provide effective services tailored to clients’ needs (Hodge et al. 2024). Research conducted among Australian police officers shows that officers with a high level of religiosity declare that they follow the guidelines of their religion and apply them in their work, which may influence their assessment of representatives of minority groups (Miles-Johnson 2022). Based on other studies, the higher the level of religiosity among educators of the Central Java Police, the higher the level of work ethics (Agustina and Wibowo 2021). Research on work ethic has been conducted among various occupational groups, including Prison Service officers (Lenart-Kłoś 2020), miners and steelworkers (Swadźba 2010), and academics (Brożek 2023). Our research focuses on another professional group: mediators.

The aim of this study was to examine whether and how mediators’ religiosity—understood as self-declared religious belief and the frequency of religious practice—is associated with their understanding and application of professional values and work ethic. The research focused on assessing how religiosity differentiates mediators’ perceptions of their professional mission, their declared ethical behavior, and the values they consider most important in mediation practice.

Based on prior literature on the role of religion in shaping moral norms and professional ethics, we formulated the following hypotheses:

H1. 

Religious belief and regular religious practice are positively associated with the conviction that a mediator’s work ethic exists.

H2. 

Religious mediators are more likely to perceive their professional role as an opportunity to help others, rather than primarily as a source of income or challenge.

H3. 

Mediators with higher religious commitment declare greater adherence to ethical principles in their work.

H4. 

There are significant differences in the emphasis placed on specific professional values (e.g., truthfulness, honesty, respect) between religiously practicing and non-practicing mediators.

H5. 

Religiosity is associated with different perceptions of the primary objectives of mediation (e.g., supporting reconciliation vs. reaching settlements).

1.1. Foundations of Mediation

Mediation is ‘the intervention in a standard negotiation or conflict of an acceptable third party who has limited or no authoritative decision making power but who assists the involved parties in voluntarily reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute’ (Moore 2014). The usefulness of mediation is sometimes evaluated against the criterion of whether a settlement or agreement has been reached (Wall and Kressel 2017); however, supporting the parties in working out and signing an agreement should not be perceived as the ultimate objective of mediation (Howieson et al. 2023). In mediation, there should not be a winning or losing party (Lindsey et al. 2024). Mediation is also an alternative for arbitration or judicial proceedings (Cao et al. 2023), although for ethical reasons it should not be mandatory, for example, for victims of domestic violence seeking divorce (Jones and Aftab 2023). Mediation can be private, conducted at the request of the parties, or ordered by the court, and in Europe mandatory mediation is becoming increasingly popular, especially in family disputes (Moore 2014).

The figure who plays an important role in mediation is the mediator. The mediator supports constructive communication between the parties, facilitating decision making and problem solving (Bennett and Einolf 2017) and helping perpetrators of criminal acts to phrase apologies (Shapland 2016). The mediator’s various tasks include establishing a framework for cooperative decision making, supporting constructive communication, delivering appropriate evaluations, empowering the parties, and ensuring a minimum level of process and outcome fairness (Boulle 1996). The mediator may introduce elements of work with written texts in mediation sessions (e.g., medical reports, official letters), enabling the parties to find a common ground for agreement quicker, but in some situations working with text may hinder dispute settlement (Brummans et al. 2022). However, the mediator’s role is not quasi-judicial (Lindsey et al. 2024). In the mediation process, mediators deal with a variety of conflicts in their clients’ cases. In Christopher Moore’s circle of conflict theory (Moore 2014), values, relationships, data, interests, and structure are listed as causes of conflicts. When there is a conflict of values between people, a superior or absolute value is sought that all the conflicting parties share.

Mediators display different mediation styles, depending on the degree of focus on agreement between the parties, better conflict management skills, and the improvement of interpersonal relations. The main mediation models are facilitative mediation, evaluative, transformative, e-mediation, mixed mediation, mediation–arbitration, narrative mediation, “shuttle” mediation, and court-mandated mediation (Lohvinenko et al. 2021). Depending on the area of mediation, mediators’ approaches vary. Brownlie’s (2018) analyses of mediation practices showed that family mediators did not attach importance to the fact that the disputants attributed oppositional cultural categories to themselves and the other party. Some university mediators, by contrast, took on the role of cultural intermediaries and encouraged the parties to use the oppositional cultural categories as a starting point for reflection on themselves, others, and conflict situation resolution. Where there are cultural and religious differences, mediators face various ethical dilemmas, for example in matters associated with an imbalance between the parties resulting from power and knowledge disproportions (Bano and Webley 2024). Nowadays, mediation in the context of refugee crises and mediation with minority groups or displaced migrants are gaining more attention (Federici and Declercq 2021). Mediators working with migrants must deal with cross-cultural differences and mistrust of government institutions. The mediator’s competence and focus on relationships rather than organizational issues play a significant role in such mediations. Furthermore, the effectiveness of mediation involving migrants can be enhanced by the involvement of non-governmental organizations, which are more trusted (Pugh et al. 2017).

In Europe, ethical standards for mediators and their organizations are set out in documents such as the European Code of Conduct for Mediators developed in 2004 and the European Code of Conduct for Mediation Providers adopted in 2018 by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). Mediation guidelines, including ethical ones, follow the changing circumstances, such as the development of online mediation (Melamed 2021). First of all, mediators should be neutral and impartial and maintain the confidentiality of mediation. It is crucial that entering into mediation and participation in this process is voluntary for the parties (Lindsey et al. 2024). Professionals should also be competent and improve their skills all the time; this includes sociotherapeutic training and qualifications in the field of law (Blakey 2023). At the same time, it should be acknowledged that responsibility for conducting mediation in an ethical way goes beyond the framework of professional ethics codes, because it is impossible for them to resolve complex moral dilemmas in practice. In the course of mediation, mediators use authority and power, which should be reconciled with supporting the parties in seeking voluntary agreement (Gerami 2009).

In Poland, mediation was first introduced in criminal cases in 1997 (Zielińska and Klimczak 2020), and then, as late as 2005, it was also introduced in civil cases, which laid the foundations for conducting mediation in workplace, family, childcare, and economic matters (Popik-Konarzewska 2020). Mediation is a practical method aimed at preventing and managing conflicts. It emphasizes amicable dispute resolution. It protects the autonomy and independence of the parties in seeking and choosing a solution. Mediation often leads to more satisfactory outcomes for both parties than a court sentence (Broński 2022a). Court mediation is monitored by the Ministry of Justice for statistical purposes, unlike voluntary, out-of-court mediation (Maciejewski 2024). In Poland, mediation is conducted in family and economic matters, in labor law matters, in collective disputes, as well as in criminal and juvenile cases. However, as practice demonstrates, the subject of mediation proceedings most often involves matters of commercial law, criminal law, and family matters (Kula 2015). The formal requirements that a mediator has to meet were specified by legal regulations. To be an accredited mediator, a person is required to be at least 26 years old, to speak Polish, to have no record of valid convictions for intentional crimes, to have knowledge and skills in conducting mediation, and to have been entered in the list of accredited mediators kept by the president of a district court. A mediator can be a retired judge, but not an active judge (Article 157a of the Law on the system of common courts of 27 July 2001). In Poland, mediators can run their own practices or work in non-governmental organizations, in mediation societies, or at universities; they can also apply to be entered in the list of accredited mediators.

1.2. Values in Mediation

Mediations show that conflicts can be perceived as opportunities for building new quality relations. This is rather challenging, especially in situations of strong emotions or conflicts that have been building up for years. Nevertheless, it is possible, particularly when individuals are aware of their values, which they are guided by and which they consciously or unconsciously defend in conflict situations. Schwartz’s theory of values defines values as desirable goals that individuals or social entities treat as their guiding principles in life. Values are reactions to three challenges universal to individuals and societies: the needs of people as biological organisms, the need for a coordination of social interactions, and the necessity of the coexistence of social groups (Schwartz 1994). Schwartz introduced a catalog of ten basic values, which were specified more precisely in the revised model, composed of 19 values (Schwartz 2017). In Schwartz’s model, the structure of values is presented as a circular continuum (circumplex), where the location of each value is significant. The values located next to each other are similar in terms of motivation, while those situated at opposite sides are motivationally contrary. This means that two adjacent values can be pursued in one action, but such a situation is impossible with values located at opposing sides of the circumplex. Values can be analyzed in terms of several divisions. In the first of these, values are dichotomized into those associated with openness to change vs. conservation and into those associated with self-transcendence vs. self-enhancement. The second division concerns the dimensions of personal focus vs. social focus and growth: anxiety-free values vs. self-protection: anxiety avoidance values (Cieciuch and Schwartz 2018). The values identified by Schwartz may lie at the root of action for one’s own good or for the good of a particular community. Action for the benefit of others can contribute to increasing the total benefit for the community, even at the cost of smaller individual benefits (Czupryna et al. 2024).

The category of values is also related to social capital theory. In Putnam’s perspective, the fundamental element of social capital is networks that have value. Social capital refers to relations between individuals that are constituted by networks and by the standards of reciprocity and trust. Putnam distinguished bonding social capital and bridging social capital (Putnam 2000). Bonding social capital refers to relations between individuals belonging to the same group, who share the same values and norms and trust one another (Woolcock and Narayan 2000); these relations may seem to be exclusive, as they link individuals who think in similar ways. Bridging social capital refers to looser and more inclusive networks, created by people belonging to different groups and having different sociocultural resources (Vannebo and Ljunggren 2021).

1.3. The Secularization Process in Poland

The important factors that determine individuals’ perception of many phenomena in the areas of their personal and social functioning include religion and religiosity. This sphere of life can significantly influence the development of individuals’ worldview and behavior (Wodka et al. 2022). With relatively big changes taking place in the sphere of religiosity, research on the relationship between religiosity and work ethic should take into account the phenomenon of changes in religiosity in the population examined. Surprisingly, global trends based on the World Christian Database (WCD) data for 2005 and 2015, together with forecasts for 2025, demonstrate that the global population is becoming progressively more religious (Stachowska 2019). At the same time, one of the significant processes related to religion nowadays is secularization. Secularization denotes the processes through which religious institutions, organizations, forms of consciousness, functions, and resources undergo processes of decay, displacement, sequestration, replacement, or overall decline. Secularization may be understood as a contingent and context-specific process. Its predominant outcome is typically characterized by religious indifference rather than active or militant atheism. Moreover, secularization does not proceed in a linear, continuous, or uniform manner; rather, it tends to occur in waves, the form and intensity of which vary across time and social contexts (Bruce 2011). Secularization is clearly visible in Western Europe, which is a special case on the religious map of the world (Davie 2006). In Europe, the share of people identifying as non-religious—increasingly described as ‘nones’, rose slightly from 14.5% in 2005 to 14.7% in 2015, and is projected to reach 15.7% in 2025 (Stachowska 2019). In some societies, the Church’s authority results from both its relationship with the state and its relationship with the nation. In countries such as Greece and the Republic of Ireland, secularization processes were initially limited due to the strong link between religious identity and national identity. A change in the relationship between the Church, the state and the nation leads to secularization if the Church hinders modernization processes and the perception of external threats diminishes. In this context, two patterns of secularization can be identified: co-optation and confrontation. The coexistence of these constraints contributes to the redefinition of the role of religion in shaping national identity. The process of secularization in Ireland appears to be a confrontation between the rigid Irish Catholic Church and the fluid Irish national identity. Patterns of co-optation in Greece consist of combining national identity based on ethnic/religious origin with institutional flexibility (Halikiopoulou 2011). Poland is undergoing significant changes in terms of religiosity, including a decrease in religious involvement among younger generations, which indicates progressive secularization in the cultural and religious context (Narkowicz et al. 2025). The data from the European Social Survey from Round 1 (2002) and Round 2 (2016) compare participation in religious practices at least once a week. In the 15–34 age group, the results for Poland were 48.0% in 2002 and 31.9% in 2016, for Portugal 20.3% and 8.7%, for Italy 20.9% and 11.8%, while in France there was an increase from 3.0% to 6.3% (Stachowska 2019). In Poland religion is more central to women, in the UK it is more central to men (Woodberry et al. 2025). In recent years, a fast secularization process has been underway in Poland. According to the report published by Statistics Poland (GUS), titled ‘Religious denominations in Poland 2019–2021’, 92.2% of Poland’s total population are Roman Catholics (i.e., members of the Latin Church of the Roman Rite). However, this figure is the proportion of baptized individuals rather than practicing faithful (Ciecieląg et al. 2022). According to data from the National Population and Housing Census 2021, those who considered themselves Latin-rite Catholics (members of the Roman Catholic Church) accounted for 71.3% of Poland’s general population and 98.26% of Polish people with recognized religious status (Statistic Poland 2023). The surveys conducted by the Polish Public Opinion Research Center (CBOS) showed that there was a decrease in the number of regularly practicing believers—meaning those who attended Masses, services, and religious meetings at least once a week—from 57 to 58% in the years 1997–2007 to 47% in 2019–2020 (Bożewicz 2020). The percentage of people who went to church every Sunday was in the region of 50% in the years 1997–2009, decreased to approximately 45% in the next decade, went further down to 36–37% during the pandemic and shortly after it, and reached the level of 34% in 2024 (Bożewicz 2024). In the secularizing world, religion has a smaller influence on morality, public life, and culture; it has also been losing its authority in the sphere of private life (Mariański 2014). Polish religiosity has been taking on an increasingly pluralistic character and undergoing a transformation from religiosity inherited in the process of socialization to the “church of choice” (Mąkosa and Adamczyk 2024). Authors have noted the polarization of religiosity in Polish society, with “lukewarm” attitudes on the decrease and “cold” ones on the increase (Przeciszewski and Łączny 2021), and the simultaneous individualization of religion, thanks to which, as a result of human choices, religion is becoming a personal choice, a more authentic and deeper issue (Grabowska 2018). The quickest decrease in the level of religiosity, especially religious practice, in Polish society is found among young people, inhabitants of big cities, and people with higher education (Bożewicz 2024). A survey on religiosity conducted by Ipsos in 26 countries showed that in Poland the social importance of religion was decreasing—in 2023, 26% of Polish respondents believed that religious people were better citizens, whereas in 2017 this belief was reported by 36% of respondents. Meanwhile, religion continues to play an important role. The same survey indicated that 72% of Polish people believed that faith made their life meaningful, and for 76% it was a factor helping them overcome crises and diseases (Ipsos 2023). According to the theory of postsecularism, the progressive changes associated with modernity do not necessarily mean the vanishing of the social and individual effect of religion (Mariański 2023). Research has shown that in some culture’s religion and religious leaders play the key role in resolving marital conflicts in migrant families, and religious figures, particularly church leaders and advisors, enjoy the greatest trust (Umubyeyi et al. 2020).

2. Material and Method

This article is based on the results of a quantitative study conducted using the Computer Assisted Web Interview (CAWI) technique, using a standardized survey questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 57 questions that were grouped into five blocks: (1) Sociodemographic survey; (2) The personal dimension of the mediator’s work; (3) The role of mediation and the mediator’s role; (4) The practical dimension of the mediator’s work; (5) Formal and legal framework of mediation and the profession of a mediator. The questionnaire included a total of 296 variables; 41 of these were linked with open-ended or semi-open-ended questions, while the remaining variables were derived from single- or multiple-choice closed-ended questions. The measure was scripted in the LimeSurvey system, and then (in late June and early July 2020) a pilot study was carried out in the form of an electronic survey sent as a link to specific email addresses (with assigned tokens identifying the respondent). A total of 28 individuals were invited to take part in the pilot study; they were experienced mediators from different occupational groups (specialists in legal and social professions, research workers), actively working on a regular basis in areas covered by the tested measure. Of the 21 individuals who responded positively to the invitation, 15 fully completed the survey questionnaire, while the others stopped completing it at different stages. The practical verification of the functionality of the applied solutions, particularly in three main areas: technical, logical, and substantive.

From a technical standpoint, the tool was fully prepared for the implementation of the main study. No irregularities or malfunctions were identified.

In terms of logical structure, a few isolated comments indicated that certain single-choice questions were difficult to answer unequivocally. These remarks suggested either expanding the range of available responses or adding a comment option. However, the logic underlying the questionnaire was intentionally designed to rely primarily on single-choice questions, in order to enable clear identification of respondents’ opinions and choices. This represents a specific trade-off: encouraging decisiveness and clarity of opinion necessarily entails a conscious departure from the inherent ambiguity of the studied phenomena, thereby facilitating more straightforward data analysis. Including additional comment fields would have further increased the already substantial length of the questionnaire.

With regard to substantive content, some respondents raised concerns about the inclusion of questions on religiosity, perceiving them as intimate and unrelated to the focus of the study. These questions were reviewed and ultimately retained in the questionnaire. The decisive argument in favor of keeping them was that religious belief constitutes one of the key elements of a person’s value system. Therefore, despite the objections raised, it was concluded that these items should remain. However, it was decided that the questions on religiosity would not be mandatory. The study proper began in September 2020 and ended in November 2020. Until today, it is the largest survey conducted among mediators in Poland. The research population was the group of accredited mediators entered in the lists kept by the presidents of all district court in Poland. At the beginning of the survey, the lists included more than 2000 people. Courts are the main “employers” of mediators in Poland, and most individuals acting as mediators are on the court lists. In the first step, we collected information from district courts; in the second step, the list of mediators was put in alphabetical order and aggregated. As some mediators were included in lists from more than one district court, duplicates were removed. This resulted in a sampling frame of 2243 mediators, which was used for sample selection. Based on the final sampling frame, we established that, with a maximum inference error of 5%, the sample should include a minimum of 328 observations. When selecting the sample, we applied systematic random sampling. An invitation to take part in the study, along with a link to the survey questionnaire, was sent to every fourth mediator from the alphabetically ordered sampling frame. The sample was subsequently supplemented due to an unsatisfactory response rate, despite a reminder about the study having been sent. Finally the link to the survey questionnaire was opened by a total of 754 mediators among 1000 invited to the study, but a considerable proportion of questionnaires were only partially completed. Due to the large amounts of missing data, 193 records were excluded from the data set. The final database included 561 records, which constituted approximately 25% of the population of court-listed mediators.

For the purposes of this article, we made additional exclusions due to respondents’ numerous refusals to answer questions about religiosity—the key independent variables tested in our study. As a result of excluding the records in which the questions about religiosity were left unanswered, the analysis included data from 391 respondents, who accounted for 17% of the research population. The maximum inference error was within the limit of 4%.

In order to check if such a sample was representative of the population of court mediators, we performed a goodness-of-fit chi-square test. The only characteristic that could be controlled was mediators’ gender. According to the available lists, female mediators accounted for 70.13% of the population and male mediators accounted for 29.87%, whereas the study sample included 76.7% of women and 23.3% of men (

Table 1. Gender distribution in the sample (N = 391).

Gender	Unweighted	Weighted
Male	23.3	29.2
Female	76.7	70.8
Total	100.0	100.0

). Based on this information, we formulated the following hypotheses: H0: The distribution of the sample reflects the structure of the population; H1: The distribution of the sample does not reflect the structure of the population. Based on the results of the chi-square test: χ² (1, 390) = 7.953, p = 0.004, the null hypothesis was rejected, which means that gender distribution in the sample did not reflect the structure of the population. To adjust the sample to the population, we used variables weighted according to gender in hypothesis testing, with weights established at 0.91 for women and 1.24 for men.

The empirical material collected was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 29. Answers to open-ended questions were coded. For the purposes of the article, to test the hypotheses, we used statistical tests such as the chi-square test of independence (χ²), with significance level set at α ≤ 0.05—to verify the existence of associations between variables remaining at the qualitative level of measurement. In the case of detecting associations between characteristics at the nominal level, the strength of association was determined using Cramer’s V test, and at the ordinal level it was determined using Kendall’s tau-b test, with significance level set at α ≤ 0.05. To investigate the existence of associations for characteristics at the quantitative level (10-point rating scales), we used Pearson’s r correlation coefficient, with significance level set at α ≤ 0.05. Other analyses used were testing for differences between the means (using Student’s t-test and one-way ANOVA) and linear regression. To achieve a more consolidated perspective on some phenomena measured using a broad list of indicators, we used aggregate indices, which required computing specific values of answer. The study employed both independent and dependent variables, selected based on the research aims related to the relationship between religiosity and professional values in mediation.

2.1. Independent Variables

Self-declared religious belief (binary: believer vs. nonbeliever).

Frequency of religious practice (ordinal: 8-point scale ranging from “daily” to “never”).

2.2. Dependent Variables

Belief in the existence of a professional work ethic among mediators (ordinal: 5-point Likert scale from “definitely yes” to “definitely not”).

Declared meaning of working as a mediator (categorical: e.g., “helping others,” “earning income,” “self-discovery”).

Self-assessed ethical conduct in practice (measured by 8 items related to ethical dilemmas in mediation, rated on a 5-point Likert scale; a composite index was created, Cronbach’s α = 0.71).

Selection of the most important values in mediation practice (multiple-choice, max 3 out of predefined list: e.g., honesty, truthfulness, respect).

Perceived main purpose of mediation (single-choice variable: e.g., “reaching an agreement,” “conflict de-escalation,” “rebuilding relationships”).

All variables are based on the original questionnaire items, with some recoded or aggregated during analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Mediators’ Religiosity Against the Background of Society as a Whole

Comparing the self-reported religious belief and religious practice of the sample of mediators to the corresponding results for the general population based on a CBOS survey conducted at the same time (November 2020) on a representative sample of 1052 Polish adults,1 one can observe, above all, the highly sensitive nature of questions about religiosity in the group of mediators. While in the general population survey 1.8% of respondents refused to answer the question about religious belief and 1.6% refused to answer the one about religious practice, the corresponding percentages in the survey of mediators were 24.3% and 25%, respectively. Those who did answer the questions about religiosity, asked in the same way as in the CBOS survey, identified as nonbelievers two times more often (10.6% vs. 20.2%,

Table 2. Self-reported religious belief of mediators compared to Polish society as a whole (November 2020).

Are You a Religious Believer? *	Mediators (N = 425)	General Polish Population (N = 1033)
No	20.2%	10.6%
Yes	79.8%	89.4%

* Data excluding refusals, whose number amounted to n = 136 in the survey conducted among mediators and to n = 19 in the CBOS survey.

), but on the other hand they rated the frequency of their religious practice as higher than the general population (

Table 3. Self-reported religious practice of mediators compared to Polish society as a whole (November 2020).

How Often Do You Attend Holy Mass/Services/Religious Rituals? *	Mediators (N = 421) *	General Polish Population (N = 1035) *
A few times a week	10.7%	5.5%
A few times a month	37.7%	47.5%
A few times a year	33.0%	25.5%
Never	18.6%	21.5%

* Data excluding refusals, whose number amounted to n = 140 in the survey conducted among mediators and to n = 17 in the CBOS survey.

). Glock and Stark, analyzing the dimensions of religiosity, found that the behavioral or participatory dimension was positively related to social class. People belonging to the middle class were more likely to participate in religious activities, especially religious services (Glock and Stark 1965), especially in a regular way (Schwadel 2016). At the same time, higher education as a key element of the middle class has a negative impact on religious faith (Schwadel 2016). However, given that nonreligious people more often refuse to answer questions about religiosity and that such questions are sometimes regarded as intrusive (Keeter et al. 2024), it can be surmised that, as far as the practice dimension is concerned, religiosity among mediators was comparable to or even less frequent than in the general Polish population.

3.2. Differentiation of Approach to Mediation by Religiosity

Religiosity, measured as self-reported religious belief and participation in religious observances (i.e., religious practice), is one of the key variables that—as it turns out—differentiates Polish court mediators’ beliefs about the existence of mediators’ work ethic. The functioning of such an ethic was acknowledged by 33.2% of believers and 21.8% of nonbelievers among the mediators, while 59% of nonbelievers and 30.8% of believers in the sample were convinced about its nonexistence (Cramer’s V = 0.262, p < 0.001). As far as religious practice is concerned, 31.7% of regularly practicing respondents, 32.8% of irregularly practicing ones, and 22.3% of nonpracticing ones reported a belief that mediators’ work ethic existed. The opposite view was held by as many as 62.5% of nonpracticing, 29.7% of irregularly practicing, and 30.6% of regularly practicing respondents (Kendall’s tau-b = 0.128, p < 0.001).

Depending on self-reported religious commitment (i.e., both religious belief and religious practice), mediators’ personal approach to their occupation varied. Compared to nonbelievers, religious believers more often (Cramer’s V = 0.253, p < 0.001) perceived their work in terms of helping people as well as becoming acquainted with new life situations and gaining additional professional experience. Nonbelievers, by contrast, relatively more often thought about their occupation in terms of challenges and getting to know themselves and new communities; they also more often thought about it from the perspective of satisfaction with reaching a settlement and as an opportunity to earn money. Additionally, the more frequently mediators participated in religious observances, the more often they perceived their work in terms of its prosocial dimension—as helping people (Cramer’s V = 0.206, p = 0.004).

Despite the respondents’ varied perceptions of their work depending on their religiosity, opinions concerning the most important values that mediators should be guided by in their work did not differ strongly across the groups distinguished based on religiosity criteria, least of all across those distinguished according to self-reported religious belief, a variable that turned out to be statistically nonsignificant. No significant differences depending on religious practice manifested themselves, either. Regardless of the frequency of religious practice, what respondents in all groups stressed was, primarily, values such as openness to others, honesty, reliability, and respect. However, the more frequent was the religious practice, the more frequently respondents pointed out the importance of truthfulness (Cramer’s V = 0.147, p = 0.016). Detailed responses are presented in

Table 4. Self-reported religious belief of mediators and their assessment of the values considered most important in the work of a mediator.

Which Values Do You Consider Most Important in the Work of a Mediator?	Are You a Religious Believer?
	No	Yes
Mediators’ professional community	4.7%	5.2%
Respect	57.2%	54.7%
Openness to others	68.5%	70.7%
Honesty	63.2%	63.5%
Truthfulness	8.7%	14.4%
Reliability	75.3%	69.7%
Consistency	12.1%	8.1%

and

Table 5. Self-reported religious practice of mediators and their assessment of the values considered most important in the work of a mediator.

Which Values Do You Consider Most Important in the Work of a Mediator?	How Often Do You Attend Holy Mass/Services/Religious Rituals?
	A Few Times a Week	A Few Times a Month	A Few Times a Year	Never
Mediators’ professional community	0%	4.5%	7.6%	7.6%
Respect	40.7%	57.9%	57.6%	53.6%
Openness to others	64.5%	71.5%	61.9%	77.4%
Honesty	71.9%	61.1%	72.5%	57.5%
Truthfulness	23.6%	15.7%	9.6%	3.5%
Reliability	80.0%	67.5%	75.2%	71.1%
Consistency	9.6%	8.3%	8.5%	10.6%

.

When asked about what they considered most important in a mediator’s work, regardless of their self-reported religious belief (p > 0.05), what the mediators indicated first was the satisfaction of the parties (approx. 40% of responses); the next most popular answer was adherence to the principles of mediation (approx. 32%), and a considerably less frequent ones were honesty to oneself, justice, following the procedures, and the court’s approval of the settlement. Religious practice differentiated mediators’ answers to a small degree (Cramer’s V = 0.177, p = 0.025); the most frequently practicing respondents indicated justice and adherence to the principles of mediation more often that the remaining groups, while nonpracticing respondents mentioned honesty to oneself and the court’s approval of the settlement slightly more often that practicing ones.

Practicing and nonpracticing respondents perceived the main aim of mediation in slightly different ways, too (Cramer’s V = 0.183, p < 0.001). Although regardless of the self-reported frequency of religious practice the dominant answer (60.9% of responses) was supporting the parties in resolving the conflict, this aspect was mentioned the most often by nonpracticing individuals (72.5%) and the least often by irregularly practicing ones (48.4%). The latter in turn stressed the importance of building positive relations between the parties (34.1%, as against 21.5% for the total sample of mediators) and reaching a settlement (13.5%, as against 10.2% for the total sample) more often than others. Compared to other respondents, the mediators who regularly engaged in religious practices more frequently emphasized the need to alleviate the conflict between the parties (10.2%, as against 7.3% for the total sample). Self-reported religious belief and perceptions of the aim of mediation were not significantly interrelated (p > 0.05).

3.3. Mediator’s Work Ethic in Practice

Mediators were also asked to respond to a number of statements describing behaviors dubious from the perspective of mediators’ work ethic. Usually, with a smaller or greater degree of confidence, they indicated that the situations described did not apply to them. The behavior they most often admitted to consisted in suggesting a more advantageous solution to the dispute to the parties who have been unable to reach agreement for a long time. The self-report survey revealed that more than one-third of the respondents (36.8%) engaged in such behavior. What mediators admitted to the least often was a lack of respect shown towards one or both of the disputants (4.1% of responses). Details of the items and the distributions of responses are presented in

Table 6. Mediators’ work ethic—self-reported behaviors (in %).

To What Extent Do You Agree or Disagree with the Statements Below?	Strongly Disagree (1)	Moderately Disagree (2)	Hard to Say (3)	Moderately Agree (4)	Strongly Agree (5)
I sometimes skip the presentation of all the rules of mediation to the parties in order to move on to actual mediation quicker	61.9	27.0	3.9	6.2	1.0
I sometimes insist on mediation even when one of the parties is not interested in mediation (or in completing it)	50.0	28.8	10.1	8.9	2.2
I sometimes talk to other people about the mediations I conduct	44.5	29.8	5.1	17.0	3.6
I sometimes conduct mediation even when one of the parties is a person I know (or a relative of mine)	73.9	18.6	1.0	4.9	1.6
I sometimes suggest a more advantageous solution to the dispute to the parties when they have been unable to reach agreement for a long time	24.1	27.8	11.3	31.6	5.2
I accept small tokens of gratitude for mediation	76.9	11.9	6.6	3.2	1.5
I already have extensive knowledge and practice, and I do not need any more training	48.1	31.7	11.9	7.4	1.0
Sometimes I find it difficult to treat one or both disputants with respect	54.8	31.4	9.7	2.6	1.5

.

Some manifestations of mediators’ ethically dubious behavior turned out to be significantly differentiated by the key variables defining their religiosity, namely self-reported religious belief and practice, which is shown in detail by the data provided in

Table 7. Mediators’ work ethic in practice versus self-reported religious belief and religious practice (significance levels and the strength of associations in the contingency tables).

Items Rated on a 5-Point Scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree)	Religious Belief (No vs. Yes)		Religious Practice (None vs. Irregular vs. Regular)
	Cramer’s V	p	Kendall’s Tau-b	p
I sometimes skip the presentation of all the rules of mediation to the parties in order to move on to actual mediation quicker	0.198	p = 0.007	−0.027	p > 0.05
I sometimes insist on mediation even when one of the parties is not interested in mediation (or in completing it)	0.144	p > 0.05	0.028	p > 0.05
I sometimes talk to other people about the mediations I conduct	0.096	p > 0.05	−0.086	p > 0.05
I sometimes conduct mediation even when one of the parties is a person I know (or a relative of mine)	0.172	p = 0.017	0.095	p = 0.010
I sometimes suggest a more advantageous solution to the dispute to the parties when they have been unable to reach agreement for a long time	0.190	p = 0.005	−0.088	p = 0.012
I accept small tokens of gratitude for mediation	0.112	p > 0.05	0.100	p = 0.047
I already have extensive knowledge and practice, and I do not need any more training	0.130	p > 0.05	0.016	p > 0.05
Sometimes I find it difficult to treat one or both disputants with respect	0.086	p > 0.05	−0.066	p = 0.016

. Compared to religious believers, mediators identifying as nonbelievers significantly more often reported that, in order to quicken the mediation process, they sometimes skipped presenting all the rules of mediation to the parties (Cramer’s V = 0.198, p = 0.007); they also more often suggested a better solution to the dispute when the parties had not been able to reach agreement for a long time (Cramer’s V = 0.190, p = 0.005). The same applies to mediators who did not engage in religious practice, as compared to those who practiced more or less regularly (Kendall’s tau-b = 0.088, p = 0.012). Compared to practicing respondents, nonpracticing ones relatively more often admitted that they sometimes treated one of both disputants without due respect (Kendall’s tau-b = 0.066, p = 0.016). By contrast, believers and practicing respondents reported, relatively more often than nonbelievers and nonpracticing individuals, that they sometimes conducted mediation even when one of the parties was their acquaintance or relative (Cramer’s V = 0.172, p = 0.017; Kendall’s tau-b = 0.095, p = 0.010). Regularly practicing believers admitted more often than nonpracticing respondents that, from time to time, they accepted small tokens of gratitude as thanks for mediation (Kendall’s tau-b = 0.066, p = 0.016).

Based on the eight statements discussed above, referring to mediators’ self-reported ethical behaviors, we created an aggregate index, being the mean of all eight ratings on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was 0.71. The mean value of this aggregate “mediator’s work ethic in practice” index was 1.80 for the total sample and, as shown by Student’s t analysis, did not differ significantly (t = 0.532, p > 0.05) between believers (1.79) and nonbelievers (1.83). Religious practice did not significantly differentiate the values of the “mediator’s work ethic in practice” index either, as indicated by the results of one-way ANOVA (F = 0.378, p > 0.05). The mean value of the index was 1.78 for regularly practicing respondents, 1.83 for irregularly practicing ones, and 1.81 for those who did not engage in religious practice.

The results of linear regression with the aggregate “mediator’s work ethic in practice” index as the dependent variable confirmed that, apart from religiosity, also other sociodemographic variables, namely gender, age, size of place of residence, having children, financial situation, and work experience as a mediator (considered while controlling for the effects of other variable variables) had no significant effect on adherence to mediators’ work ethic, F(8.348) = 0.848, p = 0.561. Additionally, the low value of the R-squared coefficient (0.019) indicates that only 1.9% of the variance in the dependent variable can be explained by the model. A detailed analysis of regression coefficients revealed that none of the predictors reached a statistical significance level lower than 0.05, as shown by the data in

Table 8. Linear regression results with mediator’s work ethic in practice as the independent variable.

Independent Variables	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients Beta	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error
Gender (M/F)	−0.070	0.070	−0.054	−0.996	0.320
Age (ascending)	−0.010	0.035	−0.017	−0.286	0.775
Size of place of residence (ascending)	0.008	0.022	0.020	0.365	0.715
Number of children (ascending)	−0.058	0.031	−0.104	−1.878	0.061
For how many years have you been a mediator? (ascending)	0.000	0.034	0.001	0.011	0.991
Respondent’s rating of their family’s economic situation (from very bad to very good)	−0.028	0.040	−0.038	−0.701	0.484
Self-reported religious belief (believer vs. nonbeliever)	0.011	0.103	0.008	0.108	0.914
Frequency of religious practice (ascending)	−0.016	0.024	−0.048	−0.673	0.501
Constant	2.115	0.351		6.023	<0.001

.

A different regression model, in which we attempted to explain the dependent variable (i.e., the “mediator’s work ethic in practice” index again) with the system of values, namely with what the mediators regarded as important and less important in their life, turned out to be statistically significant F(8.348) = 0.848, p = 0.561, although it still had a rather low explainability level (R-squared = 0.101). A detailed analysis of regression coefficients revealed that what had a significant effect on the ethics of mediators’ behavior at work was the importance they attached in their life to values such as faith (p = 0.028), development and self-fulfillment (p = 0.027), and—to a somewhat smaller degree—education (at the limit of statistical significance). Details are presented in

Table 9. Linear regression results with mediator’s work ethic in practice as the dependent variable.

Self-Reported Central Values in Life	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients Beta	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error
Work	−0.077	0.056	−0.078	−1.374	0.170
Family	−0.089	0.078	−0.070	−1.140	0.255
Friends and acquaintances	0.094	0.051	0.106	1.842	0.066
Free time, leisure, and entertainment	−0.063	0.049	−0.073	−1.280	0.201
Politics	−0.010	0.029	−0.019	−0.353	0.725
Faith	−0.049	0.022	−0.115	−2.204	0.028
Prestige	0.061	0.035	0.109	1.722	0.086
Money, financial independence	0.085	0.054	0.091	1.591	0.112
Development, self-fulfillment	−0.133	0.060	−0.127	−2.218	0.027
Education	−0.104	0.054	−0.109	−1.927	0.055
Health	0.014	0.090	0.009	0.154	0.878
Power (influence on others)	0.046	0.036	0.084	1.284	0.200
Security, peaceful life	−0.046	0.056	−0.046	−0.833	0.405
Sense of fulfillment	−0.033	0.054	−0.036	−0.624	0.533
(Constant)	3.347	0.501		6.676	<0.001

.

4. Discussion

Our research showed how religious belief and religious practice were associated with mediators’ attitude to the work ethic and with the ethical issues related to conducting mediation.

We found that the mediators who were religious believers and those who practiced their religion more frequently were more often convinced about the existence of a work ethic in this socio-occupational group than nonbelievers and less often practicing or nonpracticing individuals. This implies that hypothesis H1 is confirmed by the findings of our study. Similar results had been obtained in research conducted among Polish entrepreneurs, which revealed that strong believers were considered religion to be significant for building the work ethic and that this conviction weakened with a decrease in the intensity of faith (Klimski 2018). In societies that historically adopt and promote religious values, religion strengthens the work ethic, while in secular cultures religion weakens it (Vannebo and Ljunggren 2021).

Our research revealed that religious belief and regular religious practice favored mediators’ perception of their work as an opportunity to help people. This means that hypothesis H2, postulating that believers and practicing mediators are more likely to perceive their professional role as an opportunity to help others, rather than primarily as a source of income or challenge, is confirmed by the results of our study. These results support the findings of previous studies. A qualitative study by Einolf showed that religious individuals, especially those helping others, identified religion with helping people (Einolf 2011). Other analyses indicated that religious people more often reported that they had helped a stranger in the past month (Bennett and Einolf 2017). Individuals more committed to religion have a more developed network of social contacts and more satisfying relationships than less religiously committed people (Ellison and Levin 1998; Krause and Bastida 2009). The social capital theory offers a particularly good understanding of how social networks and religious values translate into mediators’ prosocial approach to their work. According to Robert Putnam (Putnam 2000), religiosity, often associated with higher bonding social capital, can contribute to the perception of the prosocial dimension of work. In this context, mediators higher in religious commitment may perceive their work as more oriented to helping others and supporting the community, which aligns with Putnam’s theory about two types of social capital: bonding and bridging. Bonding social capital, stronger in religious groups, can promote a greater sense of responsibility and a work ethic oriented to the common good and may contribute to mediators perceiving their role in the context of broader social functions.

Regardless of self-reported religious belief and religious practice frequency, the values that mediators indicated as important were openness to others, honesty, reliability, and respect. Only truthfulness was emphasized more strongly by more frequently practicing respondents. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis concerning significant differences in the emphasis placed on specific professional values (e.g., truthfulness, honesty, respect) between religiously practicing and non-practicing mediators (H4). Religion, as one of the values, has an impact on the way people work with others (Rouméas 2020). What also becomes important is religious sensitivity, which should be developed in mediation work with special needs groups (Posada-Téllez 2024), especially in the countries where access to public institutions is limited and where thanks to mediators working in various communities, citizens’ access to the judicial system increases (Ubink and de Almeida 2023). Respect for a disputant involved in mediation means recognizing him or her as an individual belonging to and functioning in specific cultural communities (Barsky et al. 1996).

Statements about what is most important in the work of a mediator vary depending on religious practices. Practicing mediators more often emphasized fairness and adherence to the rules of mediation, while non-practicing respondents indicated honesty towards themselves and court approval of the settlement. This supports the hypothesis H3 postulating that mediators with higher religious commitment declare greater adherence to ethical principles in their work. The constructed index of ethical conduct in practice showed higher scores among religious participants, which suggests a potential influence of religiosity not only on declared values but also on everyday ethical behavior. The importance of mediators’ ethical standards at work was influenced by the importance they attached in their lives to values such as faith, development and self-fulfillment. Respondents who identified as nonbelievers and as nonpracticing admitted more often than believers that, in order to quicken the mediation, they sometimes neglected to present all the rules of mediation to the parties or suggested a more advantageous solution when the parties had been unable to reach agreement for a long time. However, neutrality on the object of dispute is one of the key principles of mediation. The mediator should not give advice to the parties and should not take a stance or reveal his or her position on the matter that the mediation concerns (Lindsey et al. 2024). Mediators who do not engage in religious practice may be more focused on the pragmatic and fast resolution of conflicts, which may lead them to ignore certain rules of mediation to quicken the process. Individuals not attached to religious values may be more willing to adopt a practical approach, which is focused on the achievement of goals in the most effective possible way (Boulding 2018). Studies also suggest that religious people often place greater emphasis on ethical behavior consistent with the teachings of their faith. Religious values can induce individuals to engage in more moral actions in their everyday life, including occupational practices (such as mediation). Therefore, religious individuals may make greater efforts to present all the rules of mediation and to avoid suggesting solutions, in order to maintain the honesty of the process (Appleby 2003). Our research also showed that nonpracticing respondents more often admitted that they sometimes neglected to show due respect to the disputants. Religious teachings often promote respect for and the dignity of all people. Religious people may be more inclined to show respect to the disputants in mediation, in accordance with their beliefs about people’s equality and dignity (Abu-Nimer 2001). Our research also showed that believers and those who engaged in religious practice more often conducted mediation when one of the parties was their acquaintance or relative. Personal relations and loyalties can influence the process of mediation and mediators’ objectivity. Religious people may feel greater moral or spiritual responsibility towards their friends and family members, which may lead to more frequent engagement in mediations that they participate in (Lederach 2014). Moreover, regularly practicing respondents more often admitted that they accepted small tokens of gratitude for mediation. In the context of religious practice, gestures of gratitude can be perceived as part of the culture of politeness and reciprocal help. Religious communities often place emphasis on mutual support and gratitude, which may manifest itself in small gestures towards mediators (Gopin 2000). Religious practice was also associated with slightly different perceptions of the objective of mediation. Supporting the parties in resolving the conflict was the dominant objective among nonpracticing respondents, whereas practicing ones focused more on alleviating the conflict between the parties. The results of this study do not clearly support the hypothesis H5 postulating that religiosity is associated with different perceptions of the primary objectives of mediation (e.g., supporting reconciliation vs. reaching settlements). Although we found that respondents who practiced regularly indicated an easing of conflict between the parties, irregularly practicing respondents emphasized the role of reaching a settlement and building the positive relations between the parties, and non-practicing participants most stressed supporting the parties in resolving the conflict, the lack of significant differences between believers and nonbelievers does not provide sufficient evidence to clearly confirm hypothesis H5. This may mean that the relationship is more complex and deserves further research. In accordance with Schwartz’s theory of values, mediators engaging in religious practice may prioritize values such as universalism and kindness, promoting social harmony, peace, and care for others and for relations between people to a greater degree. This may explain their tendency to seek the alleviation of conflicts in order to maintain harmony and stability in society. By contrast, mediators who do not engage in religious practice may focus to a greater extent on values associated with accomplishments and hedonism, which are understood as achieving results by demonstrating one’s skills and by attaining pleasure and a sense of personal satisfaction (Gashi et al. 2017). Demonstrating one’s skills, including communication skills, may lead to achievements in the form of empowering the parties to be able to cope with looking for resolutions to their case. Nonpracticing individuals working as mediators may also achieve a sense of satisfaction through the empowerment of the parties, which allows them to quickly see the results of their work. Small-scale research conducted among Polish court mediators conducting mediations in civil disputes revealed that, according to mediators, the objectives of mediation depended on its type. Among the most important objectives of mediation, respondents indicated diagnosing and understanding the conflict between the parties, identifying the real causes of the conflict and the needs and situations of the parties entering into mediation, looking for areas of agreement, and resolving the dispute through a settlement that takes into account the interests and needs of both parties (Zienkiewicz 2023). In addition, there is an increasing need to enhance the soft skills of mediators by incorporating content related to emotional intelligence or creative thinking into their training process (Płudowska and Sękowski 2025). In intercultural mediation, the mediator uses its skills to create a space for dialogue so that both sides can be heard and understood. In that way, the mediator reduces the destructive process of dehumanization (Pugh et al. 2017).

5. Conclusions

The lack of statistically significant associations between work ethic and factors such as age, gender, or financial situation suggests that mediators’ adherence to the work ethic may be related to individual personality traits rather than to external sociodemographic factors. In the sociology of occupational behaviors, such findings may highlight the primacy of intrinsic motivation and individuals’ autonomous decisions over social determination. The regression analysis, with personal values as independent variables in explaining mediators’ work ethic, confirmed that values such as faith, personal growth, and education had a positive effect on the work ethic, which may suggest that individual beliefs and priorities translate into greater professionalism in mediators’ attitude to their duties at work. Important as they are, these values are not particularly significant determinants of work ethic, which attests to the need for further research in this area including additional explanatory variables. It turns out that religious beliefs and practices are significant in the fulfillment of professional duties by court mediators. The religious principles that mediators follow in their private lives influence their behavior during mediation.

The manner in which mediation is conducted, the treatment of the parties involved in the conflict, and the level of respect for the rules guiding the process are determined by deeply rooted values and religiosity. Religiously committed mediators were more likely to report altruistic motivations for their work, viewing it as a form of service rather than professional advancement or income generation. This supports the idea that internalized belief systems influence professional purpose. The study relied on basic indicators of religiosity, without accounting for more nuanced distinctions such as intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, denominational affiliation, or spiritual orientation.

Future studies should examine whether these associations between religiosity and professional ethics hold in other legal–cultural settings, especially in secular or multifaith contexts. Conducting qualitative research would be a valuable addition to the issues explored and could provide deeper insights into the relationships between religion and work ethic. This is relevant because both secularization and desecularization processes are occurring in contemporary society (Stachowska 2019). The religious beliefs and practices of mediators can serve them well in their professional lives, enabling them to help conflicting parties find the best solutions in an ethical and responsible manner, with due respect for different cultural and religious beliefs. It should also be noted that mediation clients also have different religious opinions, and it is particularly worthwhile to take issues of religiosity and values into account in the professional training of future mediators.