For all the attention given to legal trials in the news and in movies, most legal cases are not decided by trials before either a judge or a jury. Rather than adjudicated in a trial, most civil cases are decided through alternative means—most frequently some form of bilateral or mediated negotiation, or other processes such as arbitration. Just as psychology can provide insight into the decisions that jurors (and judges) make at trial, psychological research is useful for understanding the role of these non-adjudication forms of dispute resolution in litigation settlement. This chapter explores the interests of civil litigants and how those interests are served or not served by alternatives to trial; civil litigants’ awareness of, choices about, and evaluations of different legal procedures; how the psychology of adversarial disputing affects the dynamics of negotiation and mediation; and the psychology of online dispute resolution.