The Psychology Behind Mediation

Welcome to the bi-weekly Core Psychology series! Throughout the year, I’ll be presenting psychological research and relating it to aspects of the mediation process. The aim will be to isolate and examine some of the psychological processes that occur during mediation that either promote or undermine effective communication and achieving a settlement agreement.

In subsequent posts this series will analyze specific acts that may occur during mediation, but first I will highlight outcome interdependence and metacognition, two concepts that will be frequently mentioned throughout the year.

Outcome Interdependence

The purpose of mediation is to facilitate voluntary signing of a settlement agreement. This may be impacted by outcome interdependence, which is the compatibility or incompatibility between the parties’ interests and goals. ¹ It is possible that parties willing to undergo mediation possess a heightened level of compatibility, demonstrated by their willingness to try different forms of alternative dispute resolution; however, on the whole it seems parties engaged in negotiation are typically self-serving and fail to detect win-win solutions, opting instead for suboptimal solutions. ² We’ll look to the mediation process itself, and the perspectives and actions of the parties to determine what may promote interdependent or self serving behaviours.


Metacognition


The mediator’s effectiveness in their role will be a frequent topic in the series. If you saw the first blog submission of the year, you’ll remember the common mistakes committed by professional negotiators as outlined by Professor Wade (failure to listen effectively, being unclear in their own interests, bringing the wrong people to negotiation and staying on difficult questions for too long). The ability to avoid these common mistakes will depend on the mediator’s own metacognition. 


Metacognition is defined as “knowledge about how the mind thinks and the ability to control and reflect on one’s own thought processes.” ³ With such knowledge, negotiators can develop strategies for altering their thought processes, biases and perspectives to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. For example, instead of setting time limits for discussing certain “difficult” questions, understanding why we tend to ineffectively persist may naturally lead us to change our behaviours as we realize our motivations do not coincide with the outcome of our actions.


The majority of the sources will be from the PsycInfo database. If you are a student or staff member at the University of British Columbia, you can take a look at: http://resources.library.ubc.ca/159/


Thank you for reading, and I hope you're looking forward to reading our next post!


Full citations:

¹ Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011, September 12). Mind Games: The Mental Representation of Conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0025389

² Trotschel, R., Loschelder, D. D., Huffmeier, J., & Schwartz, K. (2011). Perspective Taking as a Means to Overcome Motivational Barriers in Negotiation When Putting Oneself Into the Opponent’s Shoes Helps to Walk Toward Agreements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 771-790.

³ Boyd, D., Bee, H., & Johnson P. (2009). Lifespan Development (3^rd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada.

Negotiation Tactics from Down Under

With the new school year under way at the University of British-Columbia, CORE is up and running again! We have a fresh set of student bloggers who will be bringing you weekly updates with stimulating thoughts on the world of alternative dispute resolution.

Recently the Faculty of Law was privileged to host a full day seminar on the art of negotiation run by Professor John Wage. Professor Wade has authored over 100 articles and books and has taught over 300 mediation and negotiation courses around the world. Currently, Professor Wade is the director of the dispute Resolution Centre within bond University's Faculty of Law.

The session was designed to provide an introductory lecture for students to learn the nuances of negotiation. Professor Wade described positional bargaining (primarily quantifiable solutions) and interests based (underlying goals behind the mediation) as the archetypical approaches to negotiation, but stressed that both types should be used in concert to facilitate a successful resolution. Students were also introduced to BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement), WATNA (worst alternative to negotiated agreement) and the MLATNA (most likely alternative to negotiated agreement) in order to accurately frame the issue at hand.

In addition to lecturing on the theory behind successful negotiations, Professor Wade also presented some of the common mistakes committed by professional negotiators. Here are some of the most interesting:

1. Seeing the Elephant in the room: 

Failing to listen effectively 

Professor Wade stressed that one of the most common mistakes committed by lawyers when negotiating is a failure to listen. It is important to understand what the objectives of a client are in negotiation and to allow them to participate in the process. Often the greatest progress is made when the parties are able to speak candidly with one another.

2. Know what you want: 

Being Unclear in client’s interests and BATNA

This stems from the previous mistake, as a failure to accurately frame the heart of the issue will lead to ineffective negotiation. It is important that negotiators clearly state their position and disclose helpful information to the other party, particularly information that strengthens your position.

3. Know who to invite to the party:

Bringing the wrong people to the negotiation

People can generally be grouped into different conflict management styles based on their inherent temperament. Having too many people in the room with similar characteristics can lead to undesirable difficulties, avoidance of issues, inequitable solutions.  Therefore, given the circumstances of the situation, it is important to have a number of people or an individual at the negotiating table that is capable of shifting between mindsets (compromising, obliging, integrating, avoiding, or dominant).

4. Playing in the Mud: 

Staying on difficult questions for too long, instead of moving on to other questions

When a difficult issue presents itself it may be necessary to, “park it” and move onto another area of disagreement. Rarely in the course of negotiation will it be useful to continue on an issue that becomes seemingly intractable. Moving to another issue may help to mitigate some of the difficulties and challenges presented by the previous dilemma. It is important to emphasize areas of agreement to instill positive sentiment and to make parties feel closer to a solution.


If you have additional questions for Professor Wade feel free to contact him through Dispute Resolution Centre at Bond University drc@bond.edu.au. Keep your eyes out for future blog posts!