Abstract
The study reported in this chapter was designed to further our understanding of the interaction dynamics associated with effective dispute mediation. Observations of conversational turn-taking were made for 60 mediations in four different mediation sites. Parties also completed questionnaire-based interviews regarding the mediation process and the final agreement. Methods of conversation analysis were combined with a relational statistical analysis to reveal sequential patterns of turn-taking in the opening and discussion phases. The opening phase primarily consisted of extended sequences of interaction in which the disputing parties were inhibited from addressing each other, while the discussion phase involved more free-flowing interactions between all parties. Analyses of the questionnaire-based data revealed that disputant evaluations of procedural justice were predicted by the inhibition of direct between-party interactions in the opening phase, as well as by the achievement of an agreement. These findings encourage practitioners to begin the mediation process by providing each party with an uninterrupted opportunity to have their say, and to be unashamedly settlement oriented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Further details regarding these mediation sites, the design and administration of research apparatus and materials and the statistical modelling and analyses that were undertaken can be obtained from the author’s Ph.D. thesis which is available through The University of Melbourne library.
- 2.
The type of mediation that has a procedural ‘agreement reaching’ consequence, namely that if no agreement is reached, the mediation is followed by arbitration with the mediator and the arbitrator being the same person.
- 3.
This support is tentative given that these differences may also relate to differences between the disputes that were mediated in the two types of mediation.
- 4.
A style of communication, derived from the ‘client-centred’ approach to counselling and therapy originally developed by Carl Rogers (1951); this term captures two key concepts: listening and reflecting back what is heard without imposing the hearer’s interpretation on what has been said.
References
Bercovitch, J. (1989). International dispute mediation: A comparative empirical analysis. In K. Kressel & D. G. Pruitt (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party interventions (pp. 284–299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carnevale, P. J., & Pegnetter, R. (1985). The selection of mediation tactics in public sector disputes: A contingency analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 41(2), 65–81.
Coulter, J. (1990). Elementary properties of argument sequences. In Interaction competence (pp. 181–204). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Garcia, A. (1991). Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 818–835.
Gibson, D. R. (1999). Talking turns and talking ties: Conversational sequences in business meetings. Unpublished PhD, Columbia University, New York.
Gibson, D. R. (2003). Participation shifts: Order and differentiation in group conversation. Social Forces, 81, 1335–1381.
Gibson, D. R. (2005). Talking turns and talking ties: Networks and conversational interaction. The American Journal of Sociology, 110(6), 1561–1597.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. London: Penguin.
Greatbatch, D., & Dingwall, R. (1997). Argumentative talk in divorce mediation sessions. American Sociological Review, 62(1), 151–170.
Hiltrop, J. (1985). Mediator behaviour and the settlement of collective bargaining disputes in Britain. Journal of Social Issues, 41(2), 83–99.
Hiltrop, J. (1989). Factors associated with successful labor mediation. In K. Kressel & D. G. Pruitt (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party interventions (pp. 241–262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, T. S. (1988). Phase structures in agreement and no-agreement mediation. Communication Research. Special Issue: Communication, Conflict, and Dispute Resolution, 15(4), 470–495.
Kelly, J., & Gigy, L. (1989). Divorce mediation: Characteristics of clients and outcomes. In K. Kressel & D. G. Pruitt (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party interventions (pp. 263–283). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kochan, T. A., & Jick, T. (1978). The public sector mediation process: A theory and empirical examination. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 209–240.
Kressel, K. (2000). Mediation. In M. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 522–546). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kressel, K., & Pruitt, D. G. (1985). Themes in the mediation of social conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 41(2), 179–198.
Kressel, K., & Pruitt, D. G. (1989a). Conclusion: A research perspective on the mediation of social conflict. In K. Kressel & D. G. Pruitt (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party interventions (pp. 394–435). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kressel, K., & Pruitt, D. G. (Eds.). (1989b). Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party interventions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leifer, E. (1988). Interaction preludes to role setting: Exploratory local action. American Sociological Review, 53, 865–878.
Lind, A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
McGillicuddy, N. B., Welton, G. L., & Pruitt, D. G. (1987). Third-party intervention: A field experiment comparing three different models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 104–112.
Moore, C. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pearson, J., Thoennes, N., & Vanderkooi, L. (1982). The decision to mediate: Profiles of individuals who accept and reject the opportunity to mediate contested child custody and visitation issues. Journal of Divorce, 6, 17–35.
Pruitt, D. G., McGillicuddy, N. B., Welton, G. L., & Fry, R. (1989). Process of mediation in dispute settlement centers. In K. Kressel & D. G. Pruitt (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party interventions (pp. 368–393). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Wall, J. A., Jr., Stark, J. B., & Standifer, R. L. (2001). Mediation: A current review and theory development. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(3), 370–391.
Zartman, I. W., & Touval, S. (1985). International mediation: Conflict resolution and power politics. Journal of Social Issues, 41(2), 27–45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilkinson, S. (2012). Having Your Say: Communication Dynamics in Effective Mediation. In: Bretherton, D., Balvin, N. (eds) Peace Psychology in Australia. Peace Psychology Book Series. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1403-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1403-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1402-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1403-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)