Advertisement

Der Mediator: Katalysator der Mediation

  • Klaus HarnackEmail author
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Psychologie book series (SRP)

Zusammenfassung

Der katalytische Mediator ist ein pragmatischer Gegenvorschlag zur klassischen Haltung der Neutralität in der Mediation. Mit dem Ziel, die Medianten füreinander passungsfähiger zu machen, strukturiert der katalytisch agierende Mediator die Wahrnehmung und Interaktionsmöglichkeiten seiner Medianten. Als Leitmotive dienen ihm deren Interessen und Ressourcen, sowie deren Motivation und ihre persönlichen Eigenschaften. Der folgende Beitrag zeigt auf, was ein katalytischer Mediator ist und wie diese Haltung in der Praxis umgesetzt werden kann.

Schlüsselwörter

Katalysator Mediation Haltung Konflikt Phasenmodell der Katalytischen Mediation Mediative Techniken 

Literatur

  1. Bagshaw, D. (2015). Mediation in the World today: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Mediation & Applied Conflict Analysis, 3(1), 187–200.Google Scholar
  2. Bernard, S. E., Folger, J. P., Weingarten, H. R., & Zumeta, Z. R. (1984). The neutral mediator: Value dilemmas in divorce mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 4, 61–74.  https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.39019840406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brodie, H., & Harnack, K. (2018). The trust mandate. Hampshire: Harriman House.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, L., Martin, R. A., & Ward, J. R. (2008). An observational study of humor use while resolving conflict in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 41–55.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00183.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, O., Dattner, N., & Luxenburg, A. (1999). The limits of the mediator’s neutrality. Mediation Quarterly, 16(4), 341–348.  https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900160404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Dreu, C. K. W., Carnevale, P. J., Emans, B. J., & Van De Vliert, E. (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L., & Oldersma, F. L. (1999). On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 348–362.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025003007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 91, 280–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Douglas, S. (2008). Neutrality in mediation: A study of mediator perceptions. Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal, 8, 139–157.Google Scholar
  11. Druckman, D., & Wagner, L. M. (2016). Justice and negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galinsky, A. D., Leonardelli, G. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Mussweiler, T. (2005). Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive and integrative success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1087–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205276429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerami, A. (2009). Bridging the theory-and-practice gap: Mediator power in practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(4), 433–451.  https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson, K., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Shortcomings of neutrality in mediation: Solutions based on rationality. Negotiation Journal, 12(1), 69–80.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1996.tb00079.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gross, A. (2016). Raising awareness of potential biases and microaggressions: Applications to mediation. Journal of Mediation & Applied Conflict Analysis, 3(1), 73–79.Google Scholar
  17. Harnack, K. (2016). A psychological toolbox for mediators: From theory and research to best practices. In K. Bollen, M. Euwema & L. Munduate (Hrsg.), Advancing workplace mediation through integration of theory and practice (S. 55–66). Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42842-0_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobs, S. (2002). Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10), 1403–1426.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00071-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kracht, S. (2002). Rolle und Aufgabe des Mediators Prinzipien der Mediation. In F. Haft & K. Schlieffen (Hrsg.), Handbuch mediation – methoden und Technik, Rechtsgrundlagen, Einsatzgebiete (S. 363). München: C.H. Beck Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lindström, B. a., & Pettersson, L. J. (2003). A brief history of catalysis. CATTECH, 7(4), 130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCorkle, S. (2005). The murky world of mediation ethics: Neutrality, impartiality, and conflict of interest in state codes of conduct. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23(2), 165–183.  https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicolau, G., & Cormick, G. W. (1972). Community disputes and the resolution of conflict: Another view. The Arbitration Journal, 27(2), 98–112.Google Scholar
  25. Oesper, R. B. (1948). Alwin Mittasch. Journal of Chemical Education, 25(10), 531–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Petelczyc, C. A., Capezio, A., Wang, L., Restubog, S. L. D., & Aquino, K. (2017). Play at work: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 161–190.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317731519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peters, E. (1958). The mediator: A neutral a catalyst or a leader. Labor Law J, 9, 764–769.Google Scholar
  28. Proyer, R. T. (2013). The well-being of playful adults: Adult playfulness, subjective well-being, physical well-being, and the pursuit of enjoyable activities. The European Journal of Humour Research, 1(1), 84–98.  https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-78008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quinn, P. M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Schlink, S., & Walther, E. (2007). Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38(3), 153–161.  https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.38.3.153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steininger, B. (2008). Katalysator: Annäherung an einen Schlüsselbegriff des 20. Jahrhunderts. In E. Müller & F. Schmieder (Hrsg.), Begriffsgeschichte der Naturwissenschaften: zur historischen und kulturellen Dimension naturwissenschaftlicher Konzepte (S. 53–71). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Tahan, M. (1993). The man who counted: a collection of mathematical adventures. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  33. Wang, J. (2015). Neutral, biased, or both? Discursive construction of a mediator’s dual role. Negotiation Journal, 31(1), 47–63.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WOP – Institute of PsychologyWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterDeutschland

Personalised recommendations