A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Substantive and Contextual Mediation Tactics1

The effectiveness of three mediation tactics was compared in two laboratory studies. It was hypothesized that a content mediation procedure which involved identifying the priorities of both parties and suggesting a trade-off of low for high priority issues would be most effective in helping to resolve the dispute, followed by an issue identification mediation procedure in which priorities were identified but no suggestions were made. A positive framing mediation procedure in which the benefits of a negotiated settlement were emphasized was expected to be somewhat less effective. In Study 1, 64 students played the role of company negotiator and interacted with a programmed citizen group negotiator. All three mediation tactics produced more satisfactory outcomes (higher joint payoffs) than did a no-mediation condition. In Study 2, 46 pairs of students negotiated with one another and received content mediation, issue identification mediation, positive framing mediation, or no mediation. Negotiators receiving content mediation achieved more satisfactory outcomes (higher joint profits) than did negotiators in the other 3 conditions. Results are discussed in terms of a contingency model of mediation effectiveness.     

B. “Verification” of statements in psychiatry

(1) It remains to be seen if in the field of Psychiatry just as in that of Psychology the verbal output of a subject can be submitted to verification. Many statements of a highly emotional character being merely symptoms of certain dispositions have no direct communicative sense at all.(2) It being one of the characteristics of the mentally ill to loose contact and exchange of ideas with other people, the question naturally suggests itself if this symptom may be at the bottom of the phenomenon of these persons taking refuge in logical and ideological terminologies, their talk being a kind of verbal autism.(3) The expression verbal autism is used here for statements on a purely subjective level. This kind of statements prevailing with mental patients, the conversation between observer and subject tends to the monologue.(4) Here we can find too that statements of a purely subjective nature appear as indicative ones. Even physical and logical terms applied by the subject during the sittings do not have any physical or logical reference. This characteristic of the subject often baffles the observer. So confusion of verbal levels occurs frequently.(5) The introduction of a psychological term like verstehen does not solve the problem under consideration, but renders the mystery only the better camouflaged.     

Mediation Tactics: A Comparison of Field and Laboratory Research1

This article responds to a concern that laboratory experiments, relative to field research, are poorly suited for the study of mediation. An overview of the study of mediation is presented. Methods of field and laboratory research on mediation are described. Then the issue of the generalizability of laboratory research to field settings is discussed. Finally, the results of field and laboratory research on mediation tactics are compared. Most research on when mediators choose to use specific tactics has been field research, but the few laboratory studies have provided comparable results. Both laboratory and field research have been employed to determine the effectiveness of mediation tactics in helping the parties to settle the dispute and fairly consistent results have been obtained across these settings. We conclude that laboratory experiments on mediation should not be considered inferior to field research methods, but rather should be considered complementary.