1

E-supported mediation: What do we learn from the field?

Katalien Bollen Martin Euwema

Key Words: E-supported mediation, mediation practice, ODR

Introduction Just like many other business related activities, mediation service providers have migrated to the online environment. Although online mediation is increasingly used, research has hardly investigated the conditions under which e-mediation should be done and/or how parties experience it. In this presentation, we present e-supported mediation practices in the Netherlands as well as the results of research related to the effects of different types of e-mediation. Specifically, we will refer to fully e-mediated divorce cases and e-mediated labor conflicts in which an online intake tool is used before the joint mediation session (hybrid type of e-supported mediation). Implications for practitioners are discussed. Online versus face-to-face mediation During the last decade, the following questions have often been raised: How do face-to-face and e-supported mediation differ from each other? To what extent are interactions between people altered by this transformation to a virtual environment? On the one hand, there are people who claim that e-supported communication is cold, depersonalizing and impersonal as nonverbal cues are absent (Rice & Love, 1987). Consequently, e-supported communication would also be more prone to misconceptions, impasses and conflict escalation. On the other hand, scholars argue that e-supported communication may also offer advantages such as providing parties with more reflection time and a feeling of safety as the other party is not visible and thus less able to exercise social pressure.

In order to understand the effects of face-to-face versus e-supported communication, it is necessary to distinguish between synchronous and asynchronous communication. When parties communicate in an synchronous way, they communicate in real time and wait for each other’s answers. Most face-to-face communication can be characterized as synchronous communication. When communication is separated in time and space, disputants communicate in an asynchronous way. Examples of e-supported synchronous and asynchronous communication are respectively chat and email. Results of research show that people who adopt an e-supported synchronous way of communication, react more intensely than they would do in a face-to-face setting (Suler, 2004). Especially in case of conflicts, people tend to react very impulsive. In contrast, when parties are provided with the ability to build in time between receiving a message and responding to it (asynchronous), they have more time to reflect and to focus on the content the message without the presence and/or pressure of the other (Pesendorfer & Koeszegi, 2006). This may offer especially advantages to those who find it difficult to express themselves freely in a face-to-face setting (McKenna & Bargh, 1999). Since e-synchronous communication may fuel conflicts and foster conflict escalation, the use of asynchronous tools is recommended as long as parties are not able to communicate in a reasonable and/or constructive way.

Fully e-mediated DIVORCE conflicts In 2008, on demand of the Dutch government, an asynchronous Internet application was created to support divorcing couples to reach a divorce settlement and/or to agree on a parenting plan. Parties only communicate with each other through emails or other messages which are separated in time and are text based. Important to notice, is that all communication is moderated by a trained mediator who helps parties to rephrase messages, especially when parties do not communicate constructively or the message is expected to have an escalating effect. The email box of the mediator, serves as some kind of drop box for parties’ messages. Furthermore, parties are expected to react to each other’s statements within a timeframe of 48 hours. Given that divorce is often accompanied with very strong emotions, and/or parties may not want to see each other (anymore), the use of asynchronous e-mediation may resort several benefits.

In order to test the effectiveness of this tool, parties who were involved in a fully e-mediated divorce were asked to fill out an evaluation form after participation. Participants were assured that data

2

would be processed in an anonymous and confidential way. A total of 126 parties filled out the questionnaire, comprising the answers of 56 couples and 14 individuals –the other partner did not fill out the survey-. The average age was 40 years old. Almost as many men (46.8%) as women (53.2%) were involved.

Results indicate that 76% of the participants reached an agreement and 8% a partial agreement. 16% did not reach an agreement. These settlement rates are high and similar to the settlement rates of face-to-face mediation (Wall & Dunne, 2012). As regards satisfaction with the mediator, 78% of the parties reports to be satisfied to very satisfied. Only 3% indicates not to be satisfied. These findings contradict scholars who assume that, as the role of the e-mediator is less visible, parties’ satisfaction with the mediator would not be that high. A similar pattern of results can be observed for satisfaction with the mediation. The fact that people feel satisfied with e-mediation is also illustrated by the fact that more than 80% of the users wish to use e-mediation to settle potential future conflicts. A surprising result however, is that compared to men, women involved in e-mediated divorce cases score significantly higher on several aspects: they perceive more procedural justice (the consistent implementation of rules and procedures), trust and voice (the ability to express emotions and insights).

An explanation can be found in the communication styles of men and women: whereas men tend to communicate in a direct, confrontational, sometimes aggressive way, women are likely to communicate indirectly and find it more difficult than men to express themselves in a face-to-face setting (Falbo & Peplau, 1980; Pines, Gal & Tal, 2002). Patterns which are largely influenced by cultural norms expecting that women would act more collaborative and men more directive. As such, the use of indirect asynchronous communication and the involvement of a mediator acting as a gatekeeper might represent a challenge for men who prefer to communicate directly, while it may correspond with the indirect communication style of women. For women, the use of online communication in which messages are separated in time, may represent an opportunity to express themselves directly and freely as they are less directly confronted with male aggression and are provided with time to exercise their verbal ability. LABOR mediation: The use of an online intake (hybrid type of e-mediation) In contrast to the fully supported e-mediations, online tools can also be used as an add-on to traditional face-to-face mediations. We speak of hybrid mediation when communication is partly face-to-face and partly computerized. The following case study describes such an example.

Since 2007, different mediation service providers in the Netherlands, use an asynchronous online intake survey to prepare the joint face-to-face mediation dealing with labor conflict. The questions incorporated in the online intake are designed to stimulate people to reflect on the situation and potential solutions. The answers are only sent to the mediator. In fact, the use of an online intake before the joint face-to-face session, is similar to the use of a pre-caucus in face-to-face mediation as each party is provided with the opportunity to discuss conflict issues with the e-mediator while the other party is (virtually) absent.

In order to test the effectiveness of this tool, parties who were involved in a hierarchical labor conflict (conflict between supervisor and subordinate) and made use of an online intake tool were asked to fill out an evaluation form after participation. Participants were assured that data would be processed in an anonymous and confidential way. A total of 55 parties filled out the questionnaire, comprising the answers of 25 supervisors (14 men and 12 women) and 28 subordinates (8 men and 20 women). The average age was 43 years old. Given that more women are involved (as subordinates), we control for the influence of gender in our analyses. .

Data show that when an online intake tool is used to prepare the face-to-face labor mediation, subordinates and supervisors feel to a similar extent satisfied with the mediation and experience similar levels of trust as well as procedural justice (Bollen & Euwema, 2011). This result is surprising, as previous research on the mediation of hierarchical labor conflicts (Bollen, Ittner & Euwema, 2012) in a face-to-face context showed that supervisors and subordinates experience face-to-face mediation differently. Specifically, compared to supervisors, subordinates feel less satisfied, experience less trust in the mediator and perceive less procedural justice. These data indicate that parties’ perceptions of the mediation are highly influenced by the hierarchical position they occupy when involved in face-to-face labor mediations. Practical applications for mediators In literature, often the potential detrimental effects of online tools in mediation are mentioned. The current field data however, indicate that asynchronous e-tools may be beneficial in order to manage

3

conflicts in an effective way. It seems that the absence of non-verbal social feedback is not necessarily a drawback as initially thought. In contrast, it may offer opportunities to people who feel restrained to express themselves in a face-to-face context and may have a leveling effect on potential power imbalances. These findings also have practical implications for mediators.

It is very important for a mediator to be aware of the pros and cons of different media and what the effects are of (a)synchronous communication, and/or the combination with visual and/or audible cues. Only then, one can choose the appropriate (combination of) communication channels to mediate.

Mediators need to learn how to transfer their mediation skills to an online platform. Besides that, it is necessary to understand that the conflict nature determines which

communication mode is most suitable. When confronted with escalated conflicts, it may be a good idea to turn to the use of asynchronous online tools in order to prevent more escalation and limit hostile confrontations with the other party. In this context, we refer to the barrier effect (Carnevale & Isen, 1986) which states that the removal of visual cues (providing a barrier) between conflicting parties will lead to less hostile, competitive behaviour and more integrative solutions. Barriers are used in practice for instance when mediators opt for a caucus.

As visual cues that provide a framework on how to act and how to evaluate behaviour of the other are removed by the use of e-communication, traditional roles and norms won’t be as salient as in face-to-face communication. This may also explain why subordinates’ and supervisors’ mediation perceptions differ in the face-to-face condition but not when an online intake is used.

Data stemming from the online divorce cases also show that men and women may appreciate different types of communication: whereas men appreciate more direct ways of communication, women prefer more indirect and safe ways of communication.

Especially for those who find it difficult to express themselves freely (lower power individuals) in a face-to-face setting, asynchronous communication may represent several advantages as it provides them time to reflect and an outlet to voice emotions and/or concerns in safe environment which contributes to a sense of control.

The use of text-based asynchronous e-mediation or intake can be useful when o parties do not wish to see each other (anymore) but need to find a common solution

(e.g. parenting plan) o parties are not able to communicate in a constructive way or conflicts are highly

escalated o people feel inhibited to express themselves freely face-to-face o a pre-caucus is needed but when it is difficult to arrange a private face-to-face

meeting with the parties o a power imbalance is present between disputants o

Online tools have allowed users to overcome temporal and geographical barriers expeditiously but have also proved that numerous disputes can be resolved in an effective way with the help of especially asynchronous communication. References Bollen, K. & Euwema, M. (2011). E-mediation in hierarchical labor conflicts. Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management, July 3-6th, Istanbul (Turkey). Bollen, K., Ittner, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2012). Mediating hierarchical labor conflicts: Procedural justice makes a difference - for subordinates. Group Decision and Negotiation, 21(5), 621-636. Falbo, T., & Peplau, L., A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 618-628. doi: doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.618 McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Causes and consequences of social interaction on the internet: A conceptual framework. Media Psychology, 1(3), 249 - 269. Pesendorfer, E.-M., & Koeszegi, S. (2006). Hot versus cool behavioural styles in electronic negotiations: The impact of communication mode. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(2), 141-155. Pines, A. M., Gat, H., & Tal, Y. (2002). Gender differences in content and style of argument between couples during divorce mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(1), 23-50. Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research,14(1), 85-108.

4

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior,7(3), 321-326. Wall, J., & Dunne, T. C. (2012). State of the art: Mediation research: A current review. Negotiation Journal, 217-244. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00336.x