j. lack & f. bogacz -- the neurophysiology of adr and process design (neuroawareness)

7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)

1/36

Page1of36

TheNeurophysiologyofADRandProcessDesign:

A

New

Approach

to

Conflict

Prevention

and

Resolution?

ByJeremyLackandFranoisBogacz

"Wedonotseethingsastheyare. Weseethingsasweare." AnaisNin

Wehavetostartbydefiningtheprocessaspartoftheproblem DavidPlant

I. INTRODUCTION

Neurobiologyseems

to

be

popping

up

everywhere.

It

is

being

taught

in

leadership

conferences,

salesandmarketingseminars,managementmeetings,businessschools,andincreasinglyinlawschools

andbarassociations. The coverof theAmericanBarAssociations Summer2011DisputeResolution

MagazinewasdedicatedtothetopicofNeuroscienceandNegotiation.1 Init,ProfessorRichardBirke

observesthatNeuroscienceiseverywhere. Isitanewfadorafundamentalawakening,providingnew

insights for the legal profession? As the science for measuring brain activity advances, and new

breakthroughsaremadeinelectroencephalography(EEG),magnetoencephalography(MEG),Functional

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), positron emission

tomography (PET), and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), there is a confusing

arsenal of new and convoluted, hightechsounding imaging technologies, by which scientists are

seekingto

penetrate

the

various

layers,

regions

and

neural

assemblies

of

the

human

brain,

to

decipher

ourbehaviorandtheessenceofourverybeingasahighlyevolvedanduniquespeciesofanimal.2 This

runsthedangerofbecomingthe21stCenturysnewphrenology,asthescienceisstillrifewitherrors.3

Ontheotherhand,theresearchraisesintriguingnewinsightsintothebrain,consciousdecisionmaking

processes, the role of emotions, and theways inwhich our neurobiological hardwiringmight be

impactingourbehaviorindisputeresolutionprocesses.

ThebulkofthesefindingstodatesupportsAnaisNinsquotationgivenabove,wherebywedo

notperceive things as they really are (i.e.,objectively)but aswe are (i.e., subjectively). This raises

importantnew implications for lawyers,judges,arbitrators, inhouse counsel,mediators, conciliators,

and

a

variety

of

other

ADR

professionals.

It

has

an

impact

on

how

we

should

start

to

interpret

evidence,

weighwitnesstestimonyand(re)considerfindingsoffacts. Prof.Birkearguesthat lawyersoughtto

1 R.Birke, NeuroscienceandNegotiation:What theNewScienceofMindMayOffer thePracticingAttorney,

DisputeResolutionMagazine,Volume17,No.4,Summer2011.2 Foragoodprimeronneuroimaging,seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroimaging.3 See, for example, C. Bennett et al (2009), Neural correlates of interspeciesperspective taking in thepost

mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for multiple comparisons correction,

http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/BennettSalmon2009.pdf,which shows how the data generated in an fMRI

experimentcouldeither suggest thatadeadsalmonwasstillengaging inconsciousperspectivetaking tasks,or

thatthe

technology

itself

can

yield

spurious

results

that

need

to

be

corrected

when

doing

data

analysis.


2/36

Page2of36

careaccordinglyaboutneuroscience,andgivesseveralexamplesofwhythisisthecase.4 Thepurpose

of thispaper isnot,however, todelve into the implicationsofneurobiology from theperspectiveof

advocacyorjudicialappreciation. Nor is ittosupportProf.Birkespremise(which isselfevident)that

understanding human perception is likely to be of great importance to trial attorneys andjudges.

Rather, thepurposeofthispaper is to focusoncurrentprocessesbywhichparties,counselandADR

neutralstrytoresolvedisputes, initial innatehumanreactionsthatmayoccurwhenconflictsbeginto

arise,andtoassesshoweffectiveourprocessesfordisputeresolutionmaybeintermsofwhatcurrent

discoveries inneurobiologywould seem to suggest. Itwill seek toexaminenotonlyhow subjective

perceptions may shape outcomes but how the choice of the process itself can have unintended

consequencesintermsoftriggeringcertainbehavioralpathwaysratherthanothers,andpossiblycause

theconflicttoescalate.

It ispossiblethat largepartsofthispapermayprovetobeerroneous inthefuture,orreflect

culturalbiases.

This

explains

the

use

of

aquestion

mark

in

the

title

of

this

paper.

Its

contents,

however,

summarize new findings that already provide new food for thought, and raise new concerns about

dispute resolution processes and the traditionalways inwhich lawyers and parties seek to resolve

conflicts, aswell as the innate tendencyof conflicts toescalate. They raisenew concerns regarding

ethicalbehaviorindisputeresolutionandanewappreciationofhowparties,lawyersandneutralsmay

bemanipulatedorbecomeunconsciouslymanipulative. Thepoint is togeneratesomeselfreflection

and to start thedebatesomewhere,as towhether,and if sohow,anunderstandingofneurobiology

shouldbecomepartof legaleducationandcauseus toqueryour traditionalviewsofjusticeandour

choiceofdisputeresolutionprocesses. Theauthorwelcomesanyandallcriticismstothesuggestionsor

ideascontainedinthisarticle.

II. THETENNEUROCOMMANDMENTS:EMOTION,SOCIALIZATIONANDCOGNITION

Much ink has been spilled in describing the evolution of the human brain, and how it has

evolved from the level of our reptilian ancestors. According tomany theories (and especially the

physicianandneuroscientistPaulMacLean),thehumanbrainhasevolvedintermsofthreeindependent

butinterconnectedlayersofbrainmatter,referredtoasthetriunebrain.5 Theresultisthatjustasan

archaeologistcanvisitanancient site,anddetermine thehistoricalevolutionof thatsite, thehuman

brainshowsthreelayersofdistinctevolutionasshowninFigure1below. Theselayersreflectdifferent

momentsinthehistoryoftheevolutionofthehumanspecies,andhowourdecisionmakingprocesses

haveevolved.

The

ways

in

which

these

layers

may

operate

and

interrelate

can

provide

fascinating

new

insightsintohowhumansreactanddealwithsituationsofconflict.

4Forintriguingrecentarticlesonneurobiologyandmediation,seealso:(i)KenClokesarticle(alsonowatwopart

podcast) entitled: Bringing Oxytocin Into The Room: Notes On The Neurophysiology Of Conflict at

http://www.mediate.com/articles/cloke8.cfm; RichardBirkesCPRawardwinningNeuroscienceandSettlement:

AnExaminationofScientificInnovationsandPracticalApplications,publishedin25OhioStateJournalonDispute

Resolution at pp. 477529 (2010), and available online at http://www.pgpmediation.com/blog/wp

content/uploads/2011/05/neuroscience_and_settlement_.doc; and (iii) Michelle LeBaron & Mario Patera

Reflective Practice in the NewMillennium available online at http://law.hamline.edu/files/4LeBaronPatera

Reflective_Practice_FINAL_May_09.pdf.

5For

ageneral

description

of

the

Triune

Brain,

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain.


3/36

Page3of36

Figure1:TheThreeLevelsofEvolutionoftheHumanBrain

TheReptilianBrain:Thisisthemostprimitivelevelofthehumanbrainandsitsatthebottomof

thebrain,inthebrainstemregion. Itisbelievedtohaveevolvedover500millionyearsagoand

greatly resembles the brain of reptiles, from which it bears its name. The Reptilian Brain

containsautomaticandbasicinstincts(suchasbreathingandheartbeat)istheareainwhichwe

haveour

instinctive

and

evolutionarily

conserved

survival

reflexes.

These

include

the

flight,

flightorfreezeinstinctsthatwesharewithreptiles. Thesereflexesarebelievedtoinstinctively

takeoveranddominatewhenfundamentalissuesofsurvivalareatstake.

TheLimbicSystem: Thesecond layerof thebrain thatcanbediscernedevolutionarily is the

Limbic System, which evolved when mammals first appeared (and is therefore sometimes

referredtoasthepaleomammaliancomplexorasthemammalianbrain). Mammalsarethe

firstcreaturestosuckletheiryoungandtohavestrongemotionalinstincts. Itisbelievedtobe

thepartofthebrainthroughwhichallofoursenses(sound,taste,smell,sightandtouch)are

firstprocessed,andthearea inwhichwegenerateemotions,ourfirstandmostbasiccerebral

reactionstoanystimulus. Thisareawouldhaveevolved,accordingtoevolutionarytheory,asa

rapidrelevance

and

detection

system,

helping

animals

to

rapidly

work

out

(within

milliseconds

andbeforetimeforcognitiveappreciation)whethersomethingwastobefeared(inwhichcase

itwastobeinstinctivelyavoided),orareward(inwhichcaseitcouldbeapproached). Thispart

ofthebrainincludesthethalamus,asortofsignalandprimarysensoryfilterstationinthebrain,

aswellastwosmallalmondshapedregionscalledtheamygdala,whicharebelievedtobethe

areasassociatedwithearlystage,autobiographical,traumaticandunconsciousmemories,and

wherefeelingsoffear,safetyandpleasurearefirstgeneratedandregistered,alongwithother

primaryemotionssuchasangerandsadness. Theamygdalaactasarapidrelevancedetector,


4/36

Page4of36

helpingthehumanbodytorapidlysortoutandprioritizetheterabytesuponterabytesofdata

thatthehumanbraincaptureseveryfractionofasecond.6

TheNeocortex: This is the outer andmost recent layer of the human brain in evolutionary

terms,whichisparticularlydevelopedinprimatesandotheradvancedmammals,andallowsus

todohighorderthinkingandcognitiveappreciation. Itallowscomplexcoordinationofmotor

andsensoryfunctions,andiswhatallowsspeechcomprehension,andconsciousmemory. The

frontalpartofthisouterlayer,calledthefrontallobeorfrontalcortex,isparticularlydeveloped

inhumans,accountingforapproximately1/3rd insizeoftheentirehumanbrain. It isthearea

that deals with conscious, highorder integrated brain functions, such as abstract thought,

conceptualization,planningandtheconsciousappreciationofemotions. Thisthird levelofthe

brainseemstobecloselyregulatedbytheamygdala(andalsocanactasafeedbacklooptothe

amygdala, to regulateemotional responses),whichare connected to allbut8 regionsof the

cortex.

7

Whether or not this theory of the evolution of the human brain is sufficiently precise or

accurate,itprovidesausefulmetaphorforconsideringhumanbeingsinsituationsofconflict. Assuming

that thehumanbrainhas finiteand limited resources inglucoseandoxygenatanygivenmoment in

time,andthatthehumanbeinghasevolvedtomaximizetheefficiencybywhichoxygenandglucoseare

conservedorconsumed inthebrain(whichcanbevisualizedbyfMRI inthecaseofoxygen), itwould

appear that all senses are first scanned through an unconscious emotional appraisal system (in the

LimbicSystem),anddependingonitsfirstanalysis(e.g.,whetherthereisasenseoffeargeneratingan

avoidancereflexorasenseofrewardgeneratinganapproachreflex)eithertheReptilianSystemwill

beactivated(e.g.,fight,flightorfreezereflexes),ortheneocortex(andparticularlythefrontalcortex)

willbeenabledtoprovideacognitiveappreciationofthestimulusandindulgeinrationalreflectionasto

howbesttoadapttothedatatheemotionalsystemhashighlightedforattention. TheLimbicSystem

(andtheamygdalainparticular)canthusbeviewedasasortofrapidrelevancedetectorandaswitch,

thatactivatesorsuppressescorticalthinkingorreptiliannonthinking. Dependingoninitialreflexes

of fearor reward,oxygenandglucosemaybedistributedandconsumeddifferentlywithin thebrain,

whichsuggeststhatallperception,nomatterhowobjectiveorrationalitmayseemtobe,isinfactfirst

perceived and filtered throughemotions. Thismodel thusemphasizes theprimordial importanceof

emotions as the basis for all perception and subsequent cognitive thinking, which can only occur

downstreamof,andafterunconscious,emotionalappraisalofstimulianddatahasfirstoccurred. This

modelwouldexplainthedifficultyhumanbeingshaveinbeinglogicalandhighlyemotional(e.g.,angry)

atthesametime. Itsuggeststhatonce theneuralpathwaysthat lead toangerhavebeenactivated,

glucoseandoxygenareprovidedprimarilytothoseareasofthebrainthatregulatethisemotion,and

that the frontal cortex is deprived of such essential nutrients until the body has had time to self

regulate. Thiswouldalsoexplainwhyanangryperson tends tobecomemoreangrywhenasked to

thinklogically,orwhyitisdifficultforapersonwhoisdoingahighlycognitiveandabsorbingtask(e.g.,

6 Foradetaildiscussionoftheintriguingroleoftheamygdalaandtheirpossibleimportanceinconflictsituations,

see D. Sander et al, The Human Amygdala: an Evolved System for Relevance Detection, Reviews in the

Neurosciences,14,pp.303316(2003).7 SeeL.Pessoa,Ontherelationshipbetweenemotionandcognition,NatureReviewsNeuroscience,9,pp.148

158(February

2008)


5/36

Page5of36

addingcomplexnumbers,orsolvingmathematicalpuzzles)toexperiencestrongemotionsatthesame

time. Thethreelayersofthetriunebraincanthusbethoughtofasthreehighlyinterconnected,butat

the same time independentneuralnetworks,whichcanhavedifferent levelsofactivityanddifferent

levelsof arousal. Ouremotionswould thus reflecthowourmost fundamentalneedsmaydriveour

behavior at an animalistic and instinctive level, before cognitive appraisal can occur, and how our

subsequentreactionsandbehavioraffectourabilitiestoconsciouslyselfregulateandchangeourway

ofthinkingandprocessinginformationatanygivenmomentintime.8

Borrowingfromcreationisttheory,extrapolatingbeyondwhat isactuallyknownwithscientific

certainty, and setting asidemany responsible debates on possible interplaysbetween cognition and

emotionthatexisttoday,itispossibletovulgarizerecentdiscoveriesinneurosciencebysuggestingthat

humansmaybehardwiredevolutionarilyormayhavebeencreatedtorespondtothe followingten

neurocommandments:

1. Thou shaltconsumeyourbrains resourcesefficientlyandcreatepatterns: Thehuman

brain isjust2%of theaveragepersonsbodyweight. Yet itdemands20%of thebodys

blood flow and 20% of its oxygen at all times.9 The human prefrontal cortex is also

unusually large,accounting forapproximately1/3oftotalbrainsize (which iswhatmakes

thehumanbrainunique). Theprefrontalcortexisalargeconsumerofglucoseandoxygen,

andconsciouscognitivecapabilitiesareseverelydepletedwhenthebrainislowonglucose

or oxygen, or has had suboptimal time to rest (including sleep). The activity ofmany

regions of the brain follows an inverted Ucurve, where capabilities peak at a certain

momentandthendecreaseintheabsenceofaperiodofrestoringestionoffood. Thiscan

leadto

decision

fatigue

or

ego

depletion.10

In

order

to

conserve

energy,

the

human

brain

constantlyandinstinctivelyreallocatesinternallythat20%ofthebodysenergyitconsumes.

It does do by creating patterns and neural networks. If the brain had to maintain a

consciousappraisalofallofthesounds,smells,sightsandothersensethebodyisexposed

to, itsresourceswouldsoonbedepleted. Wehavethusevolvedwithneuralpatternsand

networks thatdonot require consciousawareness,but thatallowus tobeawareofand

screen our environment unconsciously, thus conserving the brains oxygen and glucose

resources.

2. Thy shaltpredict according to thypatterns: As humans grow, since childhood, they

developnewpatternsandscriptsofbehaviortoadapteasilyandmoreefficientlytotheir

environments.These

new

scripts

are

developed

at

different

phases

in

life,

especially

in

family andearly social interactions (e.g.,playground, school,etc), inprofessional training

8 For furtherdiscussionson the roleofemotions in thebrain, seee.g.: (i)P.Vuilleumier Howbrainsbeware:

neuralmechanismsof emotionalattention, Trends inCognitive Sciences, vol.9,No.12,pp.58594 (December

2005);(ii)R.J.Davidsonetal,Theprivilegedstatusofemotioninthebrain,PNAS,August17,2004vol.101no.33

1191511916;andH.Herwigetal,Selfrelatedawarenessandemotionregulation,NeuroImage50,pp.734741

(2010).9 BrainBulletin#54 6ThingsYouDidn'tKnowAboutYourBrain,TerrySmall(www.terrysmall.com/bb_54.asp)10

Foranexcellentreviewofthesephenomena,whichgobeyondthescopeofthispaper,seeJ.TierneyDoYou

Suffer from Decision Fatigue?, The New York Times (August 17, 2011), available online at

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/doyou

suffer

from

decision

fatigue.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all


6/36

Page6of36

contexts (e.g., lawschool),and inorganizationalcontexts. Eachgrouporsocialsetting in

whichapersonworks(e.g.,movingtoanew lawfirm)cancreateanewcorporateculture

andpatternsofbehaviortowhichthepersonhastoadapt.11 Asweacquireanddevelop

thesepatternswetrytouseandrecyclethemtoanticipateeventsandbepreparedfornew

situations. Memory,itnowappears,hasnotevolvedtorecordthingsastheyactuallywere,

buttobeabletopredictthingsbetter inthefuture,shouldcertainsimilarities inobserved

eventsoccur, and toprovide a script should such similarities arise.12 Itwill also tend to

rationalizedecisionsoncetheyhavebeen taken, to fit them intoaconsistentpreexisting

patternofbehavior,especiallyafterhavingmadedifficultchoicesorhavingexperienceda

cognitive dissonance,where two contradictory choices of behavior seem to be possible.

Postchoicerationalizationoccursinthesecases,whenoneschoices(usuallyonesactions)

conflictwith ones prior attitudes about choice options, and do not complywith cogent

predictable

behavior.

This

dissonant

state

is

unpleasant

and

can

motivate

a

change

in

attitudesaboutwhatwaschosenand/ornotchosen(ordoneornotdone),whichservesto

bothjustifythechoiceexpostfactoandreducefurtherfuturedissonancesfromoccurring,

possiblyaffectingmemoryintheprocess.13

3. Thou shalt avoid and befar more sensitive to danger/fear than to reward/pleasure,

whichthoushaltseek:Thehumanbrain instinctivelydevelopstwofundamentalpatterns

ofresponse:anaway reflex,which isassociatedtopainor fear,andatowardsreflex,

whichisassociatedwithpleasureorreward.Theseinstinctivereflexesareapparenteven

inallsocialinteractions,especiallyincommercialdisputes,wheremoneymaybeperceived

asarewardthat is instinctivelyassociatedwithfeelingsofpleasureorsafety,orasapain,

wherehaving

to

pay

damages

can

trigger

fear

and

aggression.

The

away

reflex,

however,

appearstobefarstrongerandlongerlastingthanthetowardsreflex.14 Stimuliofpainor

a threatare typicallymuch fasteracting, last longerandare likely to increaseadversarial

behavior and reduce cognitive capacity, as more resources are conserved for flight or

flightbehavior,shouldthepersonneedtodefendthemself. Stimuliofpleasureorreward,

however,tendtobesloweracting,milder,andareshorter induration. Theyare likely to

stimulatecooperativeandcreativethinking,asthepersontriestoworkouthowtheycan

gettheawardtheyarenowawareof. Asinglenegativestimulus,however,mayoutweigh

manypositivestimuliandaffecthumanbehaviorforfarlonger.

4. Thoushaltfirstperceiveviaemotionsbeforebeingabletoselfregulate(unconsciously)

beforebeing

able

to

self

regulate

(consciously

or

by

habits):

The

human

brain

will

instinctively assess stimuli through emotions first, within the first few milliseconds of

11 ThiscombinationofearlyscriptsandpatternsisreferredtobyM.PateraandU.Gammasthementalmodel

bywhicheachpersondevelopstheirpersonality.12

L.Biel,TheCertaintyofMemoryHasItsDayinCourt,TheNewYorkTimes(November28,2011),availableat

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/health/thecertaintyofmemoryhasitsdayin

court.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all.13

L.Festinger,ATheoryofCognitiveDissonance,Row,Peterson. (1957). A typicalexample issmoking,where

peopleacceptthatsmokingcanbelethal,butwillrationalizetothemselvestheirdecisiontocontinuesmoking.14

SeeS.LeknesS&I. Tracey,Acommonneurobiologyforpainandpleasure,NatureReviewNeuroscience,9,pp.

314320(2008);andM.Kringelbach&K.Berridge,TheNeuroscienceofHappinessandPleasure,SocialResearch

Vol77

:No

2,

pp.

659

78

(Summer

2010).


7/36

Page7of36

exposuretoastimulus(especiallyonecreatingfeelingsoffear),beforethebrain isableto

have a cognitive appreciation of this emotion or stimulus. This is part of the evolved

efficiencyofthebraintoconserveresources. Aswetrytoconserveresourcesbyrelyingon

patterns andmental scripts, so thatwedonot require cognitive awarenessof all stimuli

provided tous,ourlimbicsystem(andtheamygdalainparticular)actasanearlyand rapid

relevancedetectortoprioritizesensoryinputanddeterminewhatweshouldpayattention

andgiveprioritytointermsofourlimitedresources.15 Itisonlyafterconsciousawareness

ofastimulus(afterapproximatelyhalfasecondfromoriginalexposuretothestimulus)that

a person is conscious of a stimulus, and can begin to selfregulate and try to overcome

scriptedpatternsofbehaviour. Stronglyrootedemotionscanthusbedampenedbyhaving

aconsciousappraisaloftheemotion,throughhabitandorconsciousmodificationthrough

deliberatebehavior. Thisabilitycanbedevelopedatanytimeandtouchesontheplasticity

of

the

brain.

16

It

appears

to

be

strongly

regulated

by

interconnections

between

the

amygdalaandthefrontalcortex.17 Interestingly,thebrainalsoseemstohaveanautomatic

andalmostemotionaldesire toavoid stressandassessdifficultdecisionsafter theyhave

been taken,toavoidcognitivedissonanceswhendifficultdecisionshavebeentaken, thus

facilitatinganexpostfactojustificationofpriorbehavior.18 Thiscanalso leadtodecision

fatigueandegodepletion.19

5. Thy Social stimuli shall be as powerful as thy Physical ones: Human beings are

gregarious animals that evolved to live in small groupsor cliques. Likeothermammals,

thereisanautomaticandinstinctiveneedtoassessonessocialstatusinagroup. Negative

social stimuli, such as social exclusion, bereavement, being treated unfairly or being

negativelycompared

in

asocial

context,

can

activate

trigger

feelings

of

pain,

that

activate

networks similar to those that are activated in cases of actual physical pain. Likewise,

positivesocialstimuli,suchashavingagoodreputation,being treated fairly,cooperating,

giving to charity, and even schadenfreude20, can active physical pleasure networks and

stimulatecooperativebehaviorandreciprocity. Wetendtounderestimatethisinadultlife,

butitisoftenaprimarydriverofsocialbehavior,whichcanoperateatanunconsciousbut

instinctivelevel.21 Thissenseofbelongingtoagroupcaninfluencenotonlyourfamilyand

senseofculture,butmaybelinkedtoasocioeconomicenvironmentandcaninfluenceour

senses of perception andwillingness to buy certain brands as opposed to others. This

15

See

D.

Sander

et

al

supra

at

footnote

6.

16 See M. Beauregard et al, Neural Correlates of Conscious SelfRegulation of Emotion, The Journal of

Neuroscience,Vol.21RC165,pp.16(2001); andM.Beauregard(ed.),Consciousness,EmotionalSelfRegulation

andtheBrain(AdvancesinConsciousnessResearch),JohnBenjaminsPubCo(January2004)17

S. Banks et al, Amygdalafrontal connectivity during emotion regulation, Social Cognitive and Affective

Neuroscience,2,pp.303312(2007)18

See J.M. Jarcho et al, The neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision

making,SocialCognitiveandAffectiveNeuroscience,5,pp.18(2010).19

SeeJ.Tierneysupraatfootnote11.20

Definedaspleasurederivedfromthemisfortunesofothers. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude.21

SeeLiebermanandEisenberger,PainsandPleasuresofSocialLife,Science,323,pp.89091,(Feb,13,2009);

H. Takahashi et al. When Your Gain Is My Pain and Your Pain Is My Gain: Neural Correlates of Envy and

Schadenfreude,Science,323,pp.93739(Fev2009);N.Eisenbergeretal.,Doesrejectionhurt?AnfMRIstudyof

socialexclusion,

Science,

302,

290

92

(2003).


8/36

Page8of36

circuitry also appears to be regulated by interrelations between the amygdala and the

frontalcortex.

6. Thoushaltseeksafeorcomfortablestatuspositionsatalltimes: Thisisacombinationof

the5thruleaboveandtheoverwhelmingreflextoavoidpain,whichisamoredominantand

longlastingfeeling(rules1and2above). Accordingtoarecentstudy,theresult isthat in

situationswherepeoplearepositivelyprimedsocially (e.g.,asclever),theymaybehave

more cautiously to conserve theirpositive status,whereas theymay actmore rapidlyor

incautiously,wheretheyhavenotbeenpositivelyprimed,orhavebeenprimednegatively

(e.g.,asstupid).22 Italsomayexplainthecomplexandmultifacetednatureofwhathas

beentermedhumanecosysteminteractionsandtheacceptanceofallocationsofcommon

pool resources by and within communities, and how people seek to avoid shaming or

shunning within their communities.23 A sense of status will also affect the ability to

empathize

with

others.

Empathy

and

altruistic

behavior

appear

to

differ

between

humans,

dependingonwhether theybelieve themselves tobelong togroupsofhighor low socio

economicstatus.24

7. Thou shalt relateand empathize ingroup (but not outofgroup): Humanshave a

fundamentalneedtotrustandbeabletorelyonotheranimalswithintheirsocialorfamily

groups. This need appears to be neurobiologically driven in two ways: (i) by a

neuropeptidethat isfound inthebraincalledoxytocin;and(ii)bythepresenceofneurons

in thebrain, called mirrorneurons,which induce the same activationofneurons in an

observer as are actually flaring in apersonbeingobservedwho is doing an action (e.g.,

playingasport)orexpressingafacialemotion(e.g.,grimacing). Theneuropeptideoxytocin

hasbeen

studied

in

detail

and

plays

akey

role

in

social

attachment

and

affiliation

in

mammals. It increases thewillingness to accept social risks in interpersonal interactions

withinthesamesocialcommunity.25 Thisincreaseintrustduetooxytocinonlyappearsto

occurintragroup,however,andnotasbetweengroups,whereothersmaybeperceivedas

beingdifferent. Infact,increasedoxytocincanleadtomoredefensiveandaggressiveforms

behaviortowardspersonsperceivedascompetingorbeingoutsideofasocialgroup.26 This

automatic tendency toempathizeand relate tootherhumans (at least intragroup, ifnot

outofgroup)may alsobe supportedby the activityofmirrorneurons in thebrain, that

allow nonverbal communication between people and a natural sense of empathy to

22 SeeS.Bengtssonetal.,Primingforselfesteem influencesthemonitoringofonesownperformance,Social

CognitiveandAffectiveNeuroscience,6,pp.41725(2011)23

For a general discussion on shunning, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning. These neuro

commandmentsmayalsobeusefulininterpretingtheworkofElinorOstrom(2009NobelLaureateinEconomics)

ontendenciesofgroupstoshame,shunorrefusetodobusinesswithothers,orthetragedyofcommonsand

collectiveactionproblems. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commonsandM.OlsonsTheLogic

ofCollectiveAction:PublicGoodsandtheTheoryofGroups,HarvarduniversityPress(1965,rev.1971).24

Y.Ma et al, Neural responses toperceivedpain in otherspredict reallifemonetary donations in different

socioeconomiccontexts,NeuroImage,Volume57,Issue3,pp.127380(August2011)25

M.Kosfeldetal.,Oxytocin increases trust inhumans,Nature,435,pp.673676 (June2005);P.J.Zaketal.,

OxytocinIncreasesGenerosityinHumans,PLoSONE,2(11):e1128.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001128(2007)26

C.K.W.DeDreuetal,TheNeuropeptideOxytocinRegulatesParochialAltruism in IntergroupConflictAmong

Humans,Science,

Vol.

328,

no.

5984

pp.

1408

1411

(June

2010);


9/36

Page9of36

occur.27 According to recent research inwhichmirrorneuronsweredirectlymeasured in

humans for the first time, the existence ofmirror neurons provide a complex and rich

mirroring of the actions of other people. Because mirror neurons fire both when an

individualperformsanactionandwhenonewatchesanotherindividualperformthatsame

action, it isbelieved that this "mirroring" is theneuralmechanismbywhich the actions,

intentionsandemotionsofotherpeoplecanbeautomaticallyunderstoodbytheobserver,

inparticularviafacialexpressionsofemotion.28 Thesemechanismsarebelievedtocreate

an automatic and instinctive ability for humans to detect emotions and be able to

empathizewith oneanother. It appears, however, thatmirror neurons flare lesswhen

similarbehaviorisobservedingroupsthatarenotareperceivedasbeingdifferent,andthat

oxytocincan increaseaggression insteadoftrustwhenanotherperson isnotperceivedas

belongingtothesamegrouporanimalclique.29 Itwouldthusseemthatourabilitiesto

empathize

are

not

as

effective

when

a

person

is

not

considered

to

belong

to

a

different

grouporclique.

8. Thoushaltreactnegativelytounfairbehavior:Functionalneuroimaginginvestigationsin

the fieldsof socialneuroscience andneuroeconomics indicatehowdecisions affecting a

senseof status, socialbelonging,oraboutmoneymayactivatepain/reward reflexes,and

thatapartofthebraincalledtheanteriorinsularcortex(theAI)isconsistentlyinvolvedin

empathy, compassion, and interpersonal phenomena, such as fairness and cooperation.

These findings suggest that theAIplays an important role in socialemotions,defined as

affectivestatesthatarisewhenweinteractwithotherpeopleandthatdependonthemina

socialcontext. Incertainstudies (e.g.,theUltimatumgame,whereoneplayerhastosplit

moneyin

away

that

is

accepted

by

another

player

in

order

for

the

money

to

be

kept

by

both),areceivingpartywillrefuseabenefitevenifitistohis/hernetadvantage,iftheyfeel

theotherpersonmakingthesplitisbehavingunreasonablyorselfishly(e.g.,byproposinga

99:1% split, even though the 1% increment would still benefit the receiving party as

opposed to receiving nothing). Behavioral experiments show thatwhere proposals are

deemed as being fair (a 50:50 split being perceived asmost fair) they have far higher

chancesofbeingaccepted,whereasunfairproposalsaremorelikelytoberejected. When

participantsplaysuchgamesinanfMRIscanner,acomplexinteractionbetweentheAIand

anareaofthefrontalcortexappeartobeactivatedveryrapidly,inmilliseconds,preceding

thetimepossibleforacognitivedecision. InamoreextremefMRIexperiment,participants

observedfair

or

unfair

players

receiving

painful

electrical

shocks.

This

study

showed

an

interestingdifferenceinbehaviorbetweenmenandwomen. Mensempathyrelatedneural

responsesweresignificantlyreducedwhentheyobservedunfairplayers,whichwasnotthe

caseinwomen. Whilemutualcooperationusuallyresultsinfeelingsoftrustandfriendship,

a lack of cooperation results in anger and indignation, and thus an acceptance or a

willingnesstopunish(moresoinmenthaninwomen). TheAIseemstoplayacentralrole

27 Seean interviewofM Iacoboni in TheMirrorNeuronRevolution:ExplainingWhatMakesHumans Social,

ScientificAmerican,17,pp.1718(July2008).28

R.Mukameletal.,SingleNeuronResponsesinHumansduringExecutionandObservationofActions,Current

Biology20,pp.750756,(April2010)

29CITATIONS?

ASK

FRANCOIS.


10/36

Page10of36

in social empathetic emotions ranging from pain, and pleasant emotions to fairness,

admiration and compassion. The AI seems to have evolved as a primary means of

generating and predicting self and otherrelated feelings,where a sense of unfairness is

experiencedasaformofpain.30

9.

Thoushaltbemotivatedbyautonomyorbyfeelingautonomous:Humansdonotcope

wellwhentheybelievetheyareforcedorobligedtobehaveacertainway. Arecentreview

ofscientificliteratureconfirmsthathumansrequiretheperceptionthattheyareincontrol

oftheirenvironmentandhavefreechoiceinordertofeelwell. Thisneedforaperception

ofcontrolisprofound. Itisaneedthat isnotonlypsychologicalbutprofoundlybiological.

The bodys neural systems seem to have hardwired the need for control as a biological

imperativeforsurvival,althoughthiscanbetemperedincertaincollectivistgroups. Forthis

reason,most humans (as is the case for themajority ofmammals) will languish when

deprived

of

autonomy.

31

10. Thoushaltoperatecognitivelyin2gears(X&Cmodes): Thisisatheoryproposedby

Matthew D. Lieberman, according to which human beings have two basic modes of

consciousfunctioning. Thefirstiscalledthereflexivemode,whichismediatedbyneural

assemblies inthebrain(referredtoastheXsystem). Thissystemreliesprimarilyonour

patternstopredictunconsciouslyandonourcognitivereflexes. Thisisthestatewetend

tofunctioninmostofthetime,andcanbeexaggeratedlydescribedasasortofzombieor

autopilot state,which occurswhenwe are in a low state of conscious arousal. The

secondmodeiscalledthereflectivemodeandismediatedbyadifferentneuralassembly

system(theCsystem). Thislevelofcognitivebehaviourisseldomactivatedandinvolves

highlevel

concentration.

Humans

tend

to

cruise

like

acar

in

first

gear,

using

their

X

systemmode,whereglucoseandoxygenareconsumedveryfrugally(e.g.,whenadriverof

acar isconsciousbutcannotremembermuchofwhatwasconsciouslydone,onaroutine

basis,duringthejourney). Furthermore,althoughmanyofusbelievewearegoodatmulti

tasking, it appears that our cognitive appreciation and responses are impairedwhenwe

seektodoso. Weseldommove intooursecondandoptimalgearofcognitivethought

using our Csystem. When the Csystem is activated, it is far more focused and

demanding in terms of oxygen and glucose consumption. The brain becomes deeply

absorbed in very complex activities requiring intense concentration (e.g., mathematical

calculations),andcannotsustain thismodeofcognitivebehaviorwithout frequentbreaks

andnutrition.

32

According

to

this

theory,

we

tend

to

go

about

our

daily

affairs

(and

remember things) paying little attention to internallyfocused processes and only have

strong sensesof cognitionwhen sufficientlyaroused todo soonexternallyfocused tasks

requiringfullconcentration.

30 C.Lamm&T.Singer,Theroleofanterior insularcortex insocialemotions,BrainStructFunct,214,pp.579

591(2010)31

L.Leottietal,BorntoChoose:TheOriginsandValueoftheNeedforControl,TrendsinCognitiveSciences,Vol.

14,No.10,pp.45763(October2010).32

M.D.Lieberman,SocialCognitiveNeuroscience:AReviewofCoreProcesses,AnnualReviewofPsychology,58,

pp.25989

(2007).


11/36

Page11of36

Whatdothesetenneurocommandmentssuggestformentaldecisionmakingprocessesorin

situations of conflict? The author submits thatmuch of observed behaviormay not be optimally

assessedatthecognitive level,andthatweseldomactivateourCsystemswhenresolvingconflicts.

Ourtendenciesto instinctivelyandrapidlyfilter informationviaemotionalnetworksbeforethefrontal

cortexcanexertfullycognitiveassessmentsofthesituation,ourneedtopredictandavoidsituationsof

uncomfortablestatusorpain,andoursocialneedspreventusfrombehavingobjectively. Wealsocan

influence outcome by priming disputants abilities to empathize with oneanother and engage in

cooperativebehavioriftheyareabletocreateasenseofbelongingtoacommongroup,suchasseeking

amutually acceptableoutcome. Ourdesire to avoiduncomfortable cognitivedissonances andpost

choice rationalizationmeans that theuseofa singlewordasopposed toanothercan triggerentirely

differentneuralpathwaysandformsofbehaviorbeforewehavehadthetimetoconsciouslyrealizethis

andmakeafullyinformeddecision.

Anexcellent

example

of

how

our

scripts

are

activated

unconsciously,

leading

to

different

cognitive behaviors and outcomes, can be found in a recent experiment conducted in the United

KingdombyDeMartinoetal.(2006),wheretwogroupsweregivenidenticalchoicesframeddifferently

bytheuseofonlytwowords:keepandlose.33 Bothgroupsweregivenafiftypoundnoteandwere

given theoptionof gambling tokeep the full amountof50. Theonlydifferencebetween the two

groupswasthatonegroupwastolditcouldkeep20orgamblewhereastheothergroupwastoldit

couldlose30orgamble. Theriskof losingtheentire50bygamblingwasthesameinbothcases,

andcarriedahighprobabilityofloss(2/3). Fromamathematicalperspective,keeping20isidentical

tolosing30. Arationalassessmentbybothgroupsshouldthereforehave ledtoidenticalbehavior,

whichiswhatonewouldexpectifhighorderCsystemthinkingwereengaged. Asitis,thetwogroups

behaved verydifferently, andobservationsof theirbrainsunder fMRI showed that thedecisionwas

modulated and shaped very rapidly by two differentneural networks, depending on the use of the

wordskeepasopposedtolose. Thewordkeep isasafeword. Inthegroupofferedthekeep

20option,thedecisionappearstohavebeenmodulatedbyazoneinthefrontalcortex,astherewere

no adverse emotions activated. The majority of the people in this group, who appeared to be

processingthisdecisionintheirfrontalcortexaccordingtofMRIpictures,chosenottogamble,thinking

itbettertokeep20thanrisklosing50. Ontheotherhand,thewordloseisnotasafeword. Itcan

triggera fear reflex,dependingon individual subjectiveconditioning topriorpressure responses,and

socioeconomicinfluences. Inthegroupofferedthelose30option,thedecisionappearsindeedto

have beenmodulated by fearnetworks in the limbic systemmoreprecisely in the amygdala as

shownby fMRI imaging (SeeFigure2below). Themajorityof thisgroupchosetogamble, thinking it

bettertoriskeverythingratherthanlose30.

33 B.DeMartinoetal.,Frames,Biases,andRationalDecisionMakingintheHumanBrain,Science313,pp.684

87(2006).


12/36

Page12of36

Figure2:TheFramingEffectofKeepv.Lose

Whatis

interesting

about

this

experiment

is

that

it

shows

the

extent

to

which

human

choices

andbehavior canbe influencedbya singleword. By framingor reframingdirectionsasprocedural

choices instead of as orders, or by using neutral, positive or negativewords, itmay be possible to

change the very neural pathways and mental processes by which decisions are made, leading to

differentoutcomes. This iswellknownbyexperiencedmediators,whohavediscoveredthatanoffer

thatwasrefusedinthepastfromanotherpartymaysuddenlybecomeattractivesolelyasaresultofthe

wayinwhichtheofferwasreformulated,orduetothefactthattheofferwasperceivedascomingfrom

themediator. Theabsenceoffear inthesecasesmaymeanthatdifferentassemblies inthebrainare

activated.34 It iswith thisexperiment inmindanda knowledgeof thehypothesisof the 10neuro

commandments thatwe can now turn to conflict resolution procedures, anddiscuss howwell our

default mechanisms for resolving differences are suited to our neurobiological composition and

conditioningasaspecies.

34 Although itmaybeasomewhatuncomfortablethought,mediationmaybeconsideredasaformofhypnosis.

Although the commondefinitionofhypnosis is that it isa trancelike state that resembles sleep, it is in facta

processthatpermitsanewmentalstateofmind,wheresubjectsarefullyawakeandcanrefocustheirattention.

Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis. Insofarasaskilledmediatormaychangeapartysperception,byusing

differentwordsorreformulations,(s)hemayinfactbeactingbyinducingoractivatingnewpathwaysforconscious

appraisal,e.g.,byactivatingapartysCsytemtoassessanoptionasopposedtotheirXsystem,orbytriggering

theirtowardsreflexesasopposedtotheirawayreflexes. Thisraisespotentiallydisturbingandnewconcerns

aboutthe

ethics

of

using

neurobiology

to

shape

ADR

processes,

as

discussed

in

Section

VI

below.


13/36

Page13of36

III. APPROPRIATEDISPUTERESOLUTION:COMPETITIVEvs.COLLABORATIVEPROCESSES

There is awide range of Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes available to the

partieswhenever

adispute

arises.35

We

tend,

however,

to

operate

at

the

extreme

ends

of

this

ADR

spectrum when faced with an emerging conflict, jumping straight into litigation after attempts to

negotiatehavefailed,orusingprocessesthattendtoescalatethedisputeratherthanseektoresolveit

optimallywhenconsidered fromaneurobiologicalperspective. JoannaKalowski,a leadingAustralian

mediator,presentsthespectrumofchoicesasfollows:

35 Forreasonsalreadyexplainedbythisauthorinapreviouspublication,itisbettertodescribeADRintermsof

Appropriate as opposed to Alternative or Amicable Dispute Resolution. By separating litigation or

arbitration from negotiation,mediation, conciliation and other dispute resolution processes, parties and their

counsel will start to think of them as mutually exclusive options, as opposed to as possibly complementary

processes, thatmayhavepositiveneurobiological synergies. See J. Lack, AppropriateDisputeResolution: The

SpectrumofHybridTechniquesChapter17inADRinBusiness:PracticeandIssuesacrossCountriesandCultures,

A.Ingen

Housz

(ed.)

(2011),

available

online

at:

http://imimediation.org/index.php?cID=278&cType=document.


14/36

Page14of36

Figure3:J.KalowskisADRSpectrum

The default and natural form of behavior of most disputants (and their lawyers) it to act

adversariallyorcompetitively. Littlethoughtisnormallygiventotheprocessitself,oritsimpactonthe

futurerelationsbetweentheparties. TherearethreedistincttypesofADRprocessesthatuseaneutral

withinKalowskisADRspectrum:mediation,conciliationandarbitration,as indicated inredinFigure3

above. Eachofthemmayhaveaverydifferent impactontheparties futurebehavior,whenviewed

fromtheperspectiveofneurobiologyorthe10neurocommandments. Theincreasedlossofcontrol

orincreasinglyadversarialnatureoftheprocess,asonemovesfromoneextremeofthespectrumtothe

other,suggests

that

different

fear

and

cognitive

appraisal

processes

may

be

activated

depending

on

whichprocesswaschosen. Thisputsanewlightonthestatementgivenatthebeginningofthispaper

byDavidPlant,awellknownarbitratorandmediator, regarding the importanceofchoiceofprocess,

andthevaryingusesorstylesofanADRneutral,whichmaybeakeypartoftheproblemtoberesolved

from aneurobiologicalperspective. Selecting anoptimalprocess neurobiologicallymay thus very

wellshapetheoutcome itself. Theuseofaneutral,however,presupposesanaturaltendencybythe

partiestotrytonegotiateatfirst. Itisimportant,therefore,beforecomparingthesethreeformsofADR

thatarefacilitatedbyaneutral(amediator,conciliatororarbitrator)tothereforefocusonnegotiation.


15/36

Page15of36

AlthoughnegotiationispresentedinKalowskisspectrumasbeingthemostconsensualprocess,

wherethepartiesretainfullautonomy,andwherethereisnobodyelsepresenttoevaluatetheprocess

orwithwhomapartycanseekacoalitionindecidingwhoisrightandwhoiswrong,thereisanatural

tendencyforhumanstotrytousepowerorpersuasiontoconvincetheotherpartytoletthedominant

partyhavethings itsway. Thus,althoughnegotiationsmaystartoffpleasantandconsensual,there is

alsoatendencyforthemtobecomeincreasinglyconflictual,whichiswhythirdpartiesareoftenbrought

intohelpresolvethematter,ortosimplydecideit.

Thereare two fundamentallydifferentmodesofnegotiationpossible,which typically lead to

different forms of human behavior: one is intuitive, and resorts to our natural neurobiological

tendencies(the10neurocommandments),andtheotherone iscounterintuitive,butcan leadtoa

better social process and optimize Csystem thinking to envisage and create new solutions. The

formertypeofnegotiationiscalledpositionalnegotiation,inwhichtwopartiesrealizethattheyhave

differentpositions

as

to

what

should

be

an

acceptable

outcome,

and

seek

to

persuade

and

influence

oneanother (exertingpressure ifnecessary)toabandon theirrespectivepositions. The lattertypeof

negotiation is called interestbased negotiation (sometimes also referred to as problemsolving

negotiation),wherethepartiestrytoavoidtakingpositionsbutseekto identifyoneanothersneeds

andconcerns,andjointlyexploreoptionsformutualgain. Muchhasbeenwrittenaboutbothtypesof

negotiation, but they merit being reviewed once again in light of the possible neurobiological

implicationsthatusingonesystemornegotiationmayentailasopposedtoanother,andinlightofthe

10neurocommandmentspresentedinsectionIIabove. Althoughitispossibletoframethisdebatein

terms of positional (or adversarial or competitive) as opposed to interestbased (or

cooperativeoramicable)negotiation,thisanalysisextendsnotonlytonegotiationbuttoallforms

ofADR,wherethenaturalhumanreflextoresolvemattersadversariallyorcompetitively(i.e.,starting

frompositions)alsotendstoinfluencethewaysinwhichneutralstendtobeappointedandused(e.g.,

asevaluativeneutrals,asopposedtononevaluativeneutrals).

ApositionalnegotiationorADRprocessisessentiallyacompetitiveoradversarialprocess. Itisa

tugofwarofpositions,eachsidetryingtoinfluencetheotherpartytoreachacompromiseclosertoits

ownstartingposition. Thisisanaturalandinstinctivewayofresolvingdisputes,whereeachpartywill

useacombinationofcarrotsand sticks toactivateaway reflexesandtowards reflexesand try to

influence the other disputant. By definition, the parties separate and distinguish themselves as

belongingtooneoranothercamp,asseparategroups,whichmakesitmoredifficulttoempathizewith

oneanorther.

Parties

will

often

use

power

(financial,

social,

reputational

or

otherwise)

to

convince

the

otherpartytomoveintheirdirection,andwillleveragetheirlegalrightsandthreatenintermsofwhat

mighthappen inacourtof lawasa sanction fornotbehaving. This formofnegotiation isbasicand

instinctive. Itactivateslonglastinganddominantfearreflexes. Itleadstopsychologicalphenomenaof

anchoring(wherebyeachpartywillrefusetomakeafurtherconcessionorshift itspositionuntil ithas

seenasignfromtheothersidethatitiswillingtomakeasimilarconcessionorequallyshiftitsposition)

aswellas reactivedevaluation (whereanoffer from theotherparty isviewedasa risk inviewof its

source, and is consequently automatically rejected ordevalued). These sorts of conflicts frequently

escalateas the frustrationbuildsup,whileeachpartyaccuses theotherofbeing intransigent. What

seemed to initiallybeperceivedas theother sides inability tounderstand rapidlyescalates tobeing


16/36

Page16of36

perceivedasstubbornness,bad faith,orathreatthatneedstobecontrolled, initiallyby limitedsteps

andultimatelybya formofwar. Neutralsareoftenbrought intosuchnegotiationswhen theparties

starttohitawall. Theinstinctisstilltousetheneutralcompetitively,however,byaskingthemtotakea

positionaswell,orseekingtocreateacoalitionwiththatneutral. Whereasneutralscaninvokethelaw,

rightsorexternalobjectivenormstotryandactfairly,ortoreachanoutcomethatwillbedeemedtobe

inaccordancewithsocialnorms, this too isessentiallyapositionalapproach,usingexternally shaped

normsas thebasis for reachinganoutcome. Insuchcases,althoughaneutralwillstartoffasbeing

impartial,theneutralwillbepulledtoonesideoranotherandwillusuallyenduptakingonepartysside

overtheothers,basedontheirevaluationofthelawandthefacts. Bythetimeanawardisrendered,

anarbitrator isoftenperceivedasbeingpartial,nomatterthecaretakentotrytoact,andbeseento

act, impartially. Iftheneutral isactingasamediator,(s)he isstill likelytobepushedbythepartiesto

expressaviewinfavorofonesideasopposedtoanother. Mediatorsmaybeaskedtofacilitatepurely

positional

negotiations,

where

it

is

common

for

the

parties

to

try

and

convince

the

mediator

to

put

pressureontheotherside incaucus. Thesemediationsoften involvetheneutraldoinga lotofreality

testingwiththeparties,andrelyinggreatlyoncaucusesorprivatesessions. Mediatorswhenfacilitating

suchpositionalorcompetitivenegotiationswilloftenusebracketing techniquestoalloweachside to

demonstratetheirwillingnesstocompromiseiftheotherwillreciprocatefairlyandcompromiseaswell,

dependingonhowdeeplyanchoredorentrenchedtheyarewithrespecttotheirpositions. Positional

negotiations or ADR processes may be viewed neurobiologically in terms of the 10 neuro

commandmentsasdiagrammaticallydepictedinFigure4below.

Figure4:Positional(CompetitiveorAdversarial)DisputeResolution

InpositionalADRprocessesthetenneurocommandmentsare likelytobeprimednegatively

duetotheinherentlycompetitiveoradversarialnatureoftheseprocesses. Thepartieswillnotbehave

empatheticallyand

expect

to

be

pressed

to

make

concessions.

They

will

expect

and

seek

to

avoid

pain,


17/36

Page17of36

are likelytobedominatedbypatternsoffear,mayhavenosenseofcertaintyorpredictabilitydueto

theirperceptionoftheothersirrationalorbadfaithbehavior,maybeinfluencedbystrongemotionsof

anger,are likelytoavoidallsocial interactionwiththeotherparty (oftenpreferringtospeakthrough

theirlawyers,orusingcaucusesifamediationhasbeenstarted),mayfeeltheirstatusbeingquestioned

orundermined(e.g.,havingbeenaccusedofwrongfulbehavior),maybecomecompletely incapableof

empathizinge at allwith the other side (who is viewed as belonging to an adversarial group),may

perceivethatotherasactingunfairly(thusfurtherexacerbatingsensesofpainorsocialexclusion),may

feeltheotherparty is impingingontheirautonomy,andmayberendered incapableofhighorderC

systemcognitivethinking,asdominantemotionalneuralnetworksmayconsumeoxygenandglucose

andlimittheabilityforobjectiveanddispassionateanalysis. Thisexplainsthetendenciesoftheparties

towardsanchoringandreactivedevaluation. Thelikelyresultofsuchprocesses,ifthepartieshavenot

beenabletoreachacompromisewithintheirzoneofpossibleagreement,andiftheneutralisnotable

to

change

the

process

or

impose

an

outcome

(as

in

arbitration)

is

further

escalation

of

the

conflict,

and

itisnotunheardofforpartiestorejectanarbitralawardandrefusetocomplywithit.36

The alternative form of negotiation or ADR processes, however, whereby the parties are

encouragednottofocusonthreatsorfears,butontheirinterests,aremuchlessinstinctiveorintuitive.

This reorientation of the parties attention to what is positive as opposed to negative can have

fundamentaleffectsontheirbehaviorandpermitentirelynewwaysofprocessingdatarelatingtothe

conflictintheirbrains,somewhatanalogouslytoDeMartinosexampleofreframingthingsaskeepv.

lose. PositionalnegotiationsorADRprocessestypicallyendinwinloseorloseloseoutcomes. It

ispossible,however,togeneratewinwinoutcomesusinginterestbasedADRprocesses,even inthe

most entrenched positional situations. This is where an understanding of the neurobiological

implicationsofvariousprocessesmaybekey. Thechoiceofprocessmay inandof itselfchange the

neuralpathways that are activated in thepartiesdecisionmakingnetworks, and lead to completely

unexpectedresultsorfaster,betterand/orcheaperoutcomesascomparedtopositionalADRprocesses.

ThisformofnegationwasfirstproposedbyRogerFisher,WilliamUryandBrucePattonintheirseminal

work Getting to Yes, and is sometimes referred to as problemsolving negotiation or dispute

resolution, whereby the parties work collaboratively on solving the problem rather than trying to

convinceoneanotherofanything.

InterestbasednegotiationorADRprocessesarecounterintuitiveandhighlycognitive,requiring

heightenedcorticalthinking. Theyrequireconceptuallyseparatingthepartiesfromtheproblem(thus

depersonalizing

negative

personal

emotions),

focusing

on

interests

rather

than

positions

(invoking

towardsreflexesasopposedtoawayreflexes)andinvokingmutualneedsratherthanindependent

strategies. In interestbasednegotiationsorADRprocesses,thepartiesareencouragedtounderstand

oneanothers alternatives to a negotiated agreement (i.e., their best, worst, probable and/or

reasonable alternatives to a negotiated agreement referred to in ADRjargon as their respective

BATNAs,WATNAs,PATNAsand/orRATNAs),butnot for thepurposeof inducingpositionalor

36 Theescalationofconflicts in suchcases isperfectlymappedout innine stepsbyFriedrichGlasl inhisbook

ConfrontingConflict,HawthornPress(2002). These9stepscanfurthermorebeusedtodiagnosetheconflictand

craftappropriate interventions. TheyarediscussedbelowatSection IV. Seealso J.Lack (2011)at footnote39,

supra.


18/36

Page18of36

competitivebehavior. Thepurposeofunderstandingthesealternativesisrathertoprovideareference

point with respect to time, costs, possible outcomes and likely consequences if no agreement is

reached,and tosee ifthepartiescanworkcooperatively togenerateoutcomes thatwouldbebetter

than their respective BATNAs or PATNAs.37 This involves working cooperatively, brainstorming to

exploreandgeneratenewpossible solutions (basedonneedsand interests)beforeevaluating them,

andseekingoptionsformutualgainthatcanbe implementedormonitoredusingobjectivecriteria,so

thatbothpartieswillhaveanincentivetocomplywiththefinaloutcome. Suchprocessesalsocreatea

senseofsharedpurposeandcancreateanewsenseofbelongingtothesamegroup,wheretheparties

aremore likely to empathizewith oneanother and seek to cooperate. Where these processes are

properlyhandled,thereislittlechanceoftheconflictescalatingandthepartiesareoftenabletocome

upwithsolutionsthatwouldnothavebeendreamedasevenbeingremotelypossibleusingapositional,

competitiveoradversarialADRprocess.

Figure5:

Interest

Based

(Cooperative

or

Amicable)

Dispute

Resolution

The neurobiological impact of using nonevaluative interestbased or problemsolving ADR

processes is summed up diagrammatically in Figure 5. From the perspective of the ten neuro

commandments,suchprocessesare likelytoactivateneuralpathwaysanddecisionmakingprocesses

thatareverydifferentfromthosenormallyusedinpositionalADRprocesses. Theyarelikelytotrigger

ingroup behavioural patterns and allow the parties to empathize naturally, and generate trust

betweenthemselves. Byseekingacooperativeapproach from theverybeginning, thedisputantsare

37 Usually one partys Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) will be the other partys Worst

Alternativeto

aNegotiated

Agreement

(WATNA)

and

vice

versa.


19/36

Page19of36

notconditionedtorespondtopotentialfearsbuttotryandshapeandgeneratetheirownrewards. If

the techniques ofGetting to Yes (and related literature) are skillfully applied, it is likely that away

reflexeswillbeabatedandthepartieswillactivatereward (andtowardsreflex)circuits. Ifthreats

are removed, the parties should bemorewilling to engage in dialogue, listen to oneanother, and

engage in instinctive empathy and cognitive perspectivetaking (which is more energy consuming).

Socialgregarious impulses createa senseof ingroup cohesivenessas thepartiesjointly tackle the

problems that face them. The absence of any evaluative third party in interestbased negotiations

means thatno coalitions canbe sought, so there are reduced risks to status, lossof faceor lossof

autonomy. The reduced activation of the anterior insular cortex (the AI) is likely to allowmore

interpersonal phenomena, such as compassion, fairness and cooperation. Most importantly, by

breakingtheprocessdownintoajointexercise,wherethepartiesalignthemselvesbyseekingoptions

formutualgainthatcanbeobjectivelytrackedandimplemented,trust(andoxytocin)maybereleased,

X

system

standard

interpretation

of

patterns

of

behavior

may

be

abated,

and

the

parties

are

more

likelytobeabletoactivatetheirhigherlevelCsystemanalyticalpathwaystoassessthesituationfrom

adifferentperspective. ThisisthelogicbehindCollaborativeLaw,wherebythepartiesandtheircounsel

forsakefuturelitigationandcommittoresolvingadisputecooperativelybyjointlysigningaparticipation

agreementobligingthelawyerstowithdrawfromengaging inany litigiousactivities ifnegotiationsare

not successful. Indoing so,partiesand their counseleffectively commit toworking ina cooperative

frameworkwithgreatersocialintegrationandenhancedcorticalthinking. Suchprocessesoftendonot

includeaneutralforfearthataneutralmaystarttoactevaluatively.

Bringinginaneutral,however,canbringmanybenefits,evenininterestbasednegotiationsor

in collaborative law situations. If skilled facilitatorsarebrought in to actnonevaluatively, theymay

have an immediate systemic effect and theirmere presencemay immediately provoke unconscious

changes instatus. It is important,however, fortheseneutralsto realizethepotential impactoftheir

additional presence, and to adapt themselves and their social behavior to build upon preexisting

cooperativeandingroupbehavioralreflexes. Itisallthemoreimportantinsuchcasesfortheneutral

nottoactevaluatively,nottoassertahighsenseofstatus,nortoactas ifthiswereapositionalADR

process. Theyshouldunderstandtheirrolenotonlytobeprimarilyfacilitativebut inthecontextofa

socialprocess.

Although two different approaches of positional v. interestbased ADR may sound

somewhat theoretical and evenutopian, they are commonlyusedwith great successby skilledADR

professionals.It

is

extremely

important

for

the

parties

and

these

professionals,

however,

to

understand

how their role and presencemay impact the neurobiological propensities of the parties and their

counsel to perceive or process things differently depending on whether a

positional/competitive/adversarialADR framework isused,oran interestbased/cooperative/amicable

ADRframeworkisused. Itisimportanttoalsoremember,however,thathumansarebiologicallyprimed

toinstinctivelyusethepriorADRframeworkbydefault,andthattheseprocesseshaveexistedsincethe

dawnoftime. Theseprocessescorrespondtohumannatureandthewaydisputantsandtheircounsel

arehardwired,andare likelytoprefertoactasanimals,whenresolvingconflicts. InterestbasedADR

processes aremoredifficult to explainor implement in viewof their counterintuitivenature. They

often require suspendingdisbeliefandsettingasidenatural instincts. This isoneof the reasonswhy


20/36

Page20of36

manydisputantsandlawyerswillpreferlitigationovermediation,andwhysofewcaseswillactualend

upinmediationintheabsenceofexternalpressurefromjudgesorpublicpolicypressuretodoso. The

useofhybridADRprocessesmaybeofparticular interesthere,as thepartiescanseek tooperateat

bothlevelssimultaneouslyorsequentially:followingtheirnaturaltendenciestoactcompetitivelybutat

thesametimeallowingthemtoapproachtheconflictinanewway,withthebenefitsthatcooperative

problemsolvingoftenentail. OnceinterestbasedADRprocesseshavebeenimplementedtheytendto

workextremelysmoothlyandreducetheriskof furtherconflictescalation. Theycanalsoprovide far

betteroutcomesthanpositional,competitiveoradversarialADRprocesses. Theneuralpathwaysofthe

partiesandtheircounselbecomeattunedtobuildingrapportandworkingcooperativelyasateam.

Inmany situations, however, there is no real choice. Collaborative Law processes succeed

becausethe lawyers involved inthemarehighlyskilledandtrained in interestbasednegotiation. The

formality of the process (e.g., the signing of a participation agreement) creates a clear ingroup

dynamicwhere

the

team

is

united

on

its

desire

(and

need)

to

reach

amutually

acceptable

outcome

throughcooperativebehavior. It isdifficultfordisputantsor lawyers,however,whohavehad littleor

notrainingininterestbasedADRtoabandontheirpositions,exposetheirintereststooneanother,take

stockoftheiremotionsandtheirpatternsofcognitivereflection,andindulgeinempathybuilding. Itis

forthisreasonthatbringinginaneutralcanbehelpfulasacomplementtonegotiation,andwhycourt

annexedADRprogramsaretobeencouraged. Onceagain,thechoiceastowhichtypeofADRprocess

or neutral to use, andwhat skills tobring in, is very important. Should thisneutralbedirectiveor

facilitative,nonevaluativeorevaluative?38 Ifevaluative,shouldthisbeasanormgeneratingneutral,a

normeducating neutral, or a normadvocating neutral?39 The choices canbe laid out in amodified

RiskinGridasshownbelowinFigure6.

38 SeeL.L.Riskin,Decisionmaking inMediation:TheNewOIdGridandtheNewNewGridSystem,NotreDame

LawReview,Vol.79:1,pp.153(December2003)39

SeeE.Waldman,IdentifyingtheRoleofSocialNormsinMediation:AMultipleModelApproach,HastingsLaw

Journal,Vol.

48

No.

4(1997)


21/36

Page21of36

Figure6:SelectingADRProcessesusingaRiskinGrid

Each of these neutrals or styles of ADR processesmay activate the neural pathways of the

partiesandtheircounseldifferently,dependingonhowtheneutralsrole isperceived. It is important

forthe

parties

to

decide

ifthey

wish

the

neutral

to

act

amediator,

aconciliator

or

an

arbitrator,

which

going back to Kalowskis ADR spectrum, reflects three different zones in the ADR spectrum. It is

important to differentiate between these three types of ADR neutral, as each process is likely to

implicatethetenneurocommandmentsdifferently.

There is considerable confusion in the international conflict resolution circles between the

wordsmediationandconciliation,whicharebelievedbymanylawyerstobesynonymous,butarein

fact very differentprocesses from a neurobiological perspective. In order to better understand the

differencebetweenmediation and conciliation, it isuseful to startwith arbitration, and to compare

themvisuallyasisdonebelow.


22/36

Page22of36

Figure7:Arbitration,ConciliationandMediationCompared(J.Kalowski)

Arbitration, conciliation and mediation are three commonly available forms of Appropriate

DisputeResolution. Understanding thedifferencesbetween them is importantwhenassessing these

proceduralchoices

from

aneurobiological

perspective,

as

mediation

is

anon

evaluative

process

(where


23/36

Page23of36

noevaluationorcoalitioncanbesoughtwith theneutral),whereas inconciliationandarbitrationthe

neutralssubjectmatterexpertise is typicallysought tohelpsetnorms,makeproposalsordecidethe

matter (acting evaluatively and as a person with whom a coalition can be built). This distinction

betweenarbitration,conciliationandmediation isvery important fromaneurobiologicalperspective,

butisoftenconfused,especiallyininternationalcommercialdisputes.40

Inarbitrationthepartiesdelegatecontroloftheprocessandtheoutcometoathirdparty,the

arbitratororpanelofarbitrators sitting as an arbitral tribunal. The resolutionof thedispute is thus

decidedbythearbitraltribunal. ThisisaclearpositionalADRprocess. Theroleofthelawyersandthe

objectiveofthepartiesistoconvincethetribunaltoresolvethematterinaccordancewiththepositions

onwhichthetribunalhasbeenbriefed,andwhichthelawyershaveadvocated.

Inconciliation, theprocess issomewhatpositional,butalso lessclearly so than inarbitration.

Theconciliator

acts

somewhat

as

an

arbitrator,

but

does

not

have

the

power

to

resolve

the

matter.

The

conciliatoractsevaluatively,byidentifyingobjectivenormsbywhichtheprocesswouldbeinvolvedbya

tribunalorcourt. Theconciliatortypicallyhelpsthepartiestounderstandtheparametersthatcouldbe

usedtodispositiveofthematter,andtounderstandthekeyelementsineachpartyslineofreasoning,

identifying key issues of fact or law. It is ultimately a process of helping the parties to reach a

compromisewithinaZoneofPossibleAgreement(ZOPA)definedbythepartiespositions. Basedonthe

conciliators understanding of the applicable law or the rules of the relevant industry by whose

standardsasolutionmaybesought,thepartiesareassistedinidentifyingprecedents,rulesoracademic

doctrines thatwould suggest an outcome. The conciliator helps the parties to understand possible

outcomethatwouldbereachedapplyingthesenorms,andhelpsthepartiestosetanewZOPAinwhich

theycan

negotiate

an

outcome

similar

to

what

the

law

or

another

objective

process

would

provide

for,butdoingsomorespeedilyorcosteffectively. Theconciliatorcanalsomakeproposalsbasedon

theseparameters,andsuggestpossibleoutcomestothepartiesbasedonthesenorms. Conciliation is

thus a process that can be procedurally facilitative, but substantively evaluative, since possible

outcomesareidentifiedandresolvedbymeansofobjectivenormsandcriteria. Itremains,however,a

positionalandcompetitiveprocess,albeitonewherethepartieshavegreaterautonomy.

40

This

confusion

between

conciliation

and

mediation

is

captured

by

the

UNCITRAL

Model

Law

on

International

Commercial Conciliation (2002). Article 1(3) of the Model Law states that For the purposes of this Law,

conciliationmeansaprocess,whetherreferredtobytheexpressionconciliation,mediationoranexpressionof

similarimport,wherebypartiesrequestathirdpersonorpersons(theconciliator)toassistthemintheirattempt

to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute arising out of or relating to a contractual or other legal

relationship.The conciliatordoesnothave theauthority to imposeupon thepartiesa solution to thedispute.

(Emphasisadded). YetunderArticle6(4)itisclearthattheUNCITRALmodellawisaimedatanevaluativeprocess,

sinceitstates:Theconciliatormay,atanystageoftheconciliationproceedings,makeproposalsforasettlement

ofthedispute. (Emphasisadded). MediationpuristswoulddeemthistomeanthattheUNCITRALmodellawis

notdirected tomediationwherenoproposal shouldeverbemadeby theneutral butonly toconciliation,

whereaconciliatorisencouragedtomakeproposalsandcanbeusedcompetitivelyasaresult. Puristswillargue

thatamediatorshouldnevermakesettlementproposals,andinanyeventnotatanearlystageoftheproceedings

orbeforehavingbeenaskedtodosobyallparties. Fromaneurobiologicalperspectivethesedifferencesarequite

fundamental.They

spell

out

the

differences

between

acompetitive

ADR

process

and

acooperative

one.


24/36

Page24of36

Inmediation,however,theprocessoughttobepurelycooperativeandinterestbased.41 There

isnoZOPA. Norarethereanyobjectivecriteria. Thegoalinmediationisforthemediatortofocuson

eachpartys subjectivedesires,and tohelp them toarticulate themand reachanoutcomebasedon

thesesubjectiveconsiderations,whichwillbemutuallysatisfactorytobothsides. Unlikeaconciliator,a

mediator refrains frommaking proposals unless requested to do so by both parties or as part of a

generalbrainstormingexercise toproposenewoptions. Themediatorsjob is tohelp theparties to

reacha resolutionto thedispute that isbasedontheirsubjectiveneedsand interests, looking to the

future.42 From aneurobiologicalperspective, thejobof amediatormaybedescribed asminimizing

perceptionsofdanger,enablingcognitiveappreciationsofemotions(e.g.,verbalizingthem)todampen

amygdalaandhelpthepartiesselfregulate,recognizeADRnotonlyasafacilitatednegotiation,butas

partofasocialprocessinwhichthedisputantscanrelateingroup,bond,demonstrateempathy,and

buildcomfortablesocialrelations. ThemediatorenablesthepartiesinsodoingtodampenXsystem

cognition,

and

resort

to

C

system

optimal

decision

making,

allowing

cognitive

assessments

of

possible

rewards(perspectivetakingv.empathy)toshapefutureoutcomescooperatively.

This isnottosaythatmediation isbetterthanarbitrationorconciliation. Eachdisputehas its

owndynamicandallthreeprocesseshavethebenefitofenhancingreflectivev.reflexiveappreciation,

albeitindifferentways. Eachone,whenmanagedproperly,canassistthepartiesinreachingoutcomes

thatcanbeenforced(ifnecessary)orcompliedwith,andfasterandcheaperoutcomesthanresortingto

traditionallitigiouspathways. Eachonehasitsrespectiveadvantagesanddisadvantages,whenassessed

intermsofwherethepartiesarelocatedintermsofconflictescalation. Thereisahigherrisk,however,

afteranawardisissuedbyanarbitratororaproposaloropinionarerenderedbyaconciliator,forthe

partiestoviewitasunfairorbiased,evenifthiscanbeprovennottohavebeenthecase.43 Thepointis

that these variousADRprocesses should allbe consideredandassessed inparallel, in termsof their

41 ThismorethecaseincontinentalEuropethaninNorthAmericaandtheUK,wheremediationisconsideredto

be a dispute resolution process that is distinct and separate from conciliation. In theUSA andUK, however,

mediationisoftencombinedwithorhandledinthesamewayasconciliation,asasomewhatevaluativeprocess. It

isoftenthecasethatmediationsarerunasasingledaylongprocessinthesecountries,wherethemediatorstarts

offactingnonevaluatively inthemorning (e.g.,purely facilitatively),butbecomes increasinglyevaluativeduring

theday (and thus, changing intoa conciliator) closer to theendof theday,when theneutralhashad several

caucusesduringthedayandhasanideaastowherethecasemightsettle. Itisalsoincreasinglycommoninthese

countries forthepartiesandthemediatortoproposethat (s)hemakesamediatorssettlementproposalatthe

end

of

the

day

if

the

case

does

not

settle,

which

means

that

the

parties

tend

to

view

the

neutral

as

a

person

whose

opinionmatters,andneedstobeinfluenced. Thefocusisthuslessontheothersidesunderstandingandinterests

thanontryingtoinfluencethemediatorcompetitivelytoformaviewofthecaseclosertothepartyspositions.42

This distinction betweenmediation and other forms ofADR is captured in the Swiss Rules of Commercial

Mediation,asfollows:Mediationisanalternativemethodofdisputeresolutionwherebytwoormorepartiesaska

neutralthirdparty,themediator,toassistthem insettlingadisputeor inavoidingfutureconflicts.Themediator

facilitates the exchange of opinions between the parties and encourages them to explore solutions that are

acceptable toall theparticipants.Unlikeanexpert themediatordoesnotofferhisorherown viewsnormake

proposalslikeaconciliator,andunlikeanarbitratorheorshedoesnotrenderanaward.(Introduction,p.5,para.

2,emphasisadded).

43 SeeB.Bediouetal,Effectsofoutcomesandrandomarbitrationonemotions inacompetitivegamblingtask,

Frontiersin

Emotion

Science

(in

publication).


25/36

Page25of36

possible neurobiological impact on the parties, their counsel and their mental decisionmaking

processes,takingintoaccountthetenneurocommandments.

IV.

CONFLICTESCALATION

THEORY

AND

PROCESS

DESIGN

Anunderstandingofthetenneurocommandmentsclearlysuggeststhatthetypeofprocess

that is used is likely to have a huge influence on the outcome. It gives credence to David Plants

quotation at thebeginning of this article,which is often a blind spot inmany litigations. Once a

processhasbeenchosen itactuallybecomespartoftheproblem itself. Thepartiesandtheircounsel

often limittheirthinking towhat theprocess requires,andwillbeconditioned tobehave inacertain

way, trapped by their unconscious patterns of perception and behaviour, and only using their

traditionalXsystemnetworks,thusoftengraduallyleadingtoincreasinglyentrenchedpositionsoran

inability to look to the futureor to seekpossibleoutcomes formutual gain that analyse the clients

interestsdifferently.

Muchhasbeenwrittenaboutthedangersofconflictescalationandthepropensityofpositional

orcompetitiveADRprocessestoescalateiftheydonotresolvethemselves,oriftheneutralisnotable

to assist the parties in reaching an agreement or imposing an outcome. Conflict escalation theory,

however, isa topicseldom taught in lawschools. Yet it isavitalelementto take intoaccountwhen

designingADRprocesses. Itisnotatopiconthebarexamofmostcountriesorstatesanditisaconcept

manylawyersarenotfamiliarwithatall. Theconceptcanbehelpfultodiagnoseandidentifywherea

conflict currently stands, and itspropensity to escalate furtheror todeescalate. This can help the

partiestoreflectonpossibleneurobiologicalmechanisms influencingtheprocess,whichmayevenbe

driving

its

escalation.

Identifying

a

conflict

along

a

measurable

scale

(even

if

it

requires

subjective

appraisal) allows parties and their counsel to think numerically,where and how they are currently

positionedonit,andwhichareaofthescaletheywouldliketoresolvetheirdispute. Thesimpleactof

askingthepartiesandtheircounseltonumericallystatewheretheyareonascaleandwheretheythink

theotherparty ison the same scale, can triggernew thinking andperspectivetaking,using cortical

pathwaystorevealunexpectedanswers.

AnexampleofsuchascaleistheninestepdiagnostictestdevelopedbyProf.FriedrichGlasl,an

Austrianneutralandconsultant. Itisextremelyhelpfulwhenanalysingconflictsfromaneurobiological

perspectiveandwhen thinkingofappropriateprocedural interventions. Glasls9 step scale suggests

thattherearethreepossiblezonesinwhichthepartiesmaywishtoresolveaconflict:awinwinzone

(which is essentially where interestbased ADR is practiced, and where the parties can work

cooperatively), a winlose zone, (in which there can be a winner and a loser in a conventional

positionalADRprocess),andaloselosezone(wherethepartiesmaybestuckandmayfeelthatthey

need a third party neutral to simply come in and decide the situation for them).44 This scenario is

termed loselose because even if the neutral (e.g., an arbitrator) is capable of fully resolving the

matterinacosteffectiveandrapidmanner,theemotions,time,energyandotherresourcesthathave

beenspenttodateaswellaslostrelationshipscanneverberecouped.

44 F.Glasl,Konfliktmanagement.EinHandbuchfrFhrungskrfte,BeraterinnenundBerater, (Bern:PaulHaupt

Verlag,1997).

See

also

www.trigon.at.


26/36

Page26of36

Figure8:Glasls9StepsofConflictEscalationandADROptions

ThesethreezonescorrespondtoGlaslsninestepsintheconflictescalationscaleasindicatedin

Figure 9 above. This escalation cycle is typical in positional ADR processes, which are the default

methodswe

use

to

resolve

conflict,

and

each

step

merits

further

attention

and

can

be

described

as

follows:

1. Stage1:Disagreement TheProblem: Thepartiesbecomeawarethattheyhavedifferentviews

aboutan issue. Thedisagreementtakesonthedimensionofaproblem,wherethepartiesstartto

discusstheproblemandseektobringtheotherpartyaroundtotheirlineofthinking. Iftheycannot

agree,theirviewsthentendtohardenintopositions.

2. Stage2:Debate&PolemicThePeople: Theproblemhasturned intoapositionaldispute. The

partiesarearguinganddebatingtheirrespectivepositions. Theywishtheothertounderstandthe

logicandstrengthoftheirposition,andtoagreewithit. Ifadebatehasnotresolvedthematter,a

senseoffrustrationsetsin,andthepartiesenterStage3.

3. Stage3:Actions,notWords: Oneorbothsideswillstarttotakeaction. Thepartiesperceptions

arethattheyhavetriedtonegotiateingoodfaithbutfailed,andthattheotherisbeingobstinate,

unreasonable or in bad faith. Communication breaks down as each party believes that further

discussion isuseless. Thenatural step in theescalation cycle is Stage4, as theparties feel that

nothingcanbeachievedthroughfurtherdialogue.

4. Stage4:ImagesandCoalitions: Thedisputantsstartcreatinggroupsorcamps,seekingrecognition

frompeers,leadersorexpertsastothecorrectnessoftheirpositionandtoreinforcetheirimageof

themselvesasbeingrightandtheotherpartyasbeingwrong. Theyareinpain. Havingfailedto

convince theother side,each side tries to convince thirdparties to confirm theyare right,or to

intervene

on

their

behalf.


27/36

Page27of36

5. Stage5:LossofFace: Themomentapartyhassucceeded inwinningoveragroupofpeople,the

othersidewillseeitsimageasbeingtarnishedandasbeingunderattack. Theresultisperceivedas

adeliberatelossoffacedeliberatelycausedbytheotherparty. Incollectivistsocietiesthismaygive

rise toprofound feelingsofshame. Publicrefutation isnow required. Thisrefutationmustshow

thattheotherdisputant isneitherright,norreasonablebutsimplywrong,causinghim/hertoalso

lose facewithinhis/herowncommunity. There isastrongsenseofangerorhumiliationthathas

beencreated,whichrequirescorrectivemeasures. Thepartieswillalsostartattributingantagonistic

intentionstotheotherpartysobservedbehaviour.

6. Stage6:ManagementofThreat:ByStage6,theothersidesbehaviourandrefusaltochangehas

nowbecomea threat thatmustbemanagedand contained. Therearenow clearly two groups:

thosewhoarerightandthosewhoarewrong. Thedisputantswillstarttomakecounterthreats

andimposeultimatums. Lettersbeforelegalactionwillbesent. Partiesarenowentrenchedintheir

positions

and

there

is

mutual

fear

given

that

their

initial

threats

and

deadlines

have

not

been

heeded. If the threatwill not disappear, remedial actionwill be needed. The brain resorts to

instinctivepressuretacticstoconvincetheothersidetogivein.

7. Stage7:LimitedDestructiveBlows: Theparties feelcompelled to takeprotectivemeasuresand

start toexert realpressure, suchas initiating legalproceedings. They feel theyhavebecome the

agents of the other partys actions, and are compelled to take appropriatemeasures to defend

themselves. They perceive their actions as reasonably constrained and feel that they aremere

respondingtotheotherpartysintransigence,havingnootheroptions. Theirautonomyisseriously

impinged. By now, all communication between the parties is deemed to be useless and even

counterproductive. The disputants prefer to communicate only via their lawyers, and all social

relationsand

opportunities

to

restore

relations

are

cut

off.

It

is

now

amatter

of

survival

and

protecting oneself. Fear and the away reflex has become the fundamental factor driving the

partiesbehaviour.

8. Stage8:FragmentationoftheEnemy: Atthisstagethepartiesareinpureselfpreservationmode.

Theconsequencesofeachpartys limiteddestructiveblows isthattheotherpartyfeelswounded,

andunderincreasedpressuretotakeevenmoreforcefulanddemonstrablemeasures. Theconcern

isnotbecomingoneofsurvival. Asthepartiesincreasethepressureononeanother,thisleadsto

furtherfragmentationandthepartiesstartfightingopenly. Atthisstage,theotherpartyceasesto

beconsideredasapersonbutasanenemy. Itneedstobedealtwithonceandforall. Noempathy

orhumancontactisevenconceivable.

9.

Stage9:

Together

in

the

Abyss:

By

this

stage,

the

parties

are

no

longer

reasoning

in

terms

of

their

ownpreservation. Angerandadesiretopunishtheotherstartstosetin. Inextremecases,thegoal

hasnolongerbecomewinningthedisputebutsimplyinflictingthegreatestamountofdamageand

destroyingtheotherparty. Atthisstagetheconcern isnotonlyaboutsurvival,butpunishingthe

enemy and exacting revenge. Mattershave degraded so far that inflicting greaterharmon the

othersidethantheyhaveinflictedthemselvesbecomesaseriousmotivation. Thedesiretodestroy

the other side overtakes everything else. Whether the disputant loses all of its assets, has to

fabricateevidence,hastolie,gobankrupt,orriskajailsentenceisnolongerimportanttothem,so

longastheothersideisdestroyed.Thisphaseisaptlycalledtogetherintotheabyss.


28/36

Page28of36

It is possible to see from Figure 8 how these nine steps correspond to the ten neuro

commandments, and to understand how each of these ten social and behavioural drivers can be

impacted by procedural interventions as the conflict escalates. The challenge becomes how to de

escalatetheconflict,andmoveitbackintothegreenwinwinzone,ifpossibleandifthisiswhatthe

partieswish. It is also important at this stage to realisehow thepresenceof anevaluativeornon

evaluativeneutralcanmakeabigdifference. Theborderbetweenstages3and4iscrucial,sincethatis

wherethepresenceoftheneutralmayshiftthepartiesbehaviourfromapositional/competitivestance

intoan interestbased/cooperativeone. Thiscanoccurbothways. Bringing ina facilitative (butnon

evaluativeneutral)canhaveanimpactatallstagesoftheconflictevenatstage9sinceitallowsthe

partiestotaketimeoutto focusforamomentonpossiblerewardsandwhether,and ifsohow,they

wishtobringtheconflictbackintothegreenzone. Thiscanoftenbeachievedbyusingcombinationsof

ADRprocessesandhybrids.45 Whereasarbitrationscanbeveryeffective in the red zone,where the

parties

feel

incapable

of

resolving

the

problem

themselves

any

longer,

conciliations

can

help

the

parties

to compromise rapidly and cheaply the yellow zone. Mediation, however, remains a ubiquitous

possibility,thatcanhelpthepartiesreachthegreenzoneandstaywithin it. Theneutral inthiscase,

however,mustbeverycarefulandconsciousoftheconsequencesofbecomingevaluativeandallowing

the conflict tomigrate to step 4. By acting evaluatively the neutral runs the risk of escalating the

process once again through the creation of a coalition, thus reactivating competitive and positional

neuralpathways.

Viewed differently, it is possible to caricaturize the escalation process in terms of neural

pathwaysand regionsof thebrain thatexertakey influenceonhow thecase isevolving

j. lack & f. bogacz -- the neurophysiology of adr and process design (neuroawareness)

Documents