In this post, once again, I thought I would provide some additional observations on an aspect of the mediation process. This post will comment on the relationship between neuroscience and conflict.
There are a number of studies in the booming area of neuroscience that focus on how the human brain relates to conflict and specifically on how male and female brains differ in that connection. For example, psychologically, females are usually thought to be superior in inter-personal sensitivity than males. That is a factor that is highly relevant to the issue of empathy, a critical element in the mediation context.
The entire issue of neuroscience is attractive because it deals with physical phenomena. It produces pictures of brain activity which may suggest universal behavioural features. In turn, this might enable mediators, counsel and parties to better understand decision-making processes and predict responses which people of a given gender, for example, may exhibit.
In my view, this type of study is particularly valuable to pick up where a mere economic analysis leaves off. Economics gives us expected value calculations and litigation risk analysis. It is based on the theory that decisions are made by rational people, who will act in a rational and logical manner in all circumstances.
Anyone with any life experience at all knows that this is simply not the case. Firstly, people do not act on a rational basis in every case and every time. Secondly, even where a party strives for rationality, what is rational behaviour to one person will not be rational to another. Put another way, many if not most decisions are capable of more than one approach which may appear to be rational to some but not to others. Variables in this connection likely include both culture and gender. They will also include neuroscientific considerations.
For example, according to neuroscience, people speak in a universal emotional language. The entire theory behind parties to a mediation gathering in a room and delivering opening statements is probably based on, or at least supported by, the theory of mirror neurons. The assumption is that people are hardwired for empathy which, as we now know, probably varies with gender. Taken at face value, this may suggest that as a practical matter, the extent to which mediators should permit parties to engage in face-to-face discussion may be influenced by whether or not one or both is male or female.
Unfortunately, the literature is not at all consistent in this area. Perhaps this is not surprising given the relative infancy of this area of study. For example, one author suggests that the ability to interpret facial expressions is unconnected with culture. On the other hand, there is evidence that suggests that the manner in which people perceive the facial expressions of others will indeed differ across cultures.
There is even controversy in the literature as to what mediators ought to do with this type of information. There are those who consider face-to-face discussion to be important to any party interested in convincing the opposing party of his or her sincerity. On the other hand, others consider face-to-face discussion to be highly problematic, at least in instances in which there is a perceived power imbalance between the parties.
While these nuances may be controversial, however, there appears to be solid evidence from neuroscientific studies as to the manner in which the brain reacts to emotionally charged issues such as those typical of conflict and efforts to resolve conflict.
For example, while it is normal and natural for a party to a legal dispute to feel angry, it would appear clear that such feelings represent an obstacle to settlement at least in the sense that angry people are less likely to make decisions in their own best interests.
Feelings of anger generally begin with a triggering event which causes a party to assess the relevance of a given situation to his own aspirations and the likelihood of achieving his own goals. The party will then focus on who is to blame for the problem and assess whether or not the person will be able to cope with the situation as well as the likelihood that the situation will improve. In the meantime, however, the party dealing with feelings of anger will be subject to an excessive amount of adrenaline produced in the brain. This hormone is produced by the adrenal glands when the body is in a state of high anxiety, fear or excitement. While it enhances alertness, and while neuroscience teaches us that emotion of this nature is an integral part of reason and the decision-making process, anger will affect cognitive processing and interfere with the ability to solve complex problems. It has even been suggested that regardless of personal levels of intelligence, during anger arousal, people perform generally as if they have a learning disability. Even subtle forms of anger impair problem-solving and general performance. In addition to increasing error rates, anger narrows mental focus, obscuring alternative perspectives.
The angry person has one “right way” of doing things, which, if selected in anger, is seldom the best way.
Neuroscience tells us that this limitation to a person’s access to rational cognitive functions will arise whenever a person is under stress or threat or feels shame. On the other hand, when the body senses safety, the nervous system becomes receptive to new information. This suggests that there is a need for mediators, counsel and parties to be aware of physical dynamics in order to reduce a party’s perception of threat and thereby increase the chances of a successful resolution.