Engaging in Perspective-Taking Does Not Always Make One Open-Minded

In a word, “untested assumptions and beliefs” are biases. That phase is included in the Report of the Task Force on Research on Mediation Techniques issued by the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution in 2017 as follows:

Whether expressly or implicitly, mediation programs, trainers, and practitioners make assertions about which mediator actions and approaches are ‘best,’ often based on untested assumptions and beliefs . . . . The Task Force was created to learn what existing empirical evidence tells us about which mediator actions enhance mediation outcomes and which have detrimental effects and to disseminate that information to the field, with the ultimate goals of fostering additional empirical research and enhancing mediation quality . . . . Forty-seven studies, thirty-nine involving only mediation and eight involving another process in addition to or instead of mediation, were included in the Task Force’s review.

The report addresses the pros and cons associated with different mediation techniques. Some of the techniques tested have potential negative consequences associated with them and no upsides. While it is true that just because something has potential risks associated with it does not mean that any or all of those risks will occur in any given situation, if something has been found to have no upsides and only potential downsides, one might question its use. That has generally not been my experience when the information in this report is mentioned to mediators (and attorneys). Instead, what I’ve typically observed is mediators who use those techniques discounting the value of the report, stating that the information in the report is biased, explaining that the potential risks are somehow inapplicable to the mediations they handle, or insisting that the potential negative consequences associated with different techniques do not apply to the mediations they conduct.

In all fairness, on occasion, a mediator will acknowledge the credibility of the research, yet state that it will not impact their approach because the lawyers who use them insist on their continued use of those same techniques. Even so, do those mediators at least inform the lawyers of the research, such that the lawyers can engage in their own cost/benefit analysis, and hopefully share the information with their clients?

I find myself constantly reminded of a scene from Disney•Pixar's film Inside Out in which Joy knocks over two boxes, one labeled Facts and the other Opinions. The contents of both boxes fall out and get mixed together. Joy expresses concern and says, "Oh no! These facts and opinions look so similar!" Bing Bong responds by saying, "Ah, don't worry about it — happens all the time!" Bing Bong is correct; however, that confusion is a major source of conflict and impediment to conflict and dispute resolution, something one would expect mediators to understand.

When the topic of bias is taught to children in the United Kingdom, it is explained as follows:

At the simplest level, ‘bias’ expresses the difference between fact and opinion.

That is exactly what the above referenced report was intended to achieve. Unfortunately, it seems that managing biases is far easier said than done because people get so attached to their opinions, regardless of the degree to which they are based upon thorough research and thoughtful analysis, if at all.

Left unchecked, biases cause people to constrict and distort the information they receive, understand, and consider, which leads to impaired thinking. When, if ever, is constricting and distorting the information heard, understood, and considered beneficial to one’s decision-making?

My point in sharing this is because people who are trained to perspective-take often associate it with reflective thinking and open-mindedness. They are not the same thing, even though they are related. Consider the following excerpt from The Reflective Parent by Regina Pally:

Being reflective means self-examination…. Reflective [thinking] is designed to help [people] resist the urge to be convinced that they are absolutely right about their perspective by helping them to reframe their observations and remain open-minded to other possibilities.

Listening to hear or even hear and understand other perspectives is not the same as truly considering them, assuming they are even accurately heard and understood.

Self-awareness, the foundation of emotional intelligence, and bias management go hand-in-hand because a person cannot hope to keep in check that of which they are unaware.

If being trained in and engaging in perspective-taking caused people to become more reflective and open-minded in their thinking, so many such people would not consider their opinions, beliefs, and that which they accept on faith equivalent or even superior to facts and evidence-based research. Developing and honing one’s emotional intelligence is not quite so easy – far from it.