Cognitive biases in mediation that might be “stuffing up your thinking”

 

Imagine resolving conflicts with a deeper understanding of the hidden forces shaping every decision. Unveiling the power of cognitive biases in mediation could be your secret weapon for achieving breakthrough outcomes.  Understanding cognitive biases that might be “stuffing up your thinking” is crucial for mediators because it helps them recognise and address the unconscious influences that can affect decision-making and communication. By being aware of these biases, mediators can better facilitate fair and effective negotiations, ensure all parties are accurately understood, and create an environment where rational, unbiased decisions are more likely to be made. This awareness also aids in managing conflicts, as mediators can identify when biases are at play and help the involved parties overcome them to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution.

 

■ Anchoring

The first piece of information you receive influences how you interpret everything that follows.

When you hear an initial number or fact, it creates a reference point in your mind. For example, if the first price you hear for a used car is R10,000, any lower price might seem like a good deal, even if it’s still higher than the car’s actual value. This initial information, or “anchor,” skews your perception of what is reasonable or expected.

In mediation, the first offer or suggestion often sets the stage for all further negotiations. For example, if one party suggests a high settlement amount at the beginning, this figure becomes a reference point, making subsequent offers appear more reasonable by comparison. Mediators need to be aware of this bias to ensure that initial proposals do not unduly influence the fairness of the final agreement.

 

■ The sunk cost fallacy

You irrationally hold onto things you’ve already invested in, even if they’re not beneficial anymore.

When you’ve spent time, money, or effort on something, it feels wasteful to let it go, even if continuing doesn’t make sense. For instance, if you’ve paid for a movie ticket but aren’t enjoying the movie, you might stay just to “get your money’s worth,” even though leaving would make you happier. The initial investment shouldn’t influence your current decision, but often it does.

During mediation, parties might resist compromising or changing their stance because they’ve already invested significant time, money, or effort. For instance, a party might continue fighting for a position simply because they’ve already spent so much on legal fees. Mediators can help by encouraging participants to focus on future benefits rather than past costs, facilitating more rational decision-making.

 

■ The availability heuristic

Your judgments are swayed by information that is most easily recalled.

If you can quickly recall a specific event, you might think it happens more frequently than it actually does. For example, after seeing news about plane crashes, you might overestimate the danger of flying, even though it’s statistically very safe. Recent, vivid, or emotional memories can distort your perception of reality.

Mediators need to be cautious of how recent or emotionally charged events might skew participants’ perceptions and decisions. For example, a recent conflict might make parties feel that the relationship is more strained than it actually is over time. Bringing in objective data and a broader perspective can help mitigate this bias.

 

■ The curse of knowledge

Once you know something, it’s hard to remember not knowing it, leading you to assume others know it too.

When you become an expert on a topic, you might forget how confusing it was before you learned about it. This makes it difficult to explain things to beginners because you can’t easily put yourself in their shoes. You might skip essential steps or use jargon, assuming everyone understands.

Mediators, who often have extensive experience and knowledge, must remember that participants may not share their understanding. Explaining concepts clearly and patiently, without assuming prior knowledge, is crucial for effective communication and ensuring all parties are on the same page.

 

■ Confirmation bias

You prefer information that supports your existing beliefs and dismiss information that contradicts them.

When you encounter new information, you’re more likely to accept it if it confirms what you already think, and to reject it if it doesn’t. This can lead to a skewed perspective where you only see evidence that supports your views and ignore anything that challenges them. It’s like living in a bubble where your beliefs are constantly reinforced.

Participants may only acknowledge facts and arguments that align with their preconceived notions. This can hinder finding common ground. Mediators should encourage open-mindedness and critical evaluation of all information, helping parties to challenge their own assumptions and consider alternative viewpoints.

 

■ The Dunning-Kruger effect

The less you know, the more confident you are; the more you know, the less confident you become.

People with limited knowledge on a subject often overestimate their competence because they don’t know enough to recognise their own mistakes. Conversely, experts are more aware of the complexities and gaps in their knowledge, which makes them more cautious and less confident. This paradox can lead to overconfident novices and humble experts.

Parties with limited understanding of the issue might be overconfident in their positions, while those with deeper knowledge might doubt their views. Mediators can balance this by validating expertise where it’s due and encouraging humility and openness to learning in all participants. More concerning are mediators that overestimate their own ability with a “one size fits all” approach or to think that all disputes could be resolved through mediation.

 

■ Belief bias

You rationalise information that aligns with your beliefs, regardless of its validity.

When evaluating arguments, you’re more likely to accept conclusions that match your preexisting beliefs, even if the reasoning is flawed. This bias makes it hard to objectively assess information, as your beliefs cloud your judgment, leading you to accept weak arguments if they confirm what you already think.

This bias can cause participants to cling to their viewpoints, even when faced with strong evidence to the contrary. Mediators can address this by promoting evidence-based discussions and helping parties critically assess their beliefs’ origins and validity.

 

■ Self-serving bias

You attribute your successes to yourself and your failures to external factors.

When things go well, you take credit, thinking it’s due to your skills or efforts. When things go poorly, you blame external circumstances or other people. This bias protects your self-esteem but can prevent you from recognising your own mistakes and learning from them.

This bias can lead to blame-shifting and a lack of accountability in disputes. Mediators should encourage self-reflection and recognition of each party’s contributions to both successes and failures, fostering a more balanced and cooperative approach to resolving conflicts.

 

■ The backfire effect

When your core beliefs are challenged, you might end up believing them even more strongly.

If someone presents evidence that contradicts your deeply held beliefs, instead of changing your mind, you might double down and become even more convinced that you were right. This reaction is driven by the desire to protect your identity and worldview, making you resistant to changing your mind.

In mediation, when participants feel their deeply held beliefs are under attack, they might dig in their heels and become even more resistant to compromise. This can hinder progress and make it difficult to reach a resolution. Mediators need to approach sensitive topics carefully and create a safe space for discussion, helping parties feel heard and understood without feeling threatened.

 

■ The Barnum effect

You interpret vague statements as highly specific and personal.

General statements can seem very personal if they are ambiguous enough. For example, horoscopes or personality tests often use broad descriptions that could apply to anyone, but people believe they are uniquely tailored to them. This effect occurs because we fill in the gaps with our own experiences.

Mediators must be wary of using generalised statements that parties might misinterpret as being specifically about them. Clear, precise communication is essential to avoid misunderstandings and ensure that all parties have a mutual understanding of the issues and agreements being discussed.

 

■ Groupthink

Group dynamics can override the best decision-making outcomes.

When you’re in a group, you might go along with the majority opinion to avoid conflict or to fit in, even if you have doubts. This can lead to poor decisions because dissenting opinions are suppressed and critical thinking is compromised. The desire for harmony can overshadow the need for a well-considered decision.

During mediation, groupthink can occur when parties prioritise harmony over critical evaluation, leading to poor decisions. Mediators can counteract this by encouraging independent thinking, facilitating open discussions, and ensuring that all voices are heard, especially dissenting opinions.

 

■ Negativity bias

Negative experiences have a greater impact on your thinking than positive ones.

Bad events or feedback stick in your mind longer and have a stronger influence on your emotions and decisions than good ones. This bias is a survival mechanism, making you more alert to potential dangers, but it can also make you overly pessimistic and hinder your ability to appreciate positive experiences.

Participants might focus more on past conflicts and negative interactions, which can impede reaching a positive outcome. Mediators can help by highlighting positive aspects and potential benefits of compromise, using balanced pro-and-con evaluations to promote a more objective view.

 

■ Declinism

You believe the past was better and the future will be worse than it likely is.

People often view the past with rose-colored glasses, remembering it as a better time, and expect the future to decline. This can be influenced by nostalgia and a negative focus on current events. Despite evidence of progress, the perception remains that things are getting worse, not better.

Participants might view the current situation pessimistically, influenced by a biased nostalgia. Mediators can address this by providing objective data and focusing on potential positive outcomes, helping participants see that improvement is possible and realistic.

 

■ The framing effect

How information is presented influences your decisions.

The way something is framed, such as the wording or context, can significantly affect your perception and decision-making. For example, people are more likely to choose a medical treatment with a “90% survival rate” than one with a “10% mortality rate,” even though they mean the same thing. The presentation of information can manipulate your choices.

The way mediators present information or proposals can significantly affect participants’ responses. Using neutral, balanced language and presenting multiple perspectives can help ensure that decisions are based on the merits of the information rather than its presentation.

 

■ Fundamental attribution error

You judge others by their character but yourself by your circumstances.

When someone else makes a mistake, you might attribute it to their personality or character flaws. However, when you make a mistake, you blame external factors, like bad luck or difficult situations. This bias prevents you from seeing the full picture and understanding others’ actions in context.

Participants might unfairly blame each other while excusing their own behavior due to external factors. Mediators can help by encouraging empathy and understanding, prompting each party to consider the other’s circumstances and motivations, fostering a more balanced and fair perspective.

 

■ The halo effect

Your overall impression of someone influences your judgments about their other traits.

If you like someone or find them attractive, you’re likely to assume they have other positive qualities, even if you have no evidence for it. This bias can lead to skewed perceptions where one good trait (like attractiveness) colors your view of their entire character or abilities.

Positive or negative impressions of a participant can influence how their arguments and behaviors are perceived. Mediators should strive to remain impartial and focus on the content of discussions rather than the personal attributes of the participants.

 

■ Optimism bias

You overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes.

People tend to expect things to turn out better than they often do. This bias makes you more hopeful and can motivate you to take risks, but it can also lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment when things don’t go as planned. It’s a double-edged sword that can encourage both perseverance and complacency.

Participants might have unrealistic expectations about the mediation outcome, leading to disappointment or unfeasible demands. Mediators can temper this bias by setting realistic expectations and helping participants understand the potential challenges and limitations.

 

■ Pessimism bias

You overestimate the likelihood of negative outcomes.

Pessimists expect bad things to happen more often than they actually do. This can be a defense mechanism to avoid disappointment, but it can also limit opportunities and lead to a generally negative outlook on life. Pessimism can prevent you from taking risks or trying new things due to the fear of failure.

Participants might be overly negative, expecting the worst possible outcomes and resisting compromise. Mediators can counteract this by highlighting positive precedents, presenting balanced scenarios, and encouraging a more hopeful outlook.

 

■ Just-world hypothesis

You believe that people get what they deserve.

This bias makes you think that the world is fair and people’s actions always result in fair outcomes. It can lead to victim-blaming, where you assume that bad things happen to people because of their own actions, ignoring the role of chance and external factors. It’s a comforting belief but often unrealistic.

This bias can lead to victim-blaming and hinder empathy and understanding. Mediators should promote a more nuanced view, emphasising the complexity of situations and discouraging simplistic attributions of blame or desert.

 

■ In-group bias

You favour those who belong to your group.

You tend to prefer and support people who are part of your own group, whether that group is based on nationality, race, religion, or even a shared hobby. This bias helps build social cohesion within the group but can also lead to unfair treatment of outsiders and reinforce prejudices.

Participants might show Favouritism towards their own group, leading to biased judgments and unfair outcomes. Mediators should encourage impartiality and help participants recognise and address their biases, fostering a more equitable resolution process.

 

■ The placebo effect

Believing something will work can sometimes make it seem like it does.

If you think a treatment or action will help you, your belief alone can cause real improvements, particularly with issues influenced by your mind, like pain or stress. This effect shows the power of expectation and belief in influencing your health and well-being, even when the treatment has no actual therapeutic value.

Participants might perceive certain solutions as effective simply because they believe in them. Mediators can ensure that proposed solutions are grounded in reality and likely to be effective by encouraging evidence-based decision-making.

 

■ The bystander effect

You assume someone else will take action in an emergency.

When you’re in a crowd, you might not act in an emergency because you think others will. This diffusion of responsibility can lead to inaction, as everyone waits for someone else to step up. Recognising this tendency can help you become more proactive and take responsibility in critical situations.

Participants might wait for others to take the lead in proposing solutions or compromises. Mediators can counter this by encouraging proactive engagement and emphasising individual responsibility in the mediation process.

 

■ Reactance

You tend to do the opposite of what you’re told when you feel your freedom is restricted.

When you feel pressured or coerced into doing something, you might resist by doing the opposite to assert your independence. This reaction can be counterproductive, as it’s driven more by the desire to maintain freedom than by the actual merits of the situation.

If participants feel pressured to accept a solution, they might resist it even if it’s reasonable. Mediators should facilitate an open dialogue where all options are considered freely, helping participants feel in control of their decisions.

 

■ The spotlight effect

You overestimate how much people notice your actions and appearance.

You often think others are paying more attention to you than they really are. In reality, most people are focused on themselves and don’t notice your minor mistakes or appearance as much as you think. Understanding this can reduce anxiety and help you act more naturally in social situations.

Participants might be overly concerned about how they are perceived by others in the mediation, which can affect their behavior and willingness to compromise. Mediators can reassure participants that the focus is on resolving the issue, not on individual judgments, fostering a more relaxed and cooperative atmosphere.

(Adapted from https://yourbias.is/)

 

Compiled by Eugene Opperman (B.Proc. LLB.) (LSSA L.E.A.D., ADR Network, FAMAC, NABFAM), a legal practitioner and accredited mediator.