Attribution bias challenges, issues, and strategies for mediation

Attribution Bias: Challenges, Issues, and Strategies for Mediation John Ng,Sophia Ang Social scientists use the term attribution to describe the process of attaching meaning to behavior In mediation, parties who make attribution seek to take control of the mediation process so that they can gain advantage of the situation. Although attribution theories have enriched the study of social cognitive processes and communication competence, they have not been studied in the context of mediation. Yet these are powerful communication processes that affect parties’ movements toward a n amicable settlement in mediation. This article presents an ovewiav of issues in the attribution literature that pertain to the study of mediation, discusses three perception biases, and suggests practical remedies.

The typical person’s perceptions seem riddled with shortcomings when judged against logical standards. Common among parties in mediation, these shortcomings, which amount to biases, often affect the parties’ motivation, communication styles, and approaches to mediation. As a result, parties often adopt a very competitive mode, which in turn disrupts the mediation process.

Unless the mediator is able to recognize these biases and develop skills to overcome them, the mediation process is greatly impeded.

Social scientists use the term attribution to describe the process of attaching meaning to behavior. Fritz Heider (1958), father of attribution theory, proposes that attribution reflects individuals’ efforts to predict and control their worlds. It is generally agreed that people tend to make judgments constantly, thanks to their need to manage themselves and to control their environment (Kelley, 1972). White (1959) suggests that people have a basic need to affect their environment, beyond fulfilling basic survival needs. They often attribute meaning to actions-but use different yardsticks for their own actions and those of others (Adler and Tome, 1993). This creates problems when parties hold differing perspectives of one another’s actions.

MEDIATION QUARTERLY,vol.

16, no. 4, Summer 1999 0 Jossey-Bass Publishers

3 77

3 78

Ng, Ang

Jones and Nisbett (1972) suggest that people tend to attribute the meaning of their own actions to situational requirements. But when they observe another person performing the same actions, they attribute the actions to the other’s personal disposition. This theoretical perspective shows the importance of attribution in social interaction because it involves making sense of behavior, and it affects how people communicate. Although attribution theories enrich the study of social cognitive processes and communication competence (Parks, 1985), they have not been studied in the context of mediation.

We observe varied attribution processes that affect people’s communication styles and approaches in mediation. They also influence how parties control the mediation process to gain advantage. Unless the mediator is conscious of these biases and develops skills to overcome them, the mediation process can be impeded.

This article presents an overview of the attribution literature and relates it to mediation. It is divided into four sections. First, we briefly explain Heider’s causal analysis. Second, we discuss three perception biases based on the theoretical development of Heider’s model and show how they affect parties in mediation. The three perception biases are: 1. Fundamental attribution bias. Parties attribute another person’s behavior to internal dispositions but their own behavior to external factors (Jones and Davis, 1965; Regan, 1978; Hamacheck, 1982).

2. False consensus bias. Parties make the assumption that people are similar to them (Hamacheck, 1982).

3. Negative impression bias. People tend to overemphasize negative impressions about those being judged (Kanouse and Hanson, 1972; Hamacheck, 1982). Parties having these biases in mediation adopt a “blaming and selfjustifying” approach. They then become very intransigent in their positions and unwilling to trust the other party.

Third, we share practical mediation techniques, based on our own mediation experience, that a mediator can use to deal with each bias. (Some of these techniques are practicing “teflon” facilitation, focusing on issues, and accentuating the positives.) Fourth, the article discusses the research hiatus in our current knowledge of attribution processes in the field of mediation.

Heider’s Attribution Theory In his seminal book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Fritz Heider (1958) discusses the theoretical foundations of his causal analysis. He was concerned with the factors that affect people’s perceptual experiences (Ehrenhaus, 1982). Heider claimed that causal attribution is a fundamental human process upon which much of social perception and action rest. He proposed that humans not only process information but also make causal analysis of them (Heider, 1958).

Attribution Bias

3 79

According to Heider, causal analysis begins with a distal stimulus in the environment that the perceiver experiences. This stimulus is experienced via sensory perceptions, through a report about the stimulus from an outside party, or through direct communication with the stimulus. In social interaction, the two interactants are causally linked through communication. When this linkage occurs, the constructive, inferential phase of attribution follows. This phase could happen concurrently during perception, or upon apprehension of the causal stimulus, or subsequently to the perception, developing linearly and rationally There are four basic assumptions in this causal analysis.

First, the attribution process is ubiquitous, fundamental to the organization and interpretation of social life (Ehrenhaus, 1982).

Second, there is the element of control. The goal of causal analysis in attribution is control, so that people can manage themselves and their environment more effectively (Hewes and Planalp, 1982; O’Keefe and Delia, 1982; Kelley, 1972). This basic need to affect environment influences our behavior and our interactions with people and situations (White, 1959). The need for control is often displayed in the mediation process when parties seek to influence the mediator by making him or her accept their perceptions of reality Third, there is the problem of bias. People err in their inferences (Ehrenhaus, 1982). However, the typical person’s perceptions are riddled with shortcomings when judged against logical standards (Major, 1980; Mischel, 1968; Nisbett and Ross, 1980; Snyder and Swann, 1978a, 1978b; Tversky and Kahneman, 1971). One of these shortcomings is their inability to judge their own and the other party’s behavior using the same yardstick. When this happens in mediation, parties often adopt a very competitive mode, which escalates the conflict (Tjosvold and van de Vliert, 1994).

Fourth, mediators who are aware of these attribution errors can then plan specific techniques to overcome them.

Perception Biases and Their Expressions in Mediation In this section, we discuss the three common perception biases and how they affect people’s behavior in mediation.

Fundamental Attribution Bias. Fundamental attribution bias is the tendency for parties to attribute another person’s behavior to internal dispositions but their own behavior to external factors (Jones and Nisbett, 1972; Hamacheck, 1982). Furthermore, these attributions tend to be made very quickly (Heider, 1958). Jones and Nisbett propose that when we explain someone’s actions in terms of his or her personality, motivation, or personal preferences, we are making an internal attribution. When we attribute behavior to social pressure, unusual circumstances, or physical forces beyond the individual’s control, we are making situational attributions. They argue that “there is a pervasive tendency for actors to attribute their actions to situational

380

Ng, Ang

requirements, whereas observers attribute the same actions to stable personal disposition” (1972, p. 60).

Communication scholars and social psychologists have sought to explain why people have fundamental attribution bias, The first reason is that people have a self-centered orientation. This perspective suggests that people tend to adopt self-protective, defensive postures and seek primarily to guard their concerns in conflicts. A second reason is that the information available to actors and observers could differ; people with different data make different attributions. Some facets of the event or behavior are salient to the actors, while others are salient to the observers (Ehrenhaus, 1982). The third reason involves the difference between the actors’ and observers’ foci of attention. The observers see the actors as dynamic agents in a stable situational field; the actors do not see the situational field but rather focus on the actions in the situational field (Ehrenhaus, 1982; Snyder, Stephen, and Rosenthal, 1976; Storms, 1973; Taylor and Fiske, 1975). When parties are observers, they are more inclined to see behaviors at face value, attributing them to stable personal characteristics.

An example of this bias seen in mediation might involve a child’s maintenance. The wife attributes her husband’s inability to pay for maintenance to his uncaring and irresponsible attitude, while she attributes her own inability to share in the cost to financial constraints beyond her control. This blaming and self-justificationis unhealthy because parties adopt a competitive win-lose approach. The husband usually responds with the same bias by attributing her comments to an unreasonable attitude.

When conflicting parties adopt this approach of attributing blame to the other’s personality’s traits while justifymg their own behaviors as due to situational factors, other explanations or solutions to their problem are dismissed.

The conflict spirals downward. Thus any attempt to reach a viable settlement at this stage is impossible. Instead, the parties become more entrenched in their positions, and distrust for the other party increases. This is exacerbated if each party becomes emotionally involved and therefore blocks willingness to listen to the other.

False Consensus Bias. False consensus bias refers to the assumption that one’s lifestyle, behaviors, and attitudes are the yardsticks of normality (Hamacheck, 1982). Conversations tend to begin with “she should do this and do that.” An example of this bias in mediation may be seen in the parenting issue in divorce. One party might insist that the child go only to a certain school. Unwillingness and inability to accept another person’s perspective and behaviors creates tremendous tensions and conflicts during mediation. Both parties assume that their positions are not only the right ones but also the only positions to take. The other party’s positions are perceived to be wrong and unreasonable. This results in an oversimplification of the issues.

The mediator who is unaware of these biases sometimes makes the mistake of helping the parties justify their own positions. This increases

Attribution Bias

381

the defensiveness of the other parties and leads them to a hardening of their positions. Instead of solving the problem, parties sabotage the agreement by suggesting outrageous solutions.

Negative Impression Bias. Negative impression bias is another perceptual bias commonly encountered in mediation. People have a tendency to overemphasize negative information about other individuals (Kanouse and Hanson, 1972; Hamacheck, 1982). The principle of negativity is ubiquitous: negative information is perceived to carry greater weight than positive information. In cross-cultural interactions, people’s inferences are more likely to be influenced by the negativity effect, given perceived cultural dissimilarity (Duncan, 1976). This dissimilarity effect pertains to parties in mediation. Intuitively, negativity is most evident when parties are in serious and deep conflicts.

They are almost completely biased against one another. This confirms their lack of trust and respect in the relationship. Furthermore, parties use these negative perceptions to judge the other person’s subsequent behaviors.

In mediation, one party might accuse the spouse of being a compulsive liar because he is unable to fulfill a promise he made. Any suggestion by the spouse is seen as a lie and thus rejected. This bias causes both parties to become more intransigent and dogmatic in their positions. Unless the bias is overcome, the mediator finds it extremely difficult to make progress in mediation. Hence, mediators need to develop specific techniques to overcome this bias.

Mediation Techniques It is critical for mediators to recognize these biases and work out techniques to overcome them. Before we discuss specific techniques to counter each bias, three important perspectives must be acknowledged.

First, we must recognize that these biases do not occur sequentially, or even incrementally. In fact, parties can express two of them, or even all three, simultaneously. For example, fundamental attribution bias and negative impression bias overlap when one party says, “You are completely irresponsible in demanding that I do it your way” In this example, “You are completely irresponsible” could be an expression of fundamental attribution bias and negative impression bias. These biases can also occur alternatively, that is, with parties flip-flopping from one bias to another. As such, mediators need to be alert to these dynamics in mediation.

Second, the parties might not be conscious of their biases and the reasons for them. Being the observer, the mediator can pick up the biases through the parties’ behaviors. The mediator’s approach is not to seek the reasons for their bias but to focus on effects that result from the behavior or verbal expressions of the biases.

Third, the mediator can inadvertently express these biases during the mediation process. He or she might hold fundamental attribution bias in

382

Ng, Ang

making internal attributions to one party, or justifylng the other party’s behavior by making external attributions. The mediator could also assume that parties should behave in a certain way and impose his or her own values and beliefs on one or both-thus showing false consensus bias. Similarly, the mediator could have a negative impression bias against one party and judge the party’s subsequent behaviors based on that negative impression. All these attributions inevitably color the mediator’s impartiality and prevent the mediating parties from being self-determined during the process. These are important challenges faced by the mediator.

Managing Fundamental Attribution Bias. Maintaining impartiality is the key for the mediator to avoid becoming stuck if parties fix blame on each other while justifylng their own behaviors. Maintaining impartiality involves (1) being like “teflon,” (2) focusing on common interests, and (3) acknowledging the parties’ perceptions. ‘‘Teflon.” This is an important technique for the mediator to bear in mind.

Very often, parties’ vitriolic comments are meant to agitate and hurt the other, or even to triangulate the mediator. The mediator needs to be strategic in her or his mediation. To attend to every response from the parties, especially negative ones, inevitably pushes parties toward hardened positions. The mediator can ignore unhelpful responses and instead focus on the common interests of both parties.

Focusing on Common Interests. Focusing on common interests is a useful technique in helping parties move away from their bias perception. The mediator can encourage them to adopt a positive and cooperative approach rather than a blaming and self-justifying one. Reminding parties to take a more cooperative and less competitive approach is crucial in conflict mediation. Studies have shown that having cooperative goals and strategies contributes to productive conflicts (Tjosvold, 1985, 1993; Tjosvold and McNeely, 1988; Tjosvold, Wedley, and Field, 1986; van de Vliert, 1985). The mediator empowers parties by helping them see their common interests. An example of what a mediator could say is, “I see there are obvious differences in your perceptions.

However, it seems evident that both of you are also very concerned about your child’s welfare. So could we refocus on how both of you can provide the best care for your child?”

Getting to parties’ common interest can also be achieved by emphasizing the parties’ interdependency. The mediator says, “Despite your differences, both of you still need each other. As his wife, you need him to provide financially. As her husband, you need her to provide care for the child. Could we see how we can be more collaborative?”If parties are stuck in a blaming mode, this technique is more effective during caucusing, where the conferring party may be readier to admit being dependent on the other.

Acknowledging. To take an example, one party’s unwillingness to provide for child maintenance could be due to many intertwining factors-such as anger over the spouse’s extramarital affair, distrusting the spouse’s ability to

Attribution Bias

383

manage funds, the unwilling party’s financial constraints-and not just a simplistic case of irresponsibility, as the spouse asserts. Instead of disagreeing with the parties’ perceptions, the mediator could acknowledge them, saylng something like, “What I hear you say is that you would like your spouse to be more active in contributing to your childs maintenance.” This technique is powerful because it identifies with the parties. It is important to remember that acknowledgment does not mean agreement.

Managing False Consensus Bias. There are several techniques that the mediator can use to overcome this second of the three biases. First, the mediator must provide equal opportunity for parties to share their perspectives.

Second, the mediator can use paraphrasing and summarizing techniques to ensure that parties feel they have been heard. Third, the mediator can expand the range of normality of the parties by using reality check. This enables parties to become more open to considering other options. Fourth, the mediator can then float other possibilities for the parties to explore options.

Giving Equal Opportunities. It is important that parties be given equal opportunity to express themselves even though they insist that their way is the right way This equal sharing of perspectives allows them to communicate their perspectives and feelings, giving them a sense of recognition and empowerment. Further, it helps in establishing the mediator’s impartiality when both parties are given equal opportunities. In addition, without the airing of these perceptions, it would be difficult for parties to move toward an agreement.

However, they should be given a specified time frame for sharing perspectives.

This provides some control and expediency in the mediation process. If not, they tend to ramble and dominate the discussion with frequent interruptions.

Similarly, parties are given equal opportunity to respond to the issues raised by each party.

Paraphrasing and Summarizing Tneir Perspectives. The mediator shows her or his support for both parties in accurately paraphrasing and summarizing the parties’ perspectives. The mediator creates a sense of identification with the parties through this technique. Another advantage of accurate summarization and paraphrasing is that one party has the opportunity to hear the other’s point of view. However, if the paraphrase or summarization is inaccurate, parties correct the mediator. This could be beneficial, though, because it allows the mediator to correct his or her wrong perceptions by saying, “Sorry I have understood you wrongly, perhaps you can clarify what you mean.” This opportunity can be very empowering because the parties get the sense that the mediator is really tryng to understand and empathize with them.

We have found this technique to be effective because not only does it ensure that both parties understand each other’s perspectives but it also shows the mediator’s responsiveness to their perceptions. If this technique is successfully executed, parties allow the mediator to make progress in the process because responsiveness to perspectives is a precondition for progress. This then paves the way for the parties to hear other perspectives.

384

Ng, Ang

Expanding Their Range of Normality by Being an “Angel of Reality. Parties having false consensus bias assume that normality is based on their experience.

As a result, alternative views and behaviors are seen as abnormal or subnormal. Further, the person’s perception of normality is often measured by a specific way of behaving. For example, in the case of a wife’s insistence on a specific amount for child maintenance, she feels that only one amount suffices.

To overcome this bias, mediators must have specific techniques to widen the parties’ range of normality One effective way of doing this is to be an “angel of reality” If parties become very unreasonable in insisting on having their own way, the mediator can invite the wife who refuses to accept anything less than $500 to reflect on both her own situation and that of her spouse.

Floating Possibilities. Another approach to managing false consensus bias is to float other possible solutions to problems. Floating possibilities means generating options without coercing or forcing. The solutions are suggestions.

Using the same example, if the wife insists on a specific amount, the mediator could suggest, “Why do you think any lesser amount will not work?” If we float a possibility, it is sometimes useful to preface the suggestion by introducing other examples of how similar situations have been resolved before.

Overcoming Negative Impression Bias. There are several techniques the mediator can use to manage this bias: focusing on the positive parts, draining the “cesspool” of parties’ negative emotions toward each other, and moving from positions to interests.

Focusing on Positive Parts. In a typical mediation session, parties tend to be very negative and often focus on the negative. Parts theory assumes that there are both positive and negative parts in mediation. For mediation to be effective, the mediator needs to focus on the positive parts. For example, if the wife acknowledges that the husband is truthful about his salary, the mediator can affirm, ‘‘It’s good that you acknowledge your husband has been telling the truth about his salary.” This affirmation must be constant and persistent.

Another way to focus on the positive attributes is to affirm the positive movements in the mediation process. Mediators can applaud baby-step movements toward agreement that both parties make in the mediation. This creates a positive climate and gives hope to the parties during mediation.

Draining the Cesspool. The technique of “draining the cesspool” must be executed carefully Sometimes one or both parties keep repeating negative comments about the other party, despite persistent reminders by the mediator that such attacks may not be helpful. The mediator may use this technique to allow both parties to vent some of their negative views. The mediator can say, “Well, it looks like you feel very bitter and angry about him (or her), so would you like five minutes to vent your views about him (her)?” and then record each point made. Parties generally exhaust all their attacks after a while. To maintain impartiality, both must be given equal opportunity to air their perceptions.

This emotional release is necessary for mediation to proceed positively because it has cathartic value. ”

Attribution Bias

385

Movingfrom Positions to Interests. Mediators can manage negative attributions by finding the interests behind them (Fisher and Ury, 1991). Positions are the verbal expressions of these biases. Mediators can use “imagine” statements and questions to uncover the parties’ interests, as in “Imagine your assertion that your husband has been lying; what would be satisfied by your accusation?”Unless the mediator is able to uncover and address both parties’ concerns, they remain entrenched, which is unhelpful. Sometimes, parties have multiple interests. The mediator then needs to uncover the priority interests and explore options with each party on how to meet their interests.

Conclusion We need to bear in mind that this list of techniques is not exhaustive. (Other techniques that are equally effective include normalization or mutualization.)

Further, mediators should use any technique that moves parties toward agreement, bearing in mind the fundamental mediation principles of parties’ selfdetermination and mediator impartiality. Further, these techniques are not confined to dealing with one bias exclusively For example, mediators could use moving from position to interest to deal with false consensus bias and negative impression bias.

Limitations of This Article. The most prominent limitation of this article is the lack of systematic empirical research. Discussion of the nature of biases in mediation and techniques to overcome these biases is based on both personal experience and observation of mediation sessions. Despite these limitations, the impact of perception biases on mediation must not be ignored for the lack of empirical data. It is important, therefore, that empirical research on this subject be rigorously pursued to authenticate these biases and the effectiveness of these techniques.

Future Research. From this brief discussion, two sets of implications for future research in this area arise.

First, prominence should be given to study and empirical research of attribution processes in mediation if the assumption of causal attribution is ubiquitous. To date, no empirical research in mediation based on the attribution theory has been done; there is a dearth of material on this subject. Several research questions can be pursued: How evident are these biases, and how are they manifested in mediation? How do these biases affect the mediation process, the parties, and the mediator? What impact do these biases have on mediators?

Some studies have shown the effect of attribution biases on judges’ determinants of criminality and sentencing decisions (Hatvany and Starck, 1980; Oswald, 1992). What, then, is the extent of the effect of these biases on mediators and their decision-making process? In the multicultural context of Singapore are certain cultural groups more inclined to different biases?

Second, if these biases are normative, mediation training should include understanding, recognizing, and managing perception biases. These and other

386

Ng,Ang

biases should constitute an important part of mediation training so that mediators begin using specific skills to help them manage them.

References Adler, R. B., and Tome, N. Looking out and Looking in. Austin, Tex.: Holt, Rnehart and Winston, 1993.

Duncan, B. L. “DifferentialSocial Penetration and Attribution of Intergroup Violence: Testing and Lower Limits of Stereotyping of Blacks.”Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 590-598.

Ehrenhaus, P. “Attribution Theory: Implications for Intercultural Communication.” In M. Burgoon (ed.), Communication Yearbook 6. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1982.

Fisher, R., and Ury, W. Getting to Yes. London: Random Century, 1991.

Hamacheck, D. E. Encounter with Others: Interpersonal Relationship and You. Austin, Tex.: Holt, Rmehart and Winston, 1982.

Hatvany, N., and Starck, F. “The Impact of a Discredited Key Witness.”Joumal ofApplied Social Psychology, 1980. 10, 490-509.

Heider, F. Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, 1958.

Hewes, D. E., and Planalp, S.“There Is Nothing as Useful as a Good Theory: The Influence of Social Knowledge on Interpersonal Communication.” In M. E. Roloff and C. R. Berger (eds.), Social Cognition and Communication. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1982.

Jones, E. E., and Davis, K. “From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception.” In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Ewperimental Social Psychology. Vol. 2. Orlando: Academic Press, 1965.

Jones, E. E., and Nisbett, R. E. “Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior.” In E. E. Jones and others (eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1972.

Kanouse, D. E., and Hanson, L. R. “Negativity in Evaluations.”In E. E. Jones and others (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1972.

Kelley, H. H. “Attribution Theory in Social Interaction.” In E. E. Jones and others (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1972.

Major, B. “Information Acquisition and Attribution Processes.”Journal o j Personality and Social Psychology, 1980,39, 1010-1023.

Mischel. W. Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.

Nisbett, R., and Ross, L. Human Inference: Strategiesand Shortcomings ofSocial]udgment. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.

O’Keefe, B. J., and Delia, J. G. “Impression Formation and Message Production.” In M. E. Roloff and C, R. Berger (eds.), Social Cognition and Communication. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1982.

Oswald, M. E. “Justification and Goals of Punishment and the Attribution of Responsibility in Judges.” In F. Loesel, D. Bender, and T. Bliesener (eds.), Psychology and Law: International Perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992.

Parks, M. R. “Interpersonal Communication and the Quest for Personal Competence.” In M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller, Handbook of Interpersonal Communication,Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1985.

Regan, D. T. Attribution Aspects of Interpersonal Attraction. New Directions in Attribution Research, no. 2. Hillsdale. N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.

Snyder, M., Stephen, W. G., and Rosenthal, D. “Egotism and Attribution.”Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,33, 435441.

Snyder, M., and Swann, W. B. “BehavioralConfirmation in Social Interaction: From Social Perception to Social Reality.”Joumal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1978a, 14, 148-162.

Snyder, M., and Swann, W. B. “Hypothesis-Testing Processes in Social Interaction.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978b, 36, 1202-1212.

Attribution Bias

387

Storms, M. D. “Videotape and Attribution Process: Reversing Actors’ and Observers’ Point of View.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 27, 165-175.

Taylor, S., and Fiske, S. “Point of View and Perceptions of Causality.”Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32, 439-441.

Tjosvold, D. “Implications of Controversy Research for Management.”Journal of Management, 1985,11, 21-37.

Tjosvold, D. “Cooperation and Competition Theory: Interactions and Consequences in Fifteen Organizations.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for Conflict Management, Hengelhoef, Belgium,June 1993.

Tjosvold, D., and McNeely, L. T. “Innovation Through Communication in an Educational Bureaucracy.” Communication Research, 1988, 568-58 1.

Tjosvold, D., and van de Vliert, E. “Applying Cooperative and Competitive Conflict Theory to Mediation.” In Mediation Quarterly, 1994, 11 (4). 303-311.

Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W. C., and Field, R. H. G. “Constructive Controversy, the Vroom-Yetton Model, and Managerial Decision Making.”Journul of Occupational Behavior, 1986, 7, 125-138.

Tversky, A,, and Kahneman, D. “Belief in the Law of Small Numbers.” Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 105-110. van de Vliert, E. “EscalativeIntervention in Small Group Conflicts.”Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1985,21, 19-36.

White, R. W. “Motivation Considered: The Concept of Competence.” Psychological Review, 1959, 66.297-333.

John Ng is a mediation consultant with Eagles Mediation and Counseling Centre in Singapore.

Sophia Ang is the head of the Eagles Mediation and Counseling Centre in Singapore.