By Linda Mochon

As I begin my journey as a Summer Caseworker and Researcher at the Winkler Institute, I hope to explore ways to improve the mediation process and learn more about and apply different perspectives on becoming an effective mediator.

One of the first learning opportunities I have had is the “Applying Findings from Neuroscience to Community Mediation” study session with Tim Hicks, the writer of the book Embodied Conflict: The Neural Basis of Conflict and Communication. This session offered an interesting perspective on why mediation sometimes fails and suggested ways for mediators to improve the parties’ chances of success. I gained insight into how mediators can use neuroscience to improve the mediation process, increase mutual understanding between parties in a conflict and reduce the risk of miscommunication.

Hicks shared a unique perspective on understanding conflict based on the way that human brains store perceptual experiences in their neural structures. While the technical content of this proposition may be complex, the premise is quite easy to grasp. In essence, it is the idea that our identity is based on what we know and the sum of our experiences in the world up to that moment in time. These experiences form who we are and how we perceive ourselves and those around us. I was fascinated by the application of this notion of human identity to mediation. Conflict resolution is about change – it involves asking parties to change their understanding of the conflict and themselves within the conflict. When parties come to the mediation table, they have a specific view of the world and themselves. This is what makes up their neural structure so that when we ask parties to try to come to a mutual understanding, we are asking them to change their minds in the literal sense. People often want to be right in their own reality of the world and do not want their neural structures and identity to be challenged. To change how they view themselves within the conflict is not an easy task. When emotions are involved, engaging in reason and logic becomes even harder.

What does this mean for mediators?

Any agreement proposed as a resolution must fit into the world view of both parties involved so that it forms part of a coherent narrative. It is important to remember that people’s neural structures affect their willingness to change. With this knowledge, mediators can show more compassion and understanding of what parties are dealing with. We are asking them to change who they are, so we should not expect it to be comfortable and easy.

Because every person’s perception is different depending on their previous life experiences, mediators should be aware of the risk of spreading activation. Spreading activation refers to the way our brains store, organize and associate knowledge in our neural structures. This happens when a specific word, sound or smell triggers a particular memory or emotion. Perhaps the smell of the ocean makes some people feel more relaxed. Spreading activation can lead people to associate certain elements in their environment to a particular emotion. In mediation, words or actions can trigger and activate a variety of emotions for parties, which can escalate conflict further.

Words are simply sounds until they enter our bodies and activate the neural structures that we have associated with those words and sounds. This means that without clear communication and clarification, there is a lot of room for misunderstanding. Because these meaning associations are often different between people, it is important to ensure that the words being spoken mean the same thing for everyone. In mediation, we discuss what the present issues are and then continue speaking about other things. Mediators may move too quickly from the list of issues without checking to make sure that these mean the same thing to both parties. Often, we assume that the understanding of the issues is the same, which could lead to misunderstandings later on. Being sensitive to this can make mediators more effective at ensuring meaningful and productive dialogue, where both parties feel heard and understood.

Through this session, I learned that the neuroscience field has a lot of useful insights for the mediation community, such as the understanding of human interaction, perception, and behaviour. Notably that people are a combination of their past experiences, which shape much of what they do and how they perceive themselves in conflict. As I continue my journey exploring the mediation process, I hope to apply these insights to my work in the Winkler Institute and personal life generally as I interact and engage with others.