During mediation parties brainstorm creative solutions and negotiate a settlement outcome. They collaborate and create the “script” they will follow in the future. Faulty decision making can sabotage the process.
One of the preliminary steps in this process is assessing decisions that forced them “into the ditch” in the first place. Parties seek to identify earlier failures to make sound decisions that contributed to emergence of conflict, which eventually threatened their peace and prosperity.
Often parties discover conflict arose as a result of their previous inability to make sound decisions. They discover that poor decisions eventually led to disappointed expectations that in turn gave rise to conflict. Thus, in conflict resolution, we pay close attention to the decision-making process. We seek to identify past mistakes and we seek new methods of making sound decisions that result in durable outcomes.
We improve our decisions by assessing errors that led us astray in the past—this includes understanding the mental shortcuts, the mental models called heuristics, we employ. These shortcuts often produce errors. Biases buried and hidden in our habitual mental models inadvertently lead to faulty conclusions. When heuristic errors contaminate our decision making, we frequently fail to satisfy our needs and fail to achieve our goals.
For example, we err when we make decisions based on recent or vivid events that are easy to recall but which do not reflect present circumstances. The easily recalled or memorable event leads us to miscalculate the best decision for the present time.
Another heuristic that causes errors is consulting an inadequate sample of experiences. In some problem-solving situations, we may not possess firsthand experience with critical variables. If we rely on our limited experience, rather than consulting with those who have extensive experience or expertise, our decisions are likely to be flawed.
Another mental shortcut that causes errors is using incorrect reference points or baselines. For example, we might look to our parents’ marriage as a baseline standard regarding married life. However, what happens if our parents maintained domestic peace by limiting their interaction? Their tranquility may not serve well as a norm for our relationship, especially if we desire a more dynamic and intimate relationship—in which case too much quiet might signal failure. In contrast, “noisy drama” with robust give-and-take might be a better standard of success, given our goals.
In a similar fashion, we may set our reference point too high with regards to monetary affairs. For example, we may read an article about a plaintiff awarded millions for punitive damages. Using that case as a reference we may decide to file a lawsuit, failing to see our suit lacks merit or the special circumstances present in the other case. We commit an error by drawing upon examples that do not apply to our specific circumstances. When we fail to achieve the same result we are disappointed and conflict escalates.
Overconfidence can cause us to proceed with an unwarranted optimistic view; for example, mediators frequently encounter overly confident litigants who are certain they will prevail in a trial. All too often time-consuming and costly litigation is driven by such overconfidence.
Social pressure may color our decisions. We may alter a sound decision to satisfy pressure from friends, family, or associates. We may over commit to an earlier position, holding fast to a stance that no longer works to our advantage. Using this shortcut, we commit decision-making errors by stubbornly clinging to earlier decisions that no longer apply. We may engage in selective information processing that relies only on information that has passed through the filters of our biases and our prejudices. In this last case, we sabotage our decision making through selective blindness.
Mental shortcuts or heuristics meet the demand for speed. We welcome shortcuts in our busy lives. But we may be setting the stage for conflict when we fail to take time sufficient time to inspect our reasoning. In mediation parties are encouraged to slow up and investigate options. While taking the time to carefully weigh our decisions might seem tedious, such deliberation is vital if we hope to move beyond conflict.
While heuristics shorten the decision-making process, they often lead to error; so we are often better off seeking slower but more certain paths. We need to inspect common errors we typically commit so that, in the future, we are less prone to slipping into faulty decision-making. Take the time to assess your situation. What types of mental shortcuts have led you to make faulty decisions?