A few weeks ago, my colleague Maria Simpson, PhD., in her weekly Two Minute Training (February 15, 2011), mentioned a story she had heard the previous day on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition about a pre-school that was teaching conflict resolution to four year olds. Contrary to what occurs in most pre-schools, while these pre-schoolers had lots of energy and were very active, they did not fight, yell or whine.

            Intrigued, I hunted down the story on NPR and learned that the school was The Clara Barton Children’s Center in Cabin John, Maryland (http://clarabartoncenter.org/), and passed this information on to my colleague.

            But, I was still curious about this success of conflict resolution among 4 year olds. So was my colleague as she took up this topic again in her next Two Minute Training column on February 22, 2011. It seems that this school employs a “Solution Kit” provided by the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) at Vanderbilt University (http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu./). This “Solution Kit” is simply a poster that, using pictures, shows 10 different ways to end an argument:

1.  “Get a teacher” (i.e., use a mediator or a third party objective neutral.);

2.  “Ask nicely” (i.e., have a calm non-confrontational conversation about the issue; make it a conversation of curious inquiry, not a cross-examination.);

3.  “Ignore” (i.e., don’t react to negative personal attacks ; let them roll off your back, remain focused on the needs and interests of the parties or on the issues; NOT on the person.);

4.  “Play together” (i.e., work co-operatively and together to create options by which each party will gain, thereby developing a “win-win” resolution.);

5.  “Say “Please Stop”” (i.e., have a discussion about the opposing and/or conflicting underlying needs and interests of each party and how best to meet them; again, focus on the interests of each party and create options that will meet each party’ s needs.)

6.   ”Say, “Please”” (i.e. be polite and respectful  to the other party; separate the people from the problem – be soft on the person, but hard on the problem.);

7.  “Share” (i.e., compromise; do not engage in distributive bargaining in which the goal is that one person wins, and the other loses (zero sum game) but rather engage in integrative bargaining by which both parties “win” by compromising.);

8.  “Trade” (i.e., engage in “give and take”. Prioritize your interests and  concede issues that may be of little value to you but important to the other party in exchange for ones that ARE important to you but of little value to the other party so that each party obtains what is important to her.);

9.  “Wait and Take Turns” (i.e., be patient; actively listen – really listen, and don’t interrupt – to what the other party is saying so that you can understand what are the needs and interests of the other party and thus be able to figure out collaboratively how to meet both her needs and interests and yours.); and

10. “Get a Timer” (i.e., use the element of time as a way to resolve the dispute either by setting a time limit on the discussions which will force the parties to focus and concentrate on the issues: or by setting up a timetable by which certain elements of the resolution must be accomplished (e.g. an installment plan).)

(http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu/modules/2006/solutionkit.pdf)

      If four year olds can grasp these basic concepts of conflict resolution, shouldn’t we adults be able to so, as well?

      When I first read about this “Solution Kit”, my initial reaction was to get a hold of one and send it to Congress. I am still half toying with the idea of doing so! In the meanwhile, perhaps there are some other adults amongst us that could benefit from its use, as well.

        . . .Just something to think about! 

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

            As I have admitted in the past, I am a dog lover. Well, it now seems that there is “scientific” proof to go along with my informal analysis that our 4 pawed pals aid the collaborative process. Last August 12, 2010, The Economist published a study, entitled “Manager’s Best Friend”, showing that dogs improve office productivity. As any dog owner knows, “dogs act as social catalysts, helping their owners forge intimate, long-term relationships with other people.” (Id.) This is no surprise to any dog owner: how many times while walking the dog have we stopped to engage in conversation about the dog or at least received comments about our canine friend as we pass by?

            The researchers found that “. . .the mere presence of a canine in the office [makes] people collaborate more effectively.” (Id.) To come to this result, the researchers conducted two experiments. In one, they brought 12 groups of four individuals together and told them they needed to collaborate on a 15-second advertisement for a made up product. Some of these groups had a dog amongst them while others did not. The researchers found that those who had the dog in their midst while collaborating on the advertisement believed there to be more trust, cohesion and intimacy within their group than in those groups in which the dog was not present.

            In the second experiment, the researchers, using 13 groups, had each group play prisoner’s dilemma. In this game, each volunteer within the group had been charged with a “crime” and the object was to see if each individual – on their own violation and without consulting with any other member of the group – would either snitch on their teammates or remain silent. The researchers found that “having a dog around made volunteers 30% less likely to snitch than those who played without one.” (Id.)

            Thus, this study showed what we “knew” all along – it is good to have a dog around when working collaboratively. Having our four-pawed friend around will greatly improve our chances of success.

            Just think what my dog’s presence would do for my mediation practice. . . .! If I could only get him past the building security guard!

             . . . Just something to think about.

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

            Often, in a mediation, one and/or both parties tell me that they would rather go to trial than accept or pay the sum of money (or other item) being discussed as a compromise of the matter. At this point, I discuss the risks of going to trial. Sometimes I am successful; sometimes I am not.

            But one point that I do not always bring up but should is “beauty bias” or how one’s  very appearance can affect outcomes. In May 2010, Professor Deborah L. Rhodes published The Beauty Bias (Oxford University Press, 2010) discussing this form of discrimination. She also published an article entitled “The Beauty Bias – The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law” in the May 2010 edition of Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. She begins the article by stating:

“ “It hurts to be beautiful” is a cliché I grew up with. “It hurts not to be beautiful” is a truth I acquired on my own. Only recently have I begun to grasp the cumulative cost of our cultural preoccupation with appearance. . .  Most people believe that bias based on beauty is inconsequential, inevitable or unobjectionable.”

“They are wrong. Conventional wisdom understates the advantages that attractiveness confers, the cost of its pursuit and the injustices that result. . .” (Id. at p.1).

             Professor Rhodes continues, discussing the costs and consequences of appearance noting that

“Beginning at birth, those who are viewed as physically appealing are also more likely to be viewed as smart, likeable, and good. The ridicule and ostracism that unattractive children experience can result in lower self-confidence and social skills, which leads to further disadvantages in later life. Appearance also influences judgments about competence and job performance, which, in turn, affect income and status. Résumés get a less favorable assessment when they are thought to belong to less attractive individuals. These individuals are less likely to get hired and promoted, and they earn lower salaries, even in professions such as law where appearance has no demonstrable relationship to ability.” (Id. at p. 3).

            Consequently, someone who appears plain, or overweight, or short, or frumpy will be viewed as less attractive and unconsciously will be discriminated against.” ( See, “Fair Enough” by Kara Platoni, Stanford Magazine (September/October 2010) at p. 6). Similarly, a woman can also pay a penalty for being too attractive. Being too sexy, or too attractive creates a negative characteristic based on the assumption that such women are not too bright. (Id. at p. 47). Or,  the objection may simply be that such women are “too distracting,” “too sexy”, “too hot” or “too sensual.”

            Being overweight leads to the assumption that the person is lazy, undisciplined or unfit. (Rhodes, supra, at p. 5).

            So. . . two women plaintiffs walk into court for trial; one is wearing make-up, high heels and fashionably dressed; the other is wearing no make-up, flat shoes and plain, ordinary (if not a little frumpy) clothes. As a juror, how would you perceive these individuals; what is  your gut reaction to each, at least initially? This is “appearance” bias.

            These two women plaintiffs are each represented by male attorneys. One is overweight, not good looking and is wearing an out of fashion or perhaps a crumpled suit while the other one is slim, attractive and well dressed. Again, as a juror – what is your gut reaction? Which attorney will you be more favorably disposed to, at least initially? This, too, is “appearance” bias at work.

            In sum, while a party may have a “great” case on the merits, her appearance (or that of her attorney) may sabotage the outcome. As Professor Rhodes concludes in her article, “beauty may be only skin deep, but the damages associated with its pursuit go much deeper.” (Rhodes, Id. at p.10.)

            . . .Just something to think about.  

           If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

            The end of the year is upon us, and this fact usually affects people in one of two ways: happiness or sadness. Some love the Christmas – New Year’s holidays and go all out celebrating and decorating, giving and receiving. Others hate the holidays for a myriad of reasons, trying to ignore them and feeling sad with the ending of the year.

            It seems that our degree of happiness has more to do with our age than with the time of the year. In the December 16^th, 2010 edition of The Economist, the authors discuss “The U-Bend of Life: Why beyond middle age, people get happier as they get older.”   Economists measuring the Gross National Happiness (GNH) of various countries have found that “Life is not a long slow decline from sunlit uplands towards the valley of death. It is, rather, a U-bend.” (Id.):

            “When people start out on adult life, they are, on average, pretty cheerful. Things go downhill from  youth to middle age until they reach a nadir commonly known as the mid-life crisis. . . . The surprising part happens after that. Although as people move towards old age they lost things they treasure – vitality, mental sharpness and looks – they also gain what people spend their lives pursuing: happiness.” (Id.)

            To reach this conclusion, economists looked at data from 72 countries. This nadir varies among countries. While Ukrainians are at their most miserable at age 62, the Swiss hit rock bottom at age 35. In most countries, people are the most unhappy in their 40’s and early 50’s. The global average is 46 years of age.

            So, depending upon your age, you most probably will view the holidays differently. If you are young – you probably love the holidays. If you are approaching mid-life – you probably dislike the holidays or are saddened by them. As you reach 46 years old, these feelings become most pronounced. But, if you are approaching senior citizen status or are there already, you are attaining happiness; and the older you are, the more likely that you are happy at this time of year, since, in general, you are much happier than the younger generations.   

            In truth, happiness is a state of mind affected by age. Nevertheless, I want to wish each of you, my readers and my supporters, a wonderful, happy holiday and new year. May both bring you good health, “happiness” and prosperity! Enjoy the holidays and Be “ Happy”!

            This is my last blog for 2010.  I plan to take some time off over the next week, and I hope that each of you  are able to do so, as well.  See y’all in January 2011!

            . . .Just something to think about!

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

            The other day, I tuned into National Public Radio which was  in middle of  a story about curveballs in baseballs; a study had just been published indicating that these pitches are not what they seem.  A few days later when I had some free time, I decided to search for this study on the internet and came upon the very scientific discussion on PLoS ONE which was published on October 13, 2010 and entitled, “Transitions Between Central and Peripheral Vision Create Spatial/Temporal Distortions: A Hypothesis Concerning the Perceived Break of the Curveball.”

            Simply stated, the researchers noted that our “visual system does not treat all parts of an image equally: the central segments of an image, which fall on the fovea, are processed with a higher resolution than the segments that fall in the visual periphery.” (Id.) Normally, we do not realize the difference when we view an image.  Rather, our perception of the image is seamless. (Id.)

            But, in the studies conducted by these scientists, when a motion stimulus (i.e. a fast moving baseball) is introduced into our visual system, a different result is reached:

            The stimulus consists of a descending disk (global motion) with an internal moving grating (local motion).  When observers view the disk centrally, they perceive both global and local motion (i.e., observers see the disk’s vertical descent and the internal spinning.)  When observers view the disk peripherally, the internal portion appears stationary, and the disk appears to descend at an angle.  The angle of perceived descent increases as the observer views the stimuli from further in the periphery . . .  (Id.)

            In short, it is the batter’s shifting his focus between  his peripheral and central vision that makes the curveball appear to “break”, to drop or descend vertically.  Similarly, it is this same shifting of  our focus between our  peripheral and central vision that makes a fastball appear to rise when it is actually falling (i.e. the “rising” fastball.) (Id.)  The pitcher’s tricks are all an illusion, and literally, are “ in the eyes of the beholder.”

            What does this study have to do with dispute resolution?  Not much, except that like a curveball, disputes are full of illusions, too: things are not always what they seem.  Like the researchers of this study, a party often has to dig deeper to get at the “truth” or what is really going on – to learn what the true needs and interests of the other party really are.  Many times, the dispute, itself, is an “illusion” – it is really about the relationship between the parties, and not the particular incident at issue. Like the curveball or fastball, the  “dispute”is often in the “eyes of the beholder” who has “misunderstood “ or” miscommunicated” or “misinterepreted” the other party’s purported  acts , omissions or “insensitivities.”  
           

           Or, one could say that  this blog has absolutely nothing to do with dispute resolution: I just found the study interesting, especially in light that it is post-season and every pitcher is throwing his best curveball and fastball to make it into  the World Series.

            You decide!

            . . . Just something to think about!

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button