The Fundamental Attribution Error in Mediation
Have you ever had someone blame you for something over which you had absolutely no control?
If you’ve ever been late to a meeting, been framed by a sibling
growing up, or otherwise haven’t lived under a rock your entire life,
you know what I’m talking about. Why do people do this? Situations like
these are due to a powerful psychological phenomenon called the
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE), and it pops up all the time in
everyday life. While the FAE entails many things, the salient point here
is that it describes human beings’ tendency to assume that someone’s
behaviour – especially when we disagree with or are negatively affected by that behaviour – is due to that person’s personality or disposition, and not
due to external factors or situations beyond their control. For
example, say you’re late for a first date and the other person assumes
that your tardiness is because you just don’t care enough, or because
you lack punctuality. Further imagine that, in reality, you got stuck
behind a huge accident on the freeway – you had absolutely no control
over the situation – and your cell phone died unexpectedly so you
couldn’t call. By the time you arrive to the restaurant, your date has
made a judgment – indeed, they may have committed a FAE without knowing
it. Your date has assumed you had control over the situation when you
did not. It is important to note here that when someone assumes that you
can control events they tend to become more offended, because they usually also assume that you didn’t personally care about or respect them.
This scenario also exemplifies why first impressions are so
psychologically important: When people have little information about
others, they assume things based on initial words and actions. If your
initial actions do not accurately reflect your personality or character,
they will likely commit a FAE in assessing you.
The FAE has huge implications for not only our everyday lives, but
also for many sources of conflict between mediating parties. Are you
consistently late for dates? Do you normally go out of your way to
ensure that your spouse knows how much you appreciate and care about
them? When someone “commits” a FAE, they only have the context of
the situation (i.e., your past behaviour) by which to reevaluate their
assessment (and thus, their potential “offense” from what you’ve done). Unfortunately, as humans we tend to only consider the “context” of actions when those actions are our own. We give ourselves
the benefit of the doubt, but it’s a different story when judging
others. And the story is no different in mediation: By the time a case
crosses your desk as a mediator, more likely than not at least
one of the parties (often, at minimum, the plaintiff) is wholly
convinced that the dispute only exists because the other party did or
did not do something to cause it. And they may be right! But as many
experienced mediators know all too well, often the truth of a situation
is secondarily important to how parties perceive it. Many times, parties
will make up stories for themselves regarding the “fault” of a
situation, and use their judgment of fault in order to legitimize their
not reaching out to the other side, their unwillingness to compromise,
and thus their determination to perpetuate the conflict. There are a lot
of reasons why parties do this, and one very potent enabler of this
process is the FAE parties apply when thinking about other parties’
actions.
I believe that it is incumbent upon conflict resolution professionals
to be aware of and able to react to FAE thinking when we see it, and to
understand that this kind of thinking produces assumptions and blame
that can keep parties from ever considering settlement in the first
place. For instance, perhaps a subcontractor did not meet a deadline but
could not do so because the subcontractor’s main supplier delivered
needed
goods too late. If the contractor does not take the time to ask why
the contract terms were not met, and no communication occurs, they are
likely going to assume that the subcontractor had full control over the
situation and thus that it was their fault. Sometimes, parties assume
the other party “harmed” them and could have prevented it, even when
they could not. As mediators we know too well that facts are often
muddled, convoluted, incredibly complex, and laced with emotional biases
– and therein lies the conundrum: When parties can possibly
blame other parties for a negative experience or outcome, they tend to
do so because the FAE leads us to assume that someone was always in
control of events. All too often, blame lies somewhere in the
middle of the dispute, and in mediations where parties might otherwise
have an opportunity to openly communicate with one another and come to
an understanding, all dialogue is instead focused on “blame” (i.e.,
liability) and thus what money must exchange hands for the dispute to
end. This is especially true when parties do not have a
previous personal or professional relationship: As with our hypothetical
dispute between spouses, if parties do not have a previous context
by which to judge the validity of their FAE, they are more likely to
commit a FAE and assume the other side is to blame – regardless of the
reality.
So as mediators, what can we do? Of course, one of our most
fundamental responsibilities is to remain neutral, but there are
instances where it is nonetheless beneficial for parties to be guided in
fully examining the potential FAE’s they may have committed. It’s
always better for a client to examine their stance in mediation than to
enter trial and find out the hard way that there are perspectives they
haven’t considered. Even more than saving my clients the time and money
of trial, often full resolution is only possible by helping clients
examine their thinking, re-assess their situation, and communicate with
the other side as part of the process. In order to better remember how
to break down my approach to potential FAE-related “roadblocks” in a
dispute, I like to keep it simple and use the same acronym as the
problem itself: “FAE.”
Facts
The ‘F’ in FAE
First, understand the Facts
of the case from both sides, as best you can. Inexperienced neutrals
might think this seems elementary, but experienced practitioners know
full well that gaining a complete understanding of a case is almost
always trickier than it seems. Even though we are neutrals, we certainly
have the opportunity to help our clients assess their conflict in ways
they may not have previously. But this is only possible if we carefully
gain a sense for the case from all sides’ perspectives, and if we are
consciously aware that the perspectives parties share with us are
inherently their version of what has occurred. Because our
clients are human, they naturally will tend to perceive conflict through
the lenses of various cognitive biases – including the FAE. Therefore,
it is often the missing and contradictory pieces of
information that can help us identify points where the parties may have
made incorrect assumptions about one another’s behaviour. Put another
way, if our mediation cases were a jigsaw puzzle, it is only by
carefully placing each piece in order to see the gaps or overlapping
pieces that we can figure out what questions we may need to ask to help
our clients gain clarity or re-evaluate their assumptions about other
parties’ intentions.
I always have my “feelers” out for potentially relevant, alternative
“interpretations” of the dispute by either side. I try to understand
what motivations my clients might have for perceiving the conflict in
particular ways. Do they gain any emotional strength or legitimization
of their actions from their perception? Are there any facts from either
party that suggest liability may not lie where one (or both) of the
parties assumes it might? Further, do I think one or both of the parties
may be committing a FAE? Of course, the whole point of many cases is
that one or both sides feel they have an adequate factual basis from
which to feel justified in their positions – right or wrong, but this
doesn’t preclude the possibility that they have committed one or several
FAE’s you may consider addressing.
Address
The ‘A’ in FAE
Which brings me to the second step of the process. If you do choose to Address
a potential FAE, make sure that (1) it is relevant to the
dispute-at-hand (e.g., not something that neither party considers
important and that thus will likely not cause stalemate later) and that
(2) addressing the assumption is worth the delicate balance of
indirectly calling attention to a potential “mistake” or “bias” a party
may have. There are often many interpersonal and emotional issues we as
mediators might address with clients, but we are not therapists: There
is sometimes an unclear line between our task as conflict resolvers and
that of a mental health professional helping clients process their
emotions and improve their relationships. My general rule is to ask my
clients directly whether or not they think addressing particular
misunderstandings or issues would help them in the conflict.
Alternatively, when I think my client may be experiencing a FAE (or any
other cognitive bias, misinterpretation, or misunderstanding) that they
do not see as important to address, I will ask them for permission
before giving my thoughts as to how the FAE might be driving their
conflict. For a party’s FAE to be important enough to address, it does
not necessarily have to be about something that would lead to
“stalemate,” but instead might simply be about an issue that is
nonetheless important to the case or that might determine the outcome of
even one significant aspect of the settlement.
The best way to address a FAE, I’ve found, is to help a party think
through any assumptions they may have made regarding others’ actions. I
ask questions from the standpoint that I am seeking clarification on the
potentially ambiguous issues involved. For instance:
Is it possible there is another explanation for what the other party did?
Can you help me understand what might have motivated the other party to act in this way?
How might the other party explain their actions?
Questions such as these help parties to think through their
assumptions, consider alternative explanations, and thus begin to
reframe the conflict stories they have built in their minds. These lines
of questioning can be important elements of a mediator’s work, but they
also present a delicate process of calling into question assumptions
that might bolster stories very emotionally important to our clients.
Empathize
The ‘E’ in FAE
Precisely because this process can be so sensitive, it is always important to Empathize
with our clients when questioning their assumptions. Simply put, there
is no “right” or seamless way to help a party think through their
assumptions, only methods you can use to ensure that parties know you
are seeking to help both sides find resolution from a neutral stance.
Questions causing reconsideration of our clients’ and other parties’
actions can be important for clients to hear, but are all potentially
interpreted as a threat to their established viewpoint. I cannot stress
enough how important – and powerful – it is to consistently communicate
empathy as a mediator, especially when helping clients
re-evaluate FAE’s and other assumptions that may serve to undergird
their sense of identity, legitimacy, or power in a conflict. Communicate
that you are “seeking to ensure that we have thought through all
possible alternatives,” and iterate your role as a neutral both on “no
one’s side,” but also on “everyone’s side,” if you are comfortable
taking that stance.
All-in-all, addressing potential FAE’s within mediation is a delicate
balance, and is not a process to be undertaken lightly. It should be
done when there is potential for a party’s assumptions to prevent them
from considering viewpoints or options that may affect their positions
on key issues, or that may affect their long-term commitment to
settlement. Finally, realize that often it may not matter to a
party how or why a perceived slight or harm was committed – they may
only value being recompensed (and legally, it may be the other side’s
fault). Regardless, one of our roles as mediator is to understand and
interact with our clients’ potential biases and motivations as we help
them navigate their conflict. The fundamental attribution error is one
of the most prevalent cognitive biases in human thinking, and as such it
is essential that as mediators we both understand and effectively work
with this and other potential mental “roadblocks” as they arise.
No comments:
Post a Comment