A Study of the Emergence of Cooperation in Mediation

The notion of cooperation is central to the mediation dynamic. Experienced mediators know that simply persuading parties to sit around a table will not suffice to obtain a negotiated agreement. The parties must also share, at minimum, a desire to cooperate. Therefore, one of the mediator's major goals is to foster this motivation to collaborate. The key question of this study is, therefore, as follows: how does a mediator promote the emergence of cooperation in a conflict?

The link between parties’ cooperation levels and the likelihood of a successful outcome in a mediation has been previously demonstrated (Zubeck, Pruitt, and Pierce 1992), and the effects of cooperation on the conflict‐resolution process in relation to competition have been previously highlighted (Deutsch and Coleman 2000). However, developing a better understanding of the variables that influence the motivation to cooperate is essential to the development of more effective intervention models. Most studies on the collaborative process are based on mediators’ opinions or are transposed from other fields of study, such as psychology or sociology (Poitras 2001). Consequently, we do not actually have a firm grasp of what contributes to the emergence of cooperation between parties in mediation. To better understand the process, it is crucial to study cooperation from the perspective of the parties involved.

This article reports the findings of a phenomenological study that examined how parties within a mediation experience cooperation. The first section defines the positive and negative factors that, according to the parties’ own accounts, affect the emergence of cooperation. On the basis of these findings, nine separate factors have been determined. The second section establishes a comparison between antagonistic and more cooperative mediation climates. The comparison ascertains which of the previously studied factors characterize the difference between the two mediation climates. The proposed analysis makes it possible to identify several courses of action that may ease the transition from an antagonistic climate to a cooperative climate and thereby facilitate mediators’ work. While some of the findings make intuitive sense, others seem to challenge some widely held beliefs within the mediation profession.

In order to better understand what motivates or inhibits cooperation in the mediation process, the study draws on phenomenological methodology. More specifically, the content of written accounts by the parties involved in a mediation was analyzed to define the variables that influenced parties’ motivation to cooperate. Data was gathered using the personal account method (Bachelor and Joshi 1986), which consists of having subjects provide a written description of their experience with respect to the situation being studied.

Because the survey technique depends on participants’ self‐awareness of their own motivations, it can be difficult to glean their unconscious thoughts and feelings. However, one of phenomenology's postulates is that people must be aware of their own thinking in order for change to occur. Because we are concerned here with those factors that influence the desire to collaborate, we assume that parties have some awareness of these factors. As a result, the stronger a factor's impact, the more likely a party is to be aware of it and to report it.

At the conclusion of their first mediation sessions, participants were asked to provide written answers to a question concerning the events, situations, and/or actions that induced them to cooperate or, conversely, dissuaded them from cooperating. We confirmed the clarity and relevance of the question beforehand with a test group. The question was as follows: “describe below, in as much detail as possible, what encouraged you to, or discouraged you from, cooperating with the other party during the mediation session that just occurred.”

Participants were recruited via mediators working in three conflict‐management units of the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND).¹ Their role was limited to giving new parties in a mediation process the option to participate in the study and to distributing the study questionnaire to the volunteers at the end of the first mediation session. To avoid any bias on the part of mediators in the selection of participants, they were instructed to systematically offer each of the parties involved in a new mediation the opportunity to participate. Respondents returned their questionnaires to researchers by way of prepaid return envelopes, thereby preserving the anonymity of their answers.²

The data were processed with the goal of building a theoretical generalization of the variables. This entailed analyzing the content of each answer in accordance with four predetermined steps, based on the method of Bachelor and Joshi (1986).³ In order to ensure the reliability of the analyses, three independent assessors with previous experience in content analysis were responsible for examining the completed questionnaires. The process yielded a consensus among the independent assessors of 93 percent, which represents a satisfactory agreement among the raters.⁴ The result of the data gathering and analysis process was the creation of an inventory of those variables that positively or negatively influence the emergence of the desire to cooperate on the part of those involved in a mediation session. Table One presents a summary of the set of nine influencing factors in the cooperation process, based on whether they are positive or negative.

A factor is considered positive if it favors the emergence or reinforcement of cooperation. The positive factors identified arise very frequently; in fact, 89 percent of respondents mentioned at least one of them in their accounts and 38 percent cited more than one. Seven positive factors were identified: (1) the desire to find a solution; (2) constructive communications; (3) the desire to reconcile; (4) amiability; (5) receptiveness to interests; (6) acceptance of one's share of responsibility; and (7) confidence in the possibility of finding a solution.

Parties indicate their desire to find a solution when they want to resolve a conflict for reasons of personal will, discomfort with the situation, or incentives from the surroundings. This desire is driven by an individual's inner motivation, which may have nothing to do with the other party's rationale. One party may wish to resolve a conflict whether or not the other party has any interest in doing so. Nearly half the respondents (49 percent) cited this factor in their answers, making the desire to find a solution the most frequently mentioned factor in the study.

The phrasing chosen by respondents reveals this impulse to cooperate. The use of the pronoun “I” and active verbs also indicate that this desire is internally motivated. For example, responses included: “I went into the process with the intent of finding a solution to the problem,” or “I wanted to settle the dispute amicably.” These examples illustrate the initial desire of the parties to resolve the conflict.

Whether the desire to settle a dispute is rooted in personal convictions, professional or organizational needs, or the wish to restore relations with the other person, the fact remains that it is characterized by internal factors. The need to settle a conflict may arise from a variety of sources, but when cooperation constitutes the best way to achieve certain results, this need can become a considerable source of motivation to collaborate (Poitras, Bowen, and Wiggins 2003). Similarly, the desire to cooperate can be further fuelled by a sense of urgency in settling a conflict (Cormick 1989) or by a feeling that the current situation is no longer viable (Saunders 1985). Nevertheless, while the desire to find a solution can predispose an individual to cooperate, by itself it will spark cooperation only rarely. It is more likely that before taking concrete action, each party will first want to ensure that its cooperative efforts will be equaled by the other party.

Constructive communications are characterized by both parties’ mutual understanding of each other's points of view. A party in a mediation process may consider communications to be constructive if they create a climate conducive to positive and productive discussion. Generally, respondents cited this factor when they perceived that the quality of the communication between them was improving. This was cited by 20 percent of respondents, making it the second most frequently cited positive factor.

Responses to the study question clearly indicated the impact of positive communications on the desire to cooperate. Some respondents mentioned the benefits “. . . of listening very carefully to what the other person has to say.” Others noted that it was “. . . easier to be candid” and the climate made “. . . it easy to talk to one another.” Still others mentioned that “. . . it was simpler to communicate and it was no longer a one‐way street.” Based on the parties’ experiences, constructive communications contributed to stimulating the desire to cooperate with the other party.

Much has been written about the importance of communication during the mediation process and about the skills that need to be developed to maximize the outcome. Research on this subject shows that parties benefit from: (1) communicating directly (Schellenberg 1996); (2) being open to listening to one another in a way that shows a willingness to engage with the other person (Barnlund 1968); and (3) discussing information and opinions using perspective‐taking behaviors that communicate their desire to understand accurately (Johnson and Johnson 1989). Other studies advise mediators to develop a framework that discourages psychological violence between the parties (Deutsch and Coleman 2000) and to intervene rapidly to put a stop to negative communications (Donohue 1989). With this in mind, the findings of this study confirm that the establishment of constructive communications encourages the emergence of cooperation.

The category “desire to reconcile” encompasses a party's wish or need to maintain, reestablish, or improve his or her relationship with the other party. Whereas the desire to find a solution may reflect an underlying desire to be freed from an irritating situation, the desire to reconcile implies something more positive — a desire to restore a relationship to a previously harmonious state or to establish for the first time a better relationship between the parties. The desire to reconcile as a factor in the emergence of cooperation was cited in 16 percent of participant responses in this study, ranking third among positive factors.

The terms used by the respondents to express their desire to reconcile made explicit reference to a more harmonious relationship in the future. For example, one respondent said, “I hope that the atmosphere between the other person and me becomes less stressful.” Another stressed the “desire to work with the other person and share the same work objectives.”

The importance of the wish to restore, preserve, or improve the future of a relationship with the other party clearly constitutes an important factor in the emergence of the desire to cooperate. When parties have an interest in maintaining their relationship in the future, they are more motivated to seek out solutions to restore harmonious and productive relations (Landau, Landau, and Landau 2001; Zubeck, Pruitt, and Pierce 1992). In view of this, the desire to reconcile, in addition to establishing a predisposition for cooperation, can also be considered a factor that precipitates the creation of a climate of cooperation, as the fear of continued antagonism exerts pressure to improve the relationship between the parties.

Amiability refers to a situation in which one party's attitudes and behaviors show openness, courtesy, or good faith toward the other party. Amiability must not be confused with accommodation, as the former does not imply that one party yields to the other's demands automatically; rather, that he or she approaches the negotiation process with a conciliatory attitude. Amiability was cited by 13 percent of respondents, making it the fourth most cited positive factor.

Responses revealed that, as one would expect, people react favorably to amiable approaches. Among their comments: “[I] wanted to cooperate because she was making an effort . . .” and “The other party's open mind made a big difference in my [desire to cooperate].” It is interesting to note that amiability, when observed by both parties, was generally one of the first factors mentioned in the responses, as a preface to why they wished to cooperate.

Amiability activates the desire to cooperate. Similarly, Ury (1998) observed that certain personal attitudes, such as politeness, courtesy, and civility, may elicit cooperation and contribute positively to the resolution of a dispute. Clearly, one party's openness incites the same in the other, which can lead to a chain reaction that promotes a constructive approach to the conflict.

When a party's attitudes and behaviors demonstrated an acknowledgment of their importance to the other party, we considered that to be evidence of receptiveness to the other party's interests. It is fundamental to distinguish between receptiveness and surrender — receptiveness to interests does not translate into a commitment to concede to all of the other party's demands. Rather, it entails conveying to the other party that the importance of those interests is understood and will be taken into account. The receptiveness factor was mentioned in 13 percent of participant responses, making it tied with amiability as the fourth most frequently reported positive factor.

Participants reported that the other party demonstrated receptiveness by being either considerate of or open‐minded toward their views during discussions. For example, one participant said “. . . she took into consideration the position I hold and my responsibility [as a manager]” or “the other person showed a certain degree of openness.” The parties therefore perceived the other's receptiveness to their interests as an openness to satisfying those interests. In this sense, receptiveness to interests may make it possible to anticipate a beneficial solution.

That receptiveness was considered important is not particularly surprising, as many authors emphasize that the interests of all parties should be taken into consideration during mediation. More specifically, Robert Bush and Joseph Folger (1994) argue that, to settle a conflict, each party should demonstrate openness to the legitimate needs and interests of the other party while remaining in touch with his or her own needs and interests. Erling O. Jorgensen (2000) adds that showing interest in the other's point of view is more often than not greeted favorably and often inspires the other party to reciprocate. Receptiveness to interests clearly contributes to the search for win‐win solutions and fosters the creation of a cooperative climate.

In the mediation context, a party indicates acceptance of his or her share of responsibility in a conflict when he or she acknowledges, at least partially, his or her role in the emergence of the conflict. This does not require a party to claim total responsibility or guilt for a conflict but only to admit that he or she may have inadvertently exacerbated the situation. Although this attitude does favorably influence cooperation, it was nevertheless rarely cited by participants in this study. With a frequency of 9 percent, it tied for last place in terms of the most common positive factor.

The acceptance of one's share of responsibility can be a simple matter, as indicated by the following accounts: “. . . the other party accepted having made mistakes . . . didn’t lay all the blame on others”; or, “He realized that he wasn’t perfect, either.” Although the explicit acknowledgment of one's contribution to the problem is probably the clearest way of showing acceptance for one's share of the responsibility, this can also be conveyed more subtly and implicitly through attitudes and behaviors. The greatest impact of accepting one's share of the responsibility for the conflict is probably the implication that one is ready to correct the situation, which encourages the other party to consider the possibility of cooperating.

The admission by one party of his or her share of responsibility can have various degrees of intensity. According to Kenneth Cloke and Joan Goldsmith (2000), this acknowledgment may take the form of an acceptance of the role of one's own thoughts, attitudes, comments, actions, and interpersonal/behavioral deficiencies in contributing to the conflict. In some circumstances, the parties can even go beyond their acknowledgment of responsibility and actually offer their apologies (Borisoff and Victor 1998). Regardless of how it is done, the acknowledgment of a party's responsibility in the emergence of a conflict paves the way for a climate of sincerity, fostering the parties’ abilities to share responsibility for resolving their differences. Consequently, the acceptance of one's share of the responsibility is likely to predispose parties to cooperate.

Confidence in the possibility of finding a solution to a conflict is present when a party believes that a fair and satisfactory agreement can be reached with the other party. Parties may be motivated to resolve a dispute without being confident that this resolution can actually be achieved. The level of intensity is important here — the closer this confidence borders on certainty, the more significant the factor. Confidence as a positive factor in cooperation was mentioned in only 9 percent of cases, putting it in a tie for last place with accepting responsibility among positive factors in this study.

Participants who cited confidence as a factor also often mentioned their hopes that a win‐win solution could be achieved and that the other party would do his or her share to find a solution. Accordingly, one respondent pointed out: “[what motivated me was the] desire of the other [party] to find a viable and mutually acceptable solution.”

This variable is often cited in the scientific literature as one of the key elements of cooperation. Harold Saunders (1985) states that the impression that the other party intends to make compromises may be a key factor in shaping one's commitment to finding a negotiated solution. Saunders also maintains that the greater the parties’ belief that an equitable agreement is possible, the stronger their desire to cooperate. Confidence in the possibility of finding a solution can also result from the existence of a shared interest. In fact, the presence of mutual interests can encourage the parties to become actively involved in seeking out solutions, bolster their confidence in finding a solution, and enhance their interest in cooperation, despite the conflict (Augsburger 1992; Cloke and Goldsmith 2000; Zubeck, Pruitt, and Pierce 1992).

According to the findings of this study, two factors have a negative effect on cooperation and contribute to preventing its emergence or destroying its foundations. Compared to positive factors, negative factors were cited in this study much less frequently, with only 29 percent of respondents citing at least one negative factor in their responses to the questionnaire. Among these, only 15 percent mentioned more than one negative factor to explain their lack of willingness to cooperate. The two negative factors cited were hostility and indifference to the other party's interests.

Hostility in a mediation session is present when a party's attitudes and behaviors tend to isolate, intimidate, or belittle the other party, thereby significantly decreasing that party's willingness to cooperate. These hostile behaviors include blaming or reproaching the other party. In comparison to other influencing factors, hostility was cited rather frequently, by 22 percent of respondents, making it the most frequently cited negative factor.

In reviewing the completed questionnaires for this study, it was not uncommon to read a party's complaints that the accusations and reproaches of the other party simply eliminated any inclination the former may have had to cooperate. For example, one individual stated, “What discouraged me from cooperating was the criticism from the other party.” Along the same lines, another participant wrote, “I lost interest in cooperating because, apparently, I was the only one at fault.” These statements adequately illustrate the connection between hostility and a lack of interest in cooperation.

Such manifestations of hostility on the part of one party toward another during a mediation session incontestably hinder the process and may constitute a barrier to any kind of progress. Zubeck, Pruitt, and Pierce (1992) observed that hostile behavior diminishes the desire to cooperate among parties. This is probably even more likely when hostility is mutual and sustained. In this respect, another team of researchers also identified the phenomenon of self‐perpetuating conflicts fuelled by hostile behavior especially in cases of divorce and international conflicts (Pruitt and Olczak 1995).

In a mediation context, a party can demonstrate its indifference to the interests of the other party verbally or nonverbally. Indifference can be passive (such as a simple lack of consideration of the other's interests), or active (such as when one party argues with the other about the relevance of the latter's interests). This negative factor, however, was cited infrequently by only 11 percent of respondents.

When parties cited indifference to interests, some said that they felt that the other party did not try to understand their interests (“[the other party] wasn’t trying to understand mine [interests]”). In certain cases, indifference was attributed to the other party's selfishness. One party reported that the other was “. . . focused only on his/her own interests.” In all cases, this indifference is reported as having inhibited the desire to cooperate with the other party.

Recently, Deutsch and Coleman (2000) described how rejecting another party's ideas and needs can discourage him or her from taking an active part in the negotiation process. Why try to find a solution with someone who does not care about your satisfaction? In some cases, this indifference can be pathological and associated with certain types of personalities. Lynn Holaday (2002) mentions that certain narcissistic personalities obsessed by their own point of view can frustrate others to the point of limiting their cooperation in finding a solution to a dispute. Regardless of whether this indifference to interests is circumstantial or pathological, this attitude hampers the emergence of cooperation by eroding one's motivation to work with the other party to find solutions.

Now that we have a better understanding of the factors involved in the emergence of a desire to cooperate in a mediation context, it is important to examine what sets a cooperative experience apart from an antagonistic (i.e., noncooperative) experience. This involves a two‐step process. First, we will classify the responses according to various categories of cooperative experience. Then, we will compare the occurrence of the nine factors identified in the previous section for each category, in order to pinpoint some significant differences. It is interesting to note that the presence or absence of just a few factors may make the difference between an antagonistic experience and a more cooperative one. The identification of these factors, we believe, can help mediators design more effective mediation strategies.

To help us categorize respondents’ experiences, we added two closed‐ended questions on the questionnaire:

1. We would like to have your assessment of your desire to cooperate with the other party. Overall, how would you describe your desire to cooperate with the other person during the mediation session that has just ended?

2. We would like to know your assessment of the other person in the establishment of a cooperative climate with you. Overall, how would you describe the attitude of the other person with respect to establishing a climate of cooperation during the mediation session that has just ended?

These questions were designed to measure respondents’ desires to cooperate with the other party as well as their perceptions of the opposing parties’ attitudes toward cooperation. They were asked to check one of these six options in response: (1) very weak; (2) weak; (3) rather weak; (4) rather strong; (5) strong; or, (6) very strong.

After the results were compiled, the average rating respondents gave to their own desire to cooperate was 4.20 (“rather strong,” the standard deviation was 0.92). The average rating of their perception of the other party's desire to cooperate was 4.29 (“rather strong,” standard deviation of 0.89). The positioning of each respondent as compared to the average response to these two questions made it possible to categorize the attitude/climate of each individual respondent within three categories: cooperative climate, antagonistic climate, and mixed climate.

Individuals who had a higher‐than‐average desire to cooperate and a higher‐than‐average opinion of the cooperative attitude of the other party were considered to be in the “cooperative climate” category. Of the forty‐five people who answered the questionnaire, twenty‐two fell under this heading. Conversely, we placed those who had a lower‐than‐average desire to cooperate as well as a lower‐than‐average opinion of the cooperative attitude of the other party into the “antagonistic climate” category. Of the forty‐five people who answered the questionnaire, eleven respondents fell into this category.

The last category, that is, “mixed climate,” applied to all those who did not fit under either of the two other headings. The category includes those who had a higher‐than‐average desire but who assessed that the other party's cooperative attitude was lower than average. It also includes those whose desire to cooperate was lower than average but who assessed that the other party's desire to cooperate was higher than average. Of the forty‐five people who answered the questionnaire, twelve respondents fell into this mixed category — midway between the cooperative and antagonistic categories.

After having classified the respondents into three groups, we were able to compare the content of their answers to the first question (see the previous section) focusing on the differences between the responses of those subjects in the antagonistic and cooperative categories. The occurrence of each of the nine factors identified in the previous section for these two categories will therefore be compared in order to identify the significant differences for each.⁵

We then analyzed the occurrence of the factors in the mixed category to illustrate the transition between the antagonistic and cooperative experiences. The combination of these two analyses offers information about what makes one experience cooperative and another antagonistic, and about how this distinction takes effect.⁶Figure One, below, shows the frequency of occurrence of each of the identified factors according to the mediation climate.

The two negative factors are most characteristic of the responses of those in the “antagonistic climate” group. The “hostility” and “indifference to interests” factors are much more prevalent in the antagonistic climate than in the cooperative climate where, in fact, the occurrence of these factors is absent. Thus, it is these factors that typify the experience of an antagonistic climate in the mediation process.

The “hostility” factor was cited by 32 percent of those respondents who fall into the antagonistic category, while it was cited by 0 percent of those respondents falling into the cooperative category. The difference is significant (P< 0.03). Moreover, the chart shows a decreasing exponential curve whose transition threshold⁷ is located between the mixed climate and the cooperative climate. It would therefore seem that hostility disappears with the appearance of a cooperative climate. In this sense, hostility arguably constitutes a symptom of the absence of cooperation.

As for the “indifference to interests” factor, participants whose responses placed them in the antagonistic climate cited this factor in 23 percent of cases, whereas those in the cooperative climate group did not report it at all. This difference is also significant (P< 0.05). In addition, the chart shows that for this factor there is a decreasing exponential curve whose transition threshold is located between the antagonistic and mixed climates. It therefore seems that indifference to interests must be eliminated in order to make the transition to a cooperative climate.

It is interesting to consider these findings in light of existing literature. With regard to indifference to the other party's interests, Cloke and Goldsmith (2000), and Bush and Folger (1994) stressed the importance of openness to the needs and interests of the other party as well as the necessity of remaining attentive to one's own needs and interests in order to bring about a cooperative climate. In a climate characterized by indifference to interests, chances are good that any dialogue will be fruitless because it will be based on arguments that undermine the value of the other party's interests. In addition, manifestations of hostility do not in any way promote discussion or common ground in terms of interests or needs. Furthermore, there can be a circular causality effect — one party's negative behavior can result in a resurgence of negative attitudes and behaviors on the part of the other. This is known as a cycle of reactive hostility (Poitras 2003) and, according to this analysis, it is entirely possible that this cycle is rooted in one or both parties’ indifference to the other party's needs.

Individuals who fell into the cooperative climate category cited “acceptance of one's share of responsibility” and “desire to reconcile” more frequently. These two factors therefore typify the experience of a cooperative climate in the mediation process.

“Acceptance of one's share of responsibility” was cited as a factor by 18 percent of respondents who experienced a cooperative climate whereas only 5 percent of respondents in the antagonistic climate group did so. This 13 percent difference is significant (P< 0.1).⁸ In examining the progression of the citing of this factor from the antagonistic climate to the more cooperative climate in Figure One, we can observe a linear progression, or a progressive increase in the frequency of its mention throughout the transition from one climate to the other. It therefore seems that acceptance of one's share of responsibility goes hand in hand with the establishment of a cooperative climate.

As for the “desire to reconcile” factor, we observed a reporting frequency of 36 percent among respondents in the cooperative climate category, but only 9 percent for the parties associated with the antagonistic climate. Not surprisingly, this 27 percent difference is significant (P< 0.03). In examining the progression of this factor as shown in Figure One, we can see an increasing exponential curve whose transition threshold is located between the mixed and cooperative climates. It therefore seems that the desire to reconcile is buoyed by the emergence of a cooperative climate.

In a mediation process characterized as cooperative, it would not be unexpected to find these two factors present. Who has not felt relief and appreciation toward a person who accepts his or her share of responsibility for a problem, who honestly admits to having made a mistake or having done something to further aggravate a situation? This can be seen as an explicit demonstration of respect and of a sincere desire to make amends. It is hardly surprising, then, that this attitude encourages cooperation. Moreover, it is also predictable that there would be a link between the parties’ desire to reconcile and their motivation to cooperate. As previously mentioned, parties are more motivated to cooperate when it is in their interest to maintain future relations (Landau, Landau, and Landau 2001; Zubeck, Pruitt, and Pierce 1992). Finally, the potential link between these two positive factors also offers some lessons. According to our findings, we can postulate that the emergence of cooperation is strongly associated with the desire to reconcile and that this desire is likely a product of the initial acceptance by the parties of their respective shares of responsibility for the conflict.

As mentioned in the introduction, there are practical applications to the study of the emergence of cooperation. Specifically, we ask the following key question: how can a mediator foster the emergence of a cooperative climate when the initial climate is antagonistic? Focusing on the four factors that significantly distinguish the two climates, we propose a three‐step strategy.

1. Control demonstrations of indifference. The first step is to control from the outset any demonstrations of indifference to the interests of the other party. The results of this study indicate that indifference is a powerful negative factor that must be altogether eliminated before a cooperative climate can be established. Nevertheless, although it can be useful to encourage receptiveness to the interests of the other party, our findings indicate that this is not necessary for a climate of cooperation to emerge — the objective is simply to impede demonstrations of indifference. To accomplish this, mediators can turn to the three methods. First, they can coach the parties during the preliminary meetings on the impact of indifference to interests and encourage them, at the very least, to limit their demonstrations of indifference to arguments concerning the relevance of the needs of the other party and, at best, to try to actually understand the other party's needs. One tactic is to cite the analogy that it is easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar. Parties may thus be persuaded to limit their displays of indifference out of self‐interest. Second, mediators can serve as a bridge between the parties by acknowledging everyone's interests, for example, by summarizing them. This can help parties feel that at least someone cares and can temper any actual display of indifference. Mediators must ensure, however, that this acknowledgment is properly balanced, as parties are often quick to jump to the conclusion that the mediator favors one party over another. Finally, mediators can use flip charts to record the interests of each party. By writing interests on flip charts, mediators informally acknowledge parties’ interests. In addition, we believe that mediators can minimize the feeling that one party is indifferent to the interests of the other by proceeding in this manner.

This finding about the value of controlling indifference is interesting to consider in light of other research findings. Robert Axelrod's (1984) studies on cooperation ranked reciprocity as a cornerstone of the emergence of cooperation. Parties learn to cooperate as they ascertain that cooperative moves will be reciprocated. In this regard, demonstrations of indifference could be viewed as a warning of potential nonreciprocity. Therefore, as long as parties manifest indifference to each other's preoccupations, they will presume that cooperation moves will not be reciprocated and will not initiate collaboration. In addition, according to the work of William Donohue and Closepet Ramesh (1992) relational distance prevents parties from setting mutual goals, which is a prerequisite for cooperation. Because indifference is a form of relational distance, it is reasonable to assume that indifference will prevent parties from setting a mutual goal and thus impede the emergence of collaboration.

2. Encourage acceptance of responsibility. Another important step for mediators to promote the emergence of cooperation is to encourage parties to gradually accept their share of responsibility for the conflict and then to take responsibility for helping to resolve it. Our findings indicate that this acceptance builds gradually and concurrently with a cooperative climate. In the first phase, the mediator should not necessarily look for apologies, even if apologies would expedite the process. The objective is simply to help parties better understand their contribution (sometimes involuntary) to the escalation of the conflict. The ultimate goal is understanding, not faultfinding.

To accomplish this, mediators can help parties realize that mistakes are a product of inexperience or other attenuating factors, rather than a result of ill will. For instance, acknowledging the fact that, had the parties known the situation was to sour so badly, they would have acted differently, might be sufficient in having everyone accept their respective responsibilities without losing face. Experience has shown that parties are generally more open to this type of approach rather than to the development of formal apologies. When this step is completed, mediators can then ask the parties if they are ready to work toward resolving the conflict. We feel that once the parties have recognized their past mistakes, they are more open to accepting their roles in finding a solution for the future.

The importance of accepting one's share of responsibility fits with the concept of transformative mediation developed by Bush and Folger (1994). Moving from a belief that a conflict is the other's fault to a confession of joint responsibility transforms the mediation dynamic. When one sees a problem as a joint mistake, it makes sense to cooperate with the other to solve it. Similarly, when one hears the other's admission of responsibility, it helps build trust in the other's good faith. As a result, this stage of mutual recognition of responsibility appears to play a major role in the emergence of cooperation.

3. Monitor hostility and the desire to reconcile. The third step is to monitor both parties’ levels of hostility and desire to reconcile. Because these two factors respectively disappear and appear during the emergence of cooperation, we suggest that they be considered not as causes, but as symptoms of a problem. Generally speaking, we can postulate that, as cooperation builds, hostility is replaced by the desire to reconcile.

We therefore suggest that mediators take an observation‐oriented approach rather than one rooted in intervention for these two factors. To achieve this, mediators must shift the paradigm. Although they need to strive to temper the level of hostility between the parties, they must not see this as their central role. This does not mean that diffusing hostility is trivial, but rather that limiting hostile behaviors, even though a necessary role of mediators, will only have a temporary effect. Symptoms usually resurface when underlying causes are not treated. In this case, the findings suggest that indifference to the other party's interests may be the source of hostility. If hostility and the desire to reconcile are seen as negative and positive symptoms, then mediators are better advised to focus most of their energy on the first two steps, namely controlling demonstrations of indifference to interests and encouraging the parties to accept their respective share of responsibility.

The proposition that tempering hostility between parties is not a central role of mediators may challenge some mediators’ beliefs and practices — in particular the practices of encouraging the parties to vent their emotions and of bringing the parties to order as an essential step to control hostility. In a recent essay, Tricia Jones and Andrea Bodtker (2001) outlined that “venting without reflection only increases the emotional experience.” In an empirical study, Zubeck, Pruitt, and Pierce (1992) found that simply bringing parties to order does not effectively control hostility, but might in fact increase it. Venting and order keeping may not be the best way to curtail hostility. Our findings indicate that controlling demonstrations of indifference might be a more effective strategy.

Obviously, our proposed three‐step strategy does not offer a miracle solution or “magic bullet” to build cooperation in difficult mediation situations. Neither does it constitute the only way mediators may intervene. Clearly, the other factors identified in our findings play an important role in the establishment of a cooperative climate. For example, amiability between the parties can be critical. Nevertheless, it is likely that the four factors identified as distinctive features of antagonistic and cooperative climates play a key role in the emergence of cooperation in a mediation context. We believe that the ideas generated by the results of this study will enable mediators to focus their interventions to optimize their own effectiveness and help parties in dispute cooperatively resolve their conflicts.

By using an empirical, phenomenological approach, this study identified nine factors that, based on the experience of participants, play an important role in the emergence of cooperation in mediation. In addition, a comparison in the frequency of the reporting of these factors in the responses of the parties made it possible to identify four variables that seem to play a vital role in distinguishing an antagonistic climate from a cooperative one. These results indicate that rapid intervention by a mediator designed to mitigate parties’ demonstrations of indifference will help prevent them from getting bogged down in an antagonistic climate and will also diminish their levels of hostility. Furthermore, encouraging parties to willingly assume their share of the responsibility also seems to encourage cooperation. The findings suggest that the desire to reconcile increases proportionally with the emergence of cooperation.

However, it would be entirely unrealistic to imagine that controlling demonstrations of indifference to interests and encouraging acceptance of one's share of responsibility are all that it takes to create a cooperative climate between parties. Each mediation case is unique, and every party is sensitive to different factors. For example, one party may be more receptive to amiability, while another is more concerned about having confidence in the possibility of finding a solution. There is clearly no “one‐size‐fits‐all” approach to nurturing cooperation. However, the proposed strategy arguably represents a good springboard for the emergence of the desire to cooperate. Indeed, most conflicts are fuelled by indifference and a tendency to disproportionately place blame on the opposing party. As a result, the idea of predisposing parties to cooperation, as proposed by this strategy for workplace mediation, can be generalized to other contexts.

In a mediation process, antagonistic and cooperative climates distinguish themselves primarily through the dynamic that forms between the parties. The objective for mediators is to identify the elements that make up this dynamic and then intervene to foster the emergence of cooperation in an otherwise antagonistic situation. Acknowledging the attitudes and behaviors that interact within this dynamic is the first step in determining a mediation action plan. By facilitating the transition from an antagonistic to a cooperative climate, it is possible to obtain a better prognosis for the mediation process and bring both parties closer to resolving their conflict and achieving reconciliation.