Australian Centre for Justice Innovation

Civil Justice Research Online Mediation

1-1-2007

Intentionality in Mediation Anet Kate [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://www.civiljustice.info/med Part of the Cognition and Perception Commons, Interpersonal and Small Group Communication Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, and the Personality and Social Contexts Commons Recommended Citation Kate, Anet, "Intentionality in Mediation" (2007). Mediation. Paper 2. http://www.civiljustice.info/med/2

This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by Civil Justice Research Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mediation by an authorized administrator of Civil Justice Research Online. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Intentionality in Mediation –Conference 2007 Anet Kate, Barrister, Mediator, Conflict Coach Abstract: The importance of understanding nonverbal as well as verbal communication has been emphasised by social scientists for decades. Communication theorists and conflict experts describe nonverbal concepts to explain conflict behaviours and guide practitioners when they intervene in conversations between disputants. Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) can give communicators tools to consistently detect and interpret people’s nonverbal signals, including eye movements and language patterns. Such knowledge can be productive in mediation and negotiation. Mediators are becoming increasingly mindful of what they bring to the process in terms of presence. Intentionality can be seen as a sub-set of mindfulness in mediation, so those who use knowledge of the unspoken, including the methodology of NLP, can rely on what they see, hear and feel to make useful interventions. This assists towards a key aim of mediators and negotiators generally – what could be described as meta-communicative competence. Is there any evidence that NLP (using metal model questions) or nonverbal decoding work? Does such research exist? What difference might it make in practice if a mediator were consistently intentional and effective? DEFINING INTENTIONALITY & COMMUNICATION TERMS Intentionality has been defined as: “the fact of being deliberate or purposive” 1, which is how I use it. Philosophy considers its meaning as involving mental states, thoughts, beliefs, desires and hopes directed towards a desired object or state. So towards what desired objects or destinations do mediators’ intentions move them? Mediators’ answers to this question might include: creating rapport, assisting the parties to discuss and deal with the issues, needs, feelings and goals they have for mediation, or perhaps to move towards some other objects or states. One destination one or more parties may strive to achieve might be settlement. Others could be feeling heard, getting clear and calm, having various needs met by reaching agreement, getting closure or having the conflict at an end.2 Research has found that 93% of emotional meaning received from other people comes from facial expression and tone of voice, and only 7% from the actual words used.3 The importance of dealing with nonverbal signalling seems obvious when we consider that emotion is largely nonverbal and is a key consideration in mediation. Mediators may find it helpful to make conscious efforts to quiet their own emotional reactions as part of their process to aid listening, the paramount tool. 1

Oxford Dictionary of English, 2005. E.g.: T. Sourdin, Alternative Dispute Resolution. Law Book Co., Sydney. (2 e: 2005) 3 Snook, I.A. More than Talk: NZ Department of Education (1978).

2

1

To ensure meta-communicative competence in mediation mediators would ideally be balanced, credible and authentic, retaining acute awareness of their own intent and purpose. What happens to parties’ communication in conflict? Kenneth Cloke and others have described one effect of conflict on people as losing sight of the other’s humanity, resulting in a dehumanising or demonizing of opponents. Many mediators invite parties to tell their stories honestly in a way which reveals unmet needs for recognition and understanding, thereby interrupting patterns of self-absorption by articulating deep desires to the other.4 I would add the value of normalising5 people’s own language and metaphor, including seeing negative intention when caught the cycle of inward-looking weakness under conflict stress. This calms many people enough to hear others, and recognise each person’s humanity. Normalising encourages authenticity or realness in the mediation. Demonizing language attributes negative, cruel or violent intent to another and predictably results in blaming, shaming, and disempowerment of that person.6 This has been called ‘negative attribution’ by psychologists.7 The unmet need for the mediator to explore could include empathy, self-esteem, acknowledgement, emotional processing, or completion. ‘Behaviour’ in its singular form needs to be specific, tangible, observable, recordable and measurable. Otherwise what we call ‘behaviour’ may actually be a cluster or set of behaviours, such as a ‘skill’ or ‘skill set’.8 What interventions might a communication-conscious mediator make? An awareness of the inevitable impact of the mediator’s presence could lead to listening for filters and negative messaging, using Meta model questions and precise language. It could produce encouraging parties to lead the process as much they need to and can. It could influence mediators’ presentation of their purpose, by setting the tone for open and respectful dialogue. Mayer believes mediators can over-identify with a third party neutral role and identifies that neutrality provides a source of credibility, [B]ut also many sources of mistrust and doubt. Neutrals may offer one 4

Cloke, K.(2006)The Crossroads of Conflict: a Journey into the Heart of Conflict Resolution. Janis Publications Inc, Canada, 153. Also: (2001)Mediating Dangerously. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. “Attribution bias” is a psychological term used to denote the causal factors to which we attribute events experienced negatively by us. See, e.g. Korobkin, R. “Psychological Impediments to Mediation Success”. Research Paper No. 05-9, UCLA Law School, 2005. 5 Meaning: ‘to make normal’; ‘norm’ meaning:‘customary behaviour’, Oxford Dictionary of English, 2005. 6 Cloke, K. (2006). Inc, Canada, (2006), 153. Also: Mediating Dangerously. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA (2001) 7 Negative attribution or attribution bias are psychological terms to denote the causal factors to which we attribute events we experience negatively. See, e.g. Korobkin, R. “Psychological Impediments to Mediation Success”. Research Paper No. 05-9, UCLA Law School, 2005. 8 Parker, A. Discussion, Auckland, December 2006.

2

means for creating a safe, flexible, informal, and creative forum…but they do not offer sufficient opportunities for voice, justice, vindication, validation or impact. ...”9

Some mediators now prefer to say they are ‘omni-partial’ or engaged sequentially with all people in the room rather than aspiring to neutrality or impartiality. Jones and Bodtker (2001) highlight a seldom explored concern for mediators: that of specifically addressing the emotions of the mediator and the parties. They challenge the ‘myth of emotional venting’,10 by saying mediators can do more harm than good by applying this myth simplistically. As emotions are central to conflict they suggest mediators study their own emotional expression, becoming conscious of emotional flooding (system overload) and emotional contagion (becoming infected by others’ emotions). They warn that lacking the skills and cognition to accurately decode a party’s expression can lead to the mediator sending unintentionally disruptive nonverbal signals. This is one of several ways in which metaemotions11 may inhibit appropriate assistance of disputants. What do mediators write about their intentionality? Cloke provides explicit intentionality: In its simplest form mediation is merely a facilitated conversation designed to solve a problem. It does so at a simple level by making the conversation voluntary, private, confidential, collaborative, and informal…” and by: • encouraging active, empathetic and responsive listening; • allowing private conversations to take place in caucus; • directing conversations towards interests and the deeper reasons for the dispute; • balancing power and treating everyone as equals; and • ensuring that decisions are made by consensus or unanimity.12

In mediated conversations respectful behaviour can be supported through open-heartedness, honesty, authenticity and integrity. He finds mediation can move parties at subtle levels from anger or fear to respect and dialogue about difference by discovering the reasons people are stuck and helping them to forgive and let go. Cloke considers that the most important and subtle part of interest-based conflict resolution methods is not what we do as mediators but: ...who we are and are capable of becoming in the presence of conflict.13

As Grinder and McMaster explain the Meta model is a series of questions to reconnect language with experiences and is useful, in rapport, to provide a 9

Mayer, B. “The Heart of Conflict Resolution”, LEADR training, Auckland, N.Z. August 2005. Kennedy-Moore, E. and J.C. Watson. Expressing Emotion: myths, realities and strategies. New York: Guilford Press. (1999), cited by Jones and Bodtker (2001), 227. 11 Meta-emotions have been defined as: ‘emotions about emotions’, or the ways people feel about having certain kinds of emotions. E.g. I may be angry about being angry, or happy about being angry. Gottman, Katz, & Hooven (1997), cited by Jones and Bodtker (1999), 239. 12 Cloke, K. (2006), 62-64. He deals here with the links between process, behaviour and values. 13 Cloke, n 12. 10

3

systematic information gathering to find out more precisely what a person means. They provide guidance about when and how to ask these questions to find out specifically what is being referred to, and in the process filling in missing information by trying to reverse and unravel distortions, deletions and generalisations.14 Barbara Madonik uses NLP intentionally to produce structure and outcome in mediation, writes practically and in detail of various non-verbal strategies for mediators. She anecdotally demonstrates efficiency and effectiveness of NLP and other non-verbal tools.15 Much of this involves the setting up and conduct of the mediation and will be familiar to many mediators, including pre-meeting contact, use of metaphor, humour, and pacing-match-leading. That may mean these techniques are practiced by most experienced mediators, or that they have been taught to in many other training programmes and are not confined to NLP practice. To influence others constructively, encouraging them to generate agreement Allan Parker exhorts trainers or negotiators to: ...pace, reframe, stop disagreeing, gain permission, shift time frames, stay above the line, focus on agreement, establish willingness, move between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd positions, set mutual outcomes, use metaphors, establish opportunity costs, use open-ended questions, move people from present state to desired state, listen for and mark agreement, go to points of disagreement first, avoid closed-ended questions early, acknowledge contribution (not content), and chunk up and then down progressively, using logical levels.16

He concentrates on using precise language, unpacking deletions, distortions and generalisations with NLP ‘meta model’ questions in his complex model of precise negotiation communication. 17 Lois Gold, an experienced family mediator associated with Virginia Satir, models a strong ‘wounded healer’ who uses strategies based on qualities of presence and spirituality. She mentions the ‘healing and peacemaking potentials of mediation’, and alone among writers studied speaks of ‘intention and directed intentionality’, as well as transcendence in mediation. 18 Basic healing principles in Gold’s vision encompass unconditional love, quality of relationship, access to inner wisdom, stimulating a positive hopeful attitude, healing as a natural state, and setting intentions. Presence for her means being centred, compassionate, connected to others’ humanity, awareness of values, beliefs and purpose, and being congruent.

14

Grinder, J. and McMaster, M. 1980. Precision: A New Approach to Communication: How to Get the Information You Need to Get Results. CA: Bonny Doon Publishers. 15 Madonik, B. 2001. I Hear What You Say, But What Are You Telling Me?: the strategic use of nonverbal communication in mediation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 16

Parker, A. 2006, Class handout, Advanced Communication paper, La Trobe University, 49. The first position is the associated self; the second involves listening and rapport with another; and third is that of the disassociated observer. 17 The model and his intentionality are set out in Parker, A. The Negotiator’s Toolkit. Peak Performance Pty Ltd: Sydney. 18 Gold, L. “Mediation and the Culture of Healing”, in Bowling, D. and Hoffman, D. n 26, 183-214.

4

What Can Work Presence or being present can be encouraged first by taking quiet time before parties arrive, using relaxation or meditation practices to set an intervener intention that a deeper purpose than a transactional or relational one might be served through mediation.19 Secondly, a mediator can embed a positive intention by the set-up of the room, the objects used, the way parties are greeted, the mediator’s attitude, the introduction, the use of intentional silence at the start and during the mediation, and the honouring of culture, difference and spiritual ritual, all of which are available to create or bring forth both healing and transcendent possibilities. Transformative mediators may have a concern about consciously deciding to seed or embed intentions for parties. Does this not remove party choice? Does it fit with following the parties, a central feature of TM? To be congruent with the TM model, the parties could be asked if, and if they do, how, they wish to incorporate such healing dimensions. Unconscious modelling can be used to model respect and honesty. NLP & INTENTIONAL NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION Some 30 years ago John Grinder and Richard Bandler decided to observe and model three accomplished communicators and therapists, Provocative Therapist Virginia Satir (master of specificity in language), Frederick Perls (a leading Gestalt therapist), and Milton Erickson (master of abstract language). They discovered that the words used by these communicators themselves form a small part of communication.20 Later studies showed only some 7% of communication is represented by words, with 38% being conveyed by tenor, tone, pacing, and volume, and 55% by nonverbal signals.21 Meta model questioning introduced by Bandler and Grinder in their early books can be used to reveal the deep structure behind statements, which simplifies communication, making it easy to give and get information.22 What difference might the intentional use of NLP make in mediation? What difference does this make in mediation? If we answer from the point of view of the mediator, the idea of having tools to understand interactions and plan clear strategies is attractive, practical and workable for some dispute resolution practitioners. There is some evidence to show that using applied NLP in mediation intentionally can be effective to achieve certain goals in a 19

Gold suggests, and I use this also, reflection at this stage on the purpose for being a mediator, or mind-quieting techniques to become fully present for the mediation, ‘mindfulness’ (Bowling, D., in Bowling & Hoffman, n 26, 263-278); or universal calming techniques, such as those described in Wilson, P. The Quiet. Sydney: MacMillan. 2006. This technique gives access to immediate calm sights, sounds & feelings. 20 Grinder, J. and Bandler, R. The Structure of Magic: Vols. 1. 1975. Palo Alto, CA, and 2. Also: http://www.corechanges.com/services/nlp.html. 21 Mehrabian and Ferris, ‘Interference of Attitudes from Nonverbal Communication in Two Channels’, 31 Journal of Counselling Psychology (1967), 248-52. Cited by Parker, A. n 9, 15. Birdwhistell, R. Kinesics and Communication. 1970. University of Pennsylvania Press. See also: http://www.corechanges.com/services/nlp.html. 22 Grinder and Bandler (1975); n 20.

5

session. Madonik, Parker, Serventy and Lee all report that use of practices from the model is practical and reliably effective to understand meaning beneath the surface structure of communication.23 How can mediators use these models to understand communication? Barbara Madonik recommends some useful nonverbal mediation aids. They include planning ahead, maximising pre-mediation telephone contact with parties, having the right equipment at hand, considering biases and filters, assessing the parties and their preferred systems and operating codes, rapport-building, and managing the environment as many mediators do, such as using music and food.24 Two recent articles by Natasha Serventy have brought attention to NLP in Australasia. She outlines Meta model features such as reframing, distortions, generalisations and deletions, logical levels, goal setting and evidence procedure, explaining why she considers the most important ingredient to be the personal state and beliefs of the mediator. These beliefs for many mediators are: respect for every other person’s model of the world, resistance is a sign of lack of rapport, people are not their behaviours, calibrate on behaviour, the map is not the territory, people have all the resources they need to succeed, there is no failure only feedback, the meaning of any communication is the response you get, and the person with the most flexibility will control the system.25 Serventy concludes that even if skilled communicators already use the techniques outlined in NLP, knowing the underlying reason for them gives anyone increased effectiveness. NLP is a relatively new area of psychology which could explain the lack of ‘empirical’ evidence to support it. Precision questions lead to elegant language and can be immediately applied to develop communication skills. Lee builds on these articles to suggest ways to overcome attribution bias in mediation.26 An example from my practice follows: Mediator’s Casebook Excerpt: In this mediation the applicant (A) spoke very fast, breathing high in her chest, looking up and to her left for past information and blinking her eyes rapidly and often. She spoke much of a lack of trust in the other party (B). B (from a government agency) was more relaxed, looked down often (accessing information and past feelings?). I consciously matched their deliveries and some of their language; then decided to mirror A’s blinking (to see if it would slow her down enough to be led from past memories ‘bad treatment’ perception from B in the past). It worked – rapport was rapid, and leading was soon possible to reality-check the past story, including B’s perceived intent, and (by the end of two hours) an improved relationship was begun. Feedback: a solid agreement resulted, with A and B talking freely. 23

Madonik, B. 2001.; Parker, n 17; Serventy, N. (2003) 14 ADRJ 10, and (2004). Lee, “Overcoming Attribution Bias in Mediation Using NLP” (2004) 14 ADRJ 48. 24 Madonik, B. n 23. I find food, especially in inter-cultural mediations, invaluable to break the ice. 25 Serventy, N. (2003). 26 Lee, J. “Overcoming Attribution Bias in Mediation: An NLP Perspective”, (2004) 15 ADRJ 48.

6

Nonverbal signals in mediation If, as the research suggests, nonverbal communication does make up some 55% of all communication (not including tone and register of the voice), mediators would be wise to take note of it in mediation. It may be best to be consciously aware, rather than responding intuitively as some mediators do. This could avoid deepening the conflict inadvertently. How useful could it be for each participant if every mediator intervention was overtly intentional and effective? Perhaps the question can only be answered in context, and the important thing is to think about them each time we mediate. This may appeal to those who know that precise language helps access the heart of the dispute, or whether there is one at all. CONCLUSION Many techniques, models and strategies are suggested in the mediation field to aid third-party interveners. The purpose of raising the questions here is to promote internal and external dialogue about what mediators might usefully consider when intervening in others’ disputes. Do the types of mediation and the issues dealt with determine the specific intention attached? Do only mediations dealing with deep grief and loss issues have permission to involve healing and spiritual levels or are they usually present? Open-heartedness, forgiveness, integrity, congruence, healing, authenticity and engagement seem qualities which most mediators aspire to. Those interested in using precise language may ask: could we agree on the meanings of such terms? A recent range of books and articles have started examining the power of mediator presence, mediator and party emotions, spirituality, and the psychological dangers of mediating with certain personality conditions. Mediation has long been law referent and taught, which may explain the unease at dealing with emotions and spirit until recently. Now a more interdisciplinary approach is emerging.27 This involves a systematic approach to non-verbal communication, NLP or other, including precise questioning. I suggest we advance our technique as professionals by acquiring skills to process our own emotions and reactions, sub-conscious blocks, filters and boundaries. 27

In 2005 Auckland LEADR mediators brought psychologists from Stanford University, California to present training to mediators in psychological considerations for mediators; La Trobe University, Melbourne & the University of Queensland’s Law Faculty Conflict Resolution courses include teaching about the emotional and psychological dimensions of conflict.

7

Bibliography: Books: Astor, H. & Chinkin, C. 2002 (2e). Dispute Resolution in Australia. Australia: Butterworths. Birdwhistell, R. 1970. Kinesics and Communication. University of Pennsylvania Press. Boulle, L. 1998. Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice. Australia: Butterworths. ----2001. Mediation: Skills & Techniques. Australia: Butterworths. Bowling, D. & Hoffman, D. (eds) 2003 Bringing Peace into the Room. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Burton, J. 1997. Violence Explained: the sources of conflict, violence and crime and their prevention. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Bush, R.A.B., & Folger, J. 1994. The Promise of Mediation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Cloke, K. 2001. Mediating Dangerously: the Frontiers of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. ----2006. The Crossroads of Conflict: a journey into the heart of dispute resolution. Canada: Janis Publications Inc. Covey, S. 1989. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Free Press. Dilts, R., Epstein, T., and Dilts, R. 1991.Tools for Dreamers: Strategies for Creativity and the Structure of Innovation. Capitola, CA: Meta Publications Inc. Fisher, R., Ury, W, and Patton, B. (2e) 1981. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Folberg, J. & Taylor, A., 1988. Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts Without Litigation. California, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986. Galton, E. 2004. Ripples from Peace Lake: Essays for Mediators and Peacemakers. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gold, L.“Mediation & the Culture of Healing”, Ch 8, Bowling, D. & Hoffman, D. (eds) 2003. Goleman, D. 1994. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Grinder, J. and Bandler, R. 1975. The Structure of Magic 1. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books Inc. James, T., and Woodsmall, W. 1988. Time line therapy and the basis of personality. Capitola, CA: Meta Publications Ltd. LeBaron, M. 2003. Bridging Cultural Conflicts: A New Approach for a Changing World. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Madonik, B. I Hear What You Say, But What Are You Telling Me?: the strategic use of nonverbal communication in mediation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 2001. Mayer, B. 2000. The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide. San Franciso, CA : Jossey-Bass Publishers. ----2004. Beyond Neutrality: Confronting the Crisis in Conflict Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. McMaster, M. & Grinder, J. 1993. Precision: A New Approach to Communication. Scotts Valley, CA: Grinder, Delozier & Associates.

8

Metge, J. 1979. Talking Past Each Other: Cross-cultural Communication. Wellington, N.Z.: Victoria University Press. Moore, C. 1991. The Mediation Process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’Connor, J. & Seymour, J. 1990. Introducing NLP: Psychological Skills for Understanding and Influencing People. London: Mandala/Element. Parker, A. The Negotiator’s Toolkit. Sydney: Peak Productions (Pty) Ltd. Parker, A. and Cutler-Stuart, M. 1996. Switch on Your Brain. Pease, A. and Pease, B. 2006. The Definitive Book of Body Language. Australia: Pease International Pty Ltd. Perls, F.S. 1969. Gestalt Therapy Verbatim. Lafayette, CA: Real People Press. Powell, J. 1985. Will the Real Me Please Stand Up. Allen, Tex: Tabor Publications. Satir, V. 1988. The New Peoplemakers. NY: Science and Behaviour Books. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. London: Nicholas Brailey Publishing. Sourdin, T. 2005. Alternative Dispute Resolution. Sydney: The Lawbook Company. Stewart, J. 1973. Bridges Not Walls: A Book About Interpersonal Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill. (6e 1995) Stone, D., Patton, B. and Heen, S. (1999) Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. N.Y.: Penguin Group. Tam, J.W. and Luyet, R. 2004. Radical Collaboration: Five Essential Skills to Overcoming Defensiveness and Build Successful Relationships. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Taylor, A. 2002. The Handbook of Family Dispute Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Wilson, P. The Quiet. 2006.Sydney: MacMillan. Journals:

Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal; The OJRCR: Online Journal of Peace & Conflict Resolution; Conflict Resolution Quarterly; Mediation Quarterly; Law & Society; Peace & Change Journal; Negotiation Journal; Psychology Today; JAMS Dispute Resolution Alert: an update on world developments in Arbitration and Mediation. Specific journal articles: Astor, H. “Some Contemporary Theories of power in mediation: a primer for the puzzled practitioner”(2005) 16 ADRJ 30. Bush, R.A.B. & Pope, S. “Changing the Quality of Conflict Interaction: The Principles and Practice of Transformative Mediation.” (2002-2003) 3 Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 67. Chilton, S. and Cuzzo, M. 2005. “A Theoretical Framework for Mediation Practice using Habermas’s theory of communicative action”, Conflict Quarterly (2005) Cobb, S. “Empowerment and Mediation: A Narrative Perspective.” Negotiation Journal 9 (30) (1993), 245. Cobb, S. & Rifkin, J. “Practice and Paradox: Deconstructing Neutrality in Mediation.” (1991) Law and Social Inquiry 16:1. Felsteiner, W.L.F., Abel, R.L., and Sarat,A. “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming and Claiming”. Law & Society Review 15 (1980-81): 631-54. Grebe, S.C. “Ethics & the Professional Family Mediator” (1992) 10:2 MQ 155. Hutcheson, P. “Co-mediation: more than a trendy fad.” [1996] DRB 6. Jones, T.S. and Bodtker, A. “Mediating With Heart in Mind: Addressing Emotion in Mediation Practice” (2001) Negotiation Journal 217. Kurzon, D. “Discourse of Silence.” (1997) University of Haifa. http://english.haifa.ac.il.

9

Lee, J. “Overcoming Attribution Bias in mediation: An NLP Perspective”, (2004) 15 ADJR 48. Madonik, B. “Do You Have the Courage to Let Go?”, http://www/unicomcommunication.com/articles=doyouhavethecourage? Mehrabian and Ferris (1967), ‘Interference of Attitudes from Nonverbal Communication in Two Channels’, 31 Journal of Counselling Psychology (1967), 248-52. Cited by Parker, A. ACS Course workbook, 15. Odendaal, Andries. “Modelling Mediation: Evolving Approaches to Mediation in South Africa”, (Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution: (1:3). Remland, M.S. “Madonik, B. I Hear What You Say, But What are You Telling Me?” Reviewed 20 (2002) 1 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 121. Research quoted by Remland to demonstrate lack of proof of NLP-PRS: Dorn, F.J., Brunson, B.I., and Atwater, M. “Assessing of Primary Representational Systems with NLP: Examination of Preliminary Literature”, American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal 5(1983) 4, 161-168; Elich, M. “Mental Imagery as Revealed by Eye Movements and Spoken Predicates: A Test of NLP” Journal of Counseling Psychology (1985) 32(4), 622-625. Jupp, J.J. “A Further Empirical Evaluation of Neurolinguistic Primary Representational systems (PRS).” Counseling Psychology Quarterly, (1989) 2:4, 441-450. Serventy, N. “NLP for Mediators: Understanding and Influencing Yourself and Others” (2002) 13 ADRJ 201 ----“NLP for Mediators – Linguistic and Mental Tools for Improved Communication” (2003) 14 ADRJ 10. Tazelaar, M.J.A., Van Lange, P.A.M., and Owerkerk, J.W. “How to Cope With ‘Noise’ in Social Dilemmas: the Benefits of Communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2004) Papers: Cloke, K. “Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom: An Holistic, Pluralistic, & Eclectic Approach to Mediation”, [forthcoming 2007], received from author, 27 September 2006. Cloke, K. “Mediating Evil, War & Terrorism: The Politics of Conflict”, (2006) [excerpt, Cloke, K, The Sources of Social Conflict, to be published 2007], received from author, September 2006. Cloke, K. “Mediators Without Borders: A Proposal to Resolve Political Conflicts.” [Excerpt from The Future of Mediation: Toward a Unified Theory and Practice of Conflict Resolution. 2005], received from author, September 2006 Fisher, T. “Mindfulness”, slides, from Suva Asia Pacific Mediation Forum 3rd International Conference, Suva, Fiji, 2006.

10