Roselle Wissler (Arizona State) and I have published our final article empirically examining aspects of initial joint sessions and initial caucuses. Participant Actions and Intermediate Outcomes in Initial Joint Sessions and Initial Caucuses recently appeared in the Journal of Dispute Resolution (here). The findings are based on the online survey responses of over 1000 civil and family mediators who conduct court-based and private mediation in eight states across the country.
We found that actions that traditionally took place during joint opening sessions and were thought to contribute to informational and relational benefits are still largely associated with those benefits when the actions occur during initial joint sessions. Those same actions, however, are less likely to be associated with benefits when they occur instead during initial caucuses. For instance, the mediator’s exploration of substantive matters and the disputants’ interactions during the initial mediation session were related to parties providing more types of new information during initial joint sessions than during initial caucuses in both civil and family cases. Exploring substantive matters in civil cases was related to decreased disputant anger during initial joint sessions but to increased disputant anger during initial caucuses. Disputants’ interactions in civil cases were related to decreased disputant anger in initial joint sessions but not in initial caucuses.
As one might expect, exploring substantive matters and disputants’ interactions generally were related to disputants making inflammatory remarks during initial joint sessions but not being related during initial caucuses. In initial joint sessions, however, parties providing new information and disputants making inflammatory remarks tended to be associated with decreased disputant anger and with relationship repair. In initial caucuses, by contrast, providing new information and making inflammatory remarks generally were not related to decreased disputant anger or to relationship repair. Decreased disputant anger was related to relationship repair in both initial joint sessions and initial caucuses in civil cases but only in initial joint sessions in family cases.
Taken together, the findings suggest that avoiding joint opening sessions or limiting the discussions and interactions that occur during those sessions in an effort to prevent inflammatory remarks is likely to reduce the informational and relational benefits associated with those discussions and interactions when they take place during initial joint sessions. Mediators should assess the likelihood of disputants’ inflammatory remarks but not overestimate their negative consequences when balancing that risk against the informational, anger-reduction, and relationship benefits that can be accomplished by having substantive discussions and interactions take place during initial joint sessions.
Finally, thanks to the editorial staff at the JDR. They were great to work with.
