Why Does Anyone Mediate if Mediation Risks Psychological Dissatisfaction, Extra Costs and Manipulation? Three Theories Reveal Paradoxes Resolved by Mediator Standards of Ethical Practice

Three paradoxes afflict mediation. First, if self-determination is a psychological need motivating the parties and the mediator, how can the parties and the mediator jointly satisfy their potentially conflicting needs? Second, if parties are having difficulty resolving their conflicting individual i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ohio State journal on dispute resolution 2014-01, Vol.29 (2), p.223
Main Authors: Imperati, Samuel J, Maser, Steven M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Decision making
Ethics
Manipulation
Mediation
Mediators
Theory
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page 223
container_title Ohio State journal on dispute resolution
container_volume 29
creator Imperati, Samuel J
Maser, Steven M
description Three paradoxes afflict mediation. First, if self-determination is a psychological need motivating the parties and the mediator, how can the parties and the mediator jointly satisfy their potentially conflicting needs? Second, if parties are having difficulty resolving their conflicting individual interests and incurring costs in the process, why would they invite a third party into the conflict who has his or her own interests and adds costs? Third, if it is impossible to guarantee that any collaborative decision making process can be immune to manipulation by one of the participants, including the mediator, why would parties expose themselves to the risks of mediation? Three mutually reinforcing theories (Self-Determination Theory, Transaction Resource Theory, and Collective Choice Theory) reveal these paradoxes. The analysis demonstrates how professional organizations and states can resolve the three paradoxes by crafting and enforcing mandatory standards of ethical practice for mediators.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1562154504</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3433084131</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_15621545043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjc9Kw0AQh_egYP3zDgNeLWzaTa4ibcRLIdSCxzJmJ2Zr2Kk7m9K8mk_nNuQBvMwM8_vxfVdqlmlTzM3SmBt1K3LQWi9yXczU70c7wJpJ4MUP7Ak2ZB1GAtdMp2MPWyffApUMdcsdf7kaO1g7kZRKg_Wl8wTlOQaEFUsUQG9hg94d-24kPMOuDURpEgeXbFs6UYJUGNDyeXwIdyey8DlMYg7wHhMIgxXgBsrYjuIqXIw13avrBjuhh2nfqcfXcrd6mx8D__QkcX_gPvgU7bO8WGS5ybVZ_q_1B1n6ZSY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1562154504</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Why Does Anyone Mediate if Mediation Risks Psychological Dissatisfaction, Extra Costs and Manipulation? Three Theories Reveal Paradoxes Resolved by Mediator Standards of Ethical Practice</title><source>Nexis UK</source><creator>Imperati, Samuel J ; Maser, Steven M</creator><creatorcontrib>Imperati, Samuel J ; Maser, Steven M</creatorcontrib><description>Three paradoxes afflict mediation. First, if self-determination is a psychological need motivating the parties and the mediator, how can the parties and the mediator jointly satisfy their potentially conflicting needs? Second, if parties are having difficulty resolving their conflicting individual interests and incurring costs in the process, why would they invite a third party into the conflict who has his or her own interests and adds costs? Third, if it is impossible to guarantee that any collaborative decision making process can be immune to manipulation by one of the participants, including the mediator, why would parties expose themselves to the risks of mediation? Three mutually reinforcing theories (Self-Determination Theory, Transaction Resource Theory, and Collective Choice Theory) reveal these paradoxes. The analysis demonstrates how professional organizations and states can resolve the three paradoxes by crafting and enforcing mandatory standards of ethical practice for mediators.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1046-4344</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Columbus: Ohio State University, College of Law</publisher><subject>Decision making ; Ethics ; Manipulation ; Mediation ; Mediators ; Theory</subject><ispartof>Ohio State journal on dispute resolution, 2014-01, Vol.29 (2), p.223</ispartof><rights>Copyright Ohio State University, College of Law 2014</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Imperati, Samuel J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maser, Steven M</creatorcontrib><title>Why Does Anyone Mediate if Mediation Risks Psychological Dissatisfaction, Extra Costs and Manipulation? Three Theories Reveal Paradoxes Resolved by Mediator Standards of Ethical Practice</title><title>Ohio State journal on dispute resolution</title><description>Three paradoxes afflict mediation. First, if self-determination is a psychological need motivating the parties and the mediator, how can the parties and the mediator jointly satisfy their potentially conflicting needs? Second, if parties are having difficulty resolving their conflicting individual interests and incurring costs in the process, why would they invite a third party into the conflict who has his or her own interests and adds costs? Third, if it is impossible to guarantee that any collaborative decision making process can be immune to manipulation by one of the participants, including the mediator, why would parties expose themselves to the risks of mediation? Three mutually reinforcing theories (Self-Determination Theory, Transaction Resource Theory, and Collective Choice Theory) reveal these paradoxes. The analysis demonstrates how professional organizations and states can resolve the three paradoxes by crafting and enforcing mandatory standards of ethical practice for mediators.</description><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Manipulation</subject><subject>Mediation</subject><subject>Mediators</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>1046-4344</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNqNjc9Kw0AQh_egYP3zDgNeLWzaTa4ibcRLIdSCxzJmJ2Zr2Kk7m9K8mk_nNuQBvMwM8_vxfVdqlmlTzM3SmBt1K3LQWi9yXczU70c7wJpJ4MUP7Ak2ZB1GAtdMp2MPWyffApUMdcsdf7kaO1g7kZRKg_Wl8wTlOQaEFUsUQG9hg94d-24kPMOuDURpEgeXbFs6UYJUGNDyeXwIdyey8DlMYg7wHhMIgxXgBsrYjuIqXIw13avrBjuhh2nfqcfXcrd6mx8D__QkcX_gPvgU7bO8WGS5ybVZ_q_1B1n6ZSY</recordid><startdate>20140101</startdate><enddate>20140101</enddate><creator>Imperati, Samuel J</creator><creator>Maser, Steven M</creator><general>Ohio State University, College of Law</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>20140101</creationdate><title>Why Does Anyone Mediate if Mediation Risks Psychological Dissatisfaction, Extra Costs and Manipulation? Three Theories Reveal Paradoxes Resolved by Mediator Standards of Ethical Practice</title><author>Imperati, Samuel J ; Maser, Steven M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_15621545043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Manipulation</topic><topic>Mediation</topic><topic>Mediators</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Imperati, Samuel J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maser, Steven M</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Ohio State journal on dispute resolution</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Imperati, Samuel J</au><au>Maser, Steven M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Why Does Anyone Mediate if Mediation Risks Psychological Dissatisfaction, Extra Costs and Manipulation? Three Theories Reveal Paradoxes Resolved by Mediator Standards of Ethical Practice</atitle><jtitle>Ohio State journal on dispute resolution</jtitle><date>2014-01-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>223</spage><pages>223-</pages><issn>1046-4344</issn><abstract>Three paradoxes afflict mediation. First, if self-determination is a psychological need motivating the parties and the mediator, how can the parties and the mediator jointly satisfy their potentially conflicting needs? Second, if parties are having difficulty resolving their conflicting individual interests and incurring costs in the process, why would they invite a third party into the conflict who has his or her own interests and adds costs? Third, if it is impossible to guarantee that any collaborative decision making process can be immune to manipulation by one of the participants, including the mediator, why would parties expose themselves to the risks of mediation? Three mutually reinforcing theories (Self-Determination Theory, Transaction Resource Theory, and Collective Choice Theory) reveal these paradoxes. The analysis demonstrates how professional organizations and states can resolve the three paradoxes by crafting and enforcing mandatory standards of ethical practice for mediators.</abstract><cop>Columbus</cop><pub>Ohio State University, College of Law</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1046-4344
ispartof Ohio State journal on dispute resolution, 2014-01, Vol.29 (2), p.223
issn 1046-4344
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1562154504
source Nexis UK
subjects Decision making
Ethics
Manipulation
Mediation
Mediators
Theory
title Why Does Anyone Mediate if Mediation Risks Psychological Dissatisfaction, Extra Costs and Manipulation? Three Theories Reveal Paradoxes Resolved by Mediator Standards of Ethical Practice
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T05%3A02%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Why%20Does%20Anyone%20Mediate%20if%20Mediation%20Risks%20Psychological%20Dissatisfaction,%20Extra%20Costs%20and%20Manipulation?%20Three%20Theories%20Reveal%20Paradoxes%20Resolved%20by%20Mediator%20Standards%20of%20Ethical%20Practice&rft.jtitle=Ohio%20State%20journal%20on%20dispute%20resolution&rft.au=Imperati,%20Samuel%20J&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=223&rft.pages=223-&rft.issn=1046-4344&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E3433084131%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_15621545043%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1562154504&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true