Video interaction fosters more trust among disputing parties as compared to text-based forms of mediation. Mediators find it easier to build trust among disputing parties as video is a richer medium. “…research has found video interactions to be generally more conducive to trust emergence than other media other than face-to-face interactions (Bos, Olson, Gergle, Olson & Wright, 2002)”…(as cited in Ebner and Thompson 2014). “These findings suggest that the richer the medium, the more tools negotiators and mediators have at their disposal for trust-building. They establish quite convincingly that even working largely intuitively, negotiators and mediators are likely to do better at establishing and maintaining trust via video conferencing as opposed to email or other text based platforms” (Ebner and Thompson 2014). | In asynchronous processes, mediators don’t have to respond immediately to the disputing parties. This gives them time to deliberate before responding to messages and not react instantaneously in the heat of the moment. “In asynchronous processes, the slowed-down pace can allow the mediator a more intentional application of the mediator’s toolbox. This enhances opportunities for nuance and subtlety. Mediators might find it easier to tweak and reframe messages” (Ebner and Rainey ,p.18). “Just as disputants can react emotionally to new developments, neutrals can get caught up in the immediacy of a face-to-face session. Third parties can benefit from the cooling distance provided by asynchronous interaction, allowing them to pay greater attention to their own biases and perhaps enabling them to become more reflective practitioners” (Rule 2000).
|
| Mediators have the discretion to establish contact with parties privately if required. This is not possible in synchronous processes, where such actions are likely to be perceived as a threat to neutrality of the mediator. Similarly, mediators can caucus with either one of disputing parties without having to worry about wasting time of the other party. “Mediators can create opportunities for behind the scenes contact with each party to a greater degree than face-to-face processes allow, as private communication reduces threats to perceived neutrality. Working with asynchronous methods, mediators can conduct simultaneous caucusing, saving process-time” (Ebner and Rainey ,p.18). |
| Disputants have the flexibility to choose a time that is convenient for them when interacting with the mediator or with each other. This gives them buffer time in which they can consult someone or deliberate over next steps and not respond emotionally which can potentially derail the discussion. “Disputants can connect to the ongoing discussion at different times, and even defer their response until after they’ve had time to consult with others, do some research, or just contemplate the situation” (Rule 2000). “Instead of reacting emotionally to a new development or escalating a discussion out of surprise, parties can consider an issue and communicate in a considered way. They can still react emotionally, but they have the option of stepping back and reflecting before they respond” (Rule 2000). “Parties and mediators can engage in text-based discussion without the immediate time pressure and other dynamics associated with synchronous, face-to-face conversations” (Ebner and Rainey, p.19). “… asynchronous online mediation is the most popular form, allowing greater flexibility because of 24-h access to the platform” (Alexander 2006 as cited in Mania 2015). |
| Text-based communication can be easily archived and referred to if disputing parties cannot recollect the discussion or need clarification on certain points. parties can deny hav“Postings in an online context are usually archived, either just for the length of the mediation or even beyond the end of the mediation. Mediators can re-visit archived communications to help clarify issues, or to remind people of statements they had made earlier in the discussion. In a face-to-face session, once a party says something, it’s gone. Later a mediator can remind a party of a statement that had been made earlier in the session and the party can deny it, portray it in a different context, or reinterpret its meaning” (Rule 2000, p.75). |
| Mediators can refer to training materials that can help in taking the discussion ahead without alerting the disputing parties about using training materials. This will prevent disputing parties from doubting the qualification or capability of the mediator. “Mediators can also consult training material or suggested steps for parties to move through in an attempt to reach resolution, all in the middle of their ADR process. In a face-to-face session, consulting materials such as these might delay the process or make parties question the experience of their neutral” (Rule 2000, p.76)
|
| A study conducted with mediators revealed that it’s easier for mediators to keep the big picture in sight in asynchronous communication than in synchronous where conversation dynamics are likely to consume their attention.“There was 100 percent agreement by mediators that the asynchronous nature of online communications helped them to focus on the broader picture of the conflict and not just the moment-to-moment interactions. For example, they did not have to concern themselves with interruptions from disputants. 100 percent (of the mediators) also agreed that having time to craft their responses enabled them to express their questions and comments effectively. All considered that this advantage led them to design more effective interventions” (Hammond as cited in Ebner and Rainey 2021, p.30). |
| Communication dynamics among disputing parties improve as they cannot interrupt one another. “…asynchronous, textual communication actually improves communication dynamics between the parties. One of the challenges that mediators face is keeping parties from interrupting one another” (Braeutigam 2006, p.295) |
| In face-to-face meetings, disputing parties have lesser control over vocal tone, facial expressions and body language are they are reacting to the discussion, which can potentially escalate tensions between the parties. This will help parties in maintaining focus on issues at hand instead of being sidetracked by negative body language. “Early on, developments in the field uncovered that e-mediation can be positive for high emotion or high cost issues such as family mediation or workplace conflict (Goodman 2003) as it removes a lot of the contextual cues (such as vocal tone, facial expressions and other non-verbal communication) present in face-to-face mediation that may further escalate existing tension between parties” (Parmamis, Ebner and Mitchell 2017, p.240). “When the distractions of non-verbal cues are eliminated, parties are better able to focus on the substantive issues, rather than the negative emotional content conveyed by the visual or auditory cues that are present in face-to-face encounters” (Braeutigam 2006, p.293). |
| A criticism of text-based communication is that written text can be easily misinterpreted in the absence of non-verbal cues. A calming remark can be misunderstood to be patronising. However, people increasingly use emoticons and different types of formatting (written text) to convey tone and emotions. “Further, text is often interpreted differently than words spoken in the shared context of face-to-face communication. For example, a calming remark might come across as patronizing when typed or a joke might turn into an insult because the reader did not catch the intentionally sarcastic tone. Without tone of voice, it can be difficult to capture and convey the emotional content of words. For example, it may be difficult for the participants to catch a sincere and empathetic remark, or they may not feel the mediator has understood the degree of anger and frustration they are experiencing” (Braeutigam 2006, p.287). “… as prevalence of text-based online communication has increased, so has our ability to convey physically perceptive information in text. Emoticons, such as “Smileys”, have become a useful way of communicating emotion online. Simple typing techniques operate similarly. For example, “SHOUTING” or an “angry email” is accomplished by using ALL CAPS. Abbreviations have also become a common way for online communicators to convey tone and emotion in their messages. The
abbreviations IMHO (in my humble opinion) and LOL (laugh out loud) are descriptors used to temper a direct statement, and to underscore humorous statements. Additionally, online communicators will often
mark a statement with the desired tone and meaning. To illustrate: “Today is a beautiful day! I’m so lucky to be inside working! ” (Braeutigam 2006, p.291). |
| The absence of non-verbal cues in text-based mediation is often considered to be a shortcoming (Braeutigam 2006). But research shows that people are just as comfortable expressing themselves in written format as they are expressing themselves orally. “In her work, Anne-Marie Hammond found that the reduced communication cues and textual communication did not significantly impact participants’ experience in online mediation. The study revealed that the lack of body language in online mediation experience did not constrain participants’ ability to express their emotions or to feel understood. Participants noted that the textual form of communication was effective because people write like they talk and thus felt they had no trouble getting their meaning across. Interestingly, a majority of disputants felt they were able to overcome the lack of non-verbal cues. Many disputants felt more at ease expressing themselves in writing than in spoken word; felt more confident in their communications, felt the mediation was less hostile, felt their communications were honest and open…” (Braeutigam 2006, p.290). |
