Recommendations
on neighbour
problems

2.1 A neutral third party inviting the passive party to conduct an intake using a predetermined format

Guideline for neighbour problems / CONVENING: 2.1 A neutral third party inviting the passive party to conduct an intake using a predetermined format

Interventions and evidence explained

Most plausible interventions explained

Neighbourhood conflicts are usually about one party, the complainant, wanting the other party, the respondent, to change in some way. Conflicts with such a structure, in which one party wants to change but the other wants to maintain the status quo, are likely to reflect asymmetrical conflict perceptions. Complainants typically are more annoyed than respondents. Such annoyance is likely to be fostered by the fact that a complainant perceives the other side ignoring that there is a problem altogether (Ufkes, p. 93).

Asymmetrical conflicts are less likely to lead to a mediation session than symmetrical conflicts (Ufkes, p. 106). In order for the parties to come together, conflict parties first have to acknowledge that a problematic situation exists which needs to be solved. This can be a challenge. We identified the following interventions for bring parties to a neighbour dispute to the table (meeting):

A neutral third party inviting the passive party to conduct an intake, according to a predetermined format
Approaching the passive party, without a predetermined format

Selected interventions for comparison (defined as a PICO question)

For parties to a neighbour dispute who have asymmetrical perceptions of the conflict and are looking to open a channel of communication (meeting), is a neutral third party inviting the passive party to conduct an intake according to a predetermined format more effective than directly approaching the passive party (without a neutral third party expert involved)?

Search strategy

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR, Taylor & Francis, ResearchGate, Academia.

For these PICO questions, keywords used in the search strategy are: voluntary, neighbor, conflict, resolution, asymmetric, symmetric, self-determination, responsibility, passive, active, barriers, overcome, resistance, third-party, intervention, neutral.

Assessment and grading of evidence

The main sources of evidence used for this particular subject are:

Elze Ufkes, Ellen Giebels, Sagine Otten, and Karen I. van der Zee, The Effectiveness of a Mediation Program in Symmetrical versus Asymmetrical Neighbor-to-Neighbor Conflicts, International Journal of Conflict Management (2012)
Elze Ufkes, Neighbor-to-neighbor conflicts in multicultural neighborhoods (2011)
Karen Jehn, Sonja Rispens and Sherry Thatcher, The Effects of Conflict Asymmetry on Work Group and Individual Outcomes (2010)
Emilie Michaux, Anne Groenen and Katarzyna Uzieblo, Unwanted Behaviors and Nuisance Behaviors Among Neighbors in a Belgian Community Sample (2015)
Rein Sikveland and Elizabeth Stokoe, Dealing with resistance in initial intake and inquiry calls to mediation: The power of ‘willing’ (2016)

Quality of evidence and research gap

Jehn, Rispens and Thatcher are pioneers regarding their research on asymmetrical conflicts. Ufkes, Giebels, Otten and Van der Zee build on this research and try to assess the effectiveness of mediation in neighbour conflicts, while keeping in mind the asymmetrical nature of these conflicts. More large empirical studies on parties’ cooperation in asymmetrical conflicts are needed in order to generate more (strong) evidence.
The article by Sikveland and Stokoe explores how professionals best deal with resistance during and beyond initial encounters with prospective mediation clients. The study is based on a large dataset of intake calls to community and family mediation services in the UK. We established a possible risk of bias of the authors, who developed their own intervention (the Conversation Analytic Role-play Method, CARM). Results from this study might be linked to this intervention.

According to our research method, we grade the evidence as moderate. The sources used to compare are medium-sized or large empirical studies. One source contains a risk of bias, resulting in downgrading of the evidence by one level. The research team upgrades the strength of evidence by one level because the suggested best practices by practitioners are in line with the research findings.

Comparing the two interventions

Desirable outcomes of the interventions

Approaching the passive party without standard format	Neutral third party inviting the passive party to conduct an intake
	Third-party intakes may lead to better relationships. In asymmetric conflicts, an intake only intervention can lead to better relationships between parties to conflict, although it may not necessarily contribute to resolving the underlying issues that are at stake. This implies that parties to conflict can become more tolerant towards each other because a third party gives them emotional support and acknowledgement, and they may therefore find it easier to accept the nuisances coming from their neighbours. In the long term, improving the relationship may be more important than solving the underlying issues (Ufkes, p. 108).
	An intervention by specialized [neutral] services can stimulate constructive problem-solving strategies. People are less likely to engage in a constructive coping strategy when the neighbour was perceived as responsible for the behaviours. Shared responsibility is a critical factor in engaging in a constructive coping strategy. [Building on this knowledge], specialized help services can stimulate constructive problem-solving strategies. Research on specialized help services in the context of neighbours has highlighted their effectiveness in tackling neighbor problems (Michaux, Groenen and Uzieblo, p. 1986).
	The following format for third parties for contacting parties to conflict leads to less resistance to mediate: Questions or proposals [by mediators] containing the word ‘willing’ are effective in securing a ‘yes’ response, and also turn parties around from resistance. ‘Willing’ gets a more positive immediate update from the party in conflicit than alternative words/formats. Formats that ask the party in conflict directly ‘are you willing’ or ‘would you be willing’ or propose that the party ‘is willing’ work better than applying hypothetical formats. Explaining mediation in procedural terms results in less resistance than explaining mediation in ideological terms (Sikveland and Stokoe, p. 251-253).

Undesirable outcomes of the intervention

Approaching the passive party without standard format	Neutral third party inviting the passive party to conduct an intake
The party perceiving more conflict needs to share his/her view and get it validated, otherwise it creates more discomfort and dissatisfaction. Parties that perceive less conflict are usually more satisfied and perform better, whereas parties who perceive more conflict often feel disrespected and insecure. As such, the conflict party perceiving more conflict than the other may start to question his or her view of the situation. When [after parties contact each other] one’s view of a situation is not shared and validated by the other, it may cause more discomfort and dissatisfaction (Ufkes, p. 93-94).	Interventions by neutral (third) party experts that are ineffective may lead to more conflict. Asymmetrical conflicts are less escalated that symmetrical conflicts (Ufkes, p. 106). Research shows that conflict parties often show demand-withdraw type of interactions in asymmetrical conflicts, whereas in symmetrical conflicts parties tend to reciprocate each others’ behavior. An ineffective intervention by a neutral party expert may turn asymmetrical conflicts into symmetrical conflicts, therefore increasing the risk of reciprocation and escalation (Ufkes, p. 108).

Approaching the passive party without standard format

Neutral third party inviting the passive party to conduct an intake

The party perceiving more conflict needs to share his/her view and get it validated, otherwise it creates more discomfort and dissatisfaction. Parties that perceive less conflict are usually more satisfied and perform better, whereas parties who perceive more conflict often feel disrespected and insecure. As such, the conflict party perceiving more conflict than the other may start to question his or her view of the situation. When [after parties contact each other] one’s view of a situation is not shared and validated by the other, it may cause more discomfort and dissatisfaction (Ufkes, p. 93-94).

Interventions by neutral (third) party experts that are ineffective may lead to more conflict. Asymmetrical conflicts are less escalated that symmetrical conflicts (Ufkes, p. 106). Research shows that conflict parties often show demand-withdraw type of interactions in asymmetrical conflicts, whereas in symmetrical conflicts parties tend to reciprocate each others’ behavior. An ineffective intervention by a neutral party expert may turn asymmetrical conflicts into symmetrical conflicts, therefore increasing the risk of reciprocation and escalation (Ufkes, p. 108).

Balance of Outcomes

A neutral third party inviting the passive party in an asymmetric conflict proves to be desirable, provided that the intervention by the neutral (third) party is effective. The chances of the intervention being effective are higher if the neutral party applies a standard format in the process of contacting the parties of the conflict.

The balance of outcomes is towards a neutral third party inviting the passive party to the dispute to conduct an intake according to a set format. One party to the dispute directly contacting the other is undesirable, due to differences in perception of the conflict.

Recommendation

Taking into account the balance of outcomes, the effect on neighbours’ well-being, and the quality and consistency of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: For parties to a neighbour dispute who have asymmetrical perceptions of the conflict and are looking to open a channel of communication (meeting), allowing a neutral third party to invite the passive party to conduct an intake is more conducive to well-being than directly approaching the passive party.