J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
Transcript of J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
1/36
Page1of36
TheNeurophysiologyofADRandProcessDesign:
A
New
Approach
to
Conflict
Prevention
and
Resolution?
ByJeremyLackandFranoisBogacz
"Wedonotseethingsastheyare. Weseethingsasweare." AnaisNin
Wehavetostartbydefiningtheprocessaspartoftheproblem DavidPlant
I. INTRODUCTION
Neurobiologyseems
to
be
popping
up
everywhere.
It
is
being
taught
in
leadership
conferences,
salesandmarketingseminars,managementmeetings,businessschools,andincreasinglyinlawschools
andbarassociations. The coverof theAmericanBarAssociations Summer2011DisputeResolution
MagazinewasdedicatedtothetopicofNeuroscienceandNegotiation.1 Init,ProfessorRichardBirke
observesthatNeuroscienceiseverywhere. Isitanewfadorafundamentalawakening,providingnew
insights for the legal profession? As the science for measuring brain activity advances, and new
breakthroughsaremadeinelectroencephalography(EEG),magnetoencephalography(MEG),Functional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), positron emission
tomography (PET), and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), there is a confusing
arsenal of new and convoluted, hightechsounding imaging technologies, by which scientists are
seekingto
penetrate
the
various
layers,
regions
and
neural
assemblies
of
the
human
brain,
to
decipher
ourbehaviorandtheessenceofourverybeingasahighlyevolvedanduniquespeciesofanimal.2 This
runsthedangerofbecomingthe21stCenturysnewphrenology,asthescienceisstillrifewitherrors.3
Ontheotherhand,theresearchraisesintriguingnewinsightsintothebrain,consciousdecisionmaking
processes, the role of emotions, and theways inwhich our neurobiological hardwiringmight be
impactingourbehaviorindisputeresolutionprocesses.
ThebulkofthesefindingstodatesupportsAnaisNinsquotationgivenabove,wherebywedo
notperceive things as they really are (i.e.,objectively)but aswe are (i.e., subjectively). This raises
importantnew implications for lawyers,judges,arbitrators, inhouse counsel,mediators, conciliators,
and
a
variety
of
other
ADR
professionals.
It
has
an
impact
on
how
we
should
start
to
interpret
evidence,
weighwitnesstestimonyand(re)considerfindingsoffacts. Prof.Birkearguesthat lawyersoughtto
1 R.Birke, NeuroscienceandNegotiation:What theNewScienceofMindMayOffer thePracticingAttorney,
DisputeResolutionMagazine,Volume17,No.4,Summer2011.2 Foragoodprimeronneuroimaging,seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroimaging.3 See, for example, C. Bennett et al (2009), Neural correlates of interspeciesperspective taking in thepost
mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for multiple comparisons correction,
http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/BennettSalmon2009.pdf,which shows how the data generated in an fMRI
experimentcouldeither suggest thatadeadsalmonwasstillengaging inconsciousperspectivetaking tasks,or
thatthe
technology
itself
can
yield
spurious
results
that
need
to
be
corrected
when
doing
data
analysis.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
2/36
Page2of36
careaccordinglyaboutneuroscience,andgivesseveralexamplesofwhythisisthecase.4 Thepurpose
of thispaper isnot,however, todelve into the implicationsofneurobiology from theperspectiveof
advocacyorjudicialappreciation. Nor is ittosupportProf.Birkespremise(which isselfevident)that
understanding human perception is likely to be of great importance to trial attorneys andjudges.
Rather, thepurposeofthispaper is to focusoncurrentprocessesbywhichparties,counselandADR
neutralstrytoresolvedisputes, initial innatehumanreactionsthatmayoccurwhenconflictsbeginto
arise,andtoassesshoweffectiveourprocessesfordisputeresolutionmaybeintermsofwhatcurrent
discoveries inneurobiologywould seem to suggest. Itwill seek toexaminenotonlyhow subjective
perceptions may shape outcomes but how the choice of the process itself can have unintended
consequencesintermsoftriggeringcertainbehavioralpathwaysratherthanothers,andpossiblycause
theconflicttoescalate.
It ispossiblethat largepartsofthispapermayprovetobeerroneous inthefuture,orreflect
culturalbiases.
This
explains
the
use
of
aquestion
mark
in
the
title
of
this
paper.
Its
contents,
however,
summarize new findings that already provide new food for thought, and raise new concerns about
dispute resolution processes and the traditionalways inwhich lawyers and parties seek to resolve
conflicts, aswell as the innate tendencyof conflicts toescalate. They raisenew concerns regarding
ethicalbehaviorindisputeresolutionandanewappreciationofhowparties,lawyersandneutralsmay
bemanipulatedorbecomeunconsciouslymanipulative. Thepoint is togeneratesomeselfreflection
and to start thedebatesomewhere,as towhether,and if sohow,anunderstandingofneurobiology
shouldbecomepartof legaleducationandcauseus toqueryour traditionalviewsofjusticeandour
choiceofdisputeresolutionprocesses. Theauthorwelcomesanyandallcriticismstothesuggestionsor
ideascontainedinthisarticle.
II. THETENNEUROCOMMANDMENTS:EMOTION,SOCIALIZATIONANDCOGNITION
Much ink has been spilled in describing the evolution of the human brain, and how it has
evolved from the level of our reptilian ancestors. According tomany theories (and especially the
physicianandneuroscientistPaulMacLean),thehumanbrainhasevolvedintermsofthreeindependent
butinterconnectedlayersofbrainmatter,referredtoasthetriunebrain.5 Theresultisthatjustasan
archaeologistcanvisitanancient site,anddetermine thehistoricalevolutionof thatsite, thehuman
brainshowsthreelayersofdistinctevolutionasshowninFigure1below. Theselayersreflectdifferent
momentsinthehistoryoftheevolutionofthehumanspecies,andhowourdecisionmakingprocesses
haveevolved.
The
ways
in
which
these
layers
may
operate
and
interrelate
can
provide
fascinating
new
insightsintohowhumansreactanddealwithsituationsofconflict.
4Forintriguingrecentarticlesonneurobiologyandmediation,seealso:(i)KenClokesarticle(alsonowatwopart
podcast) entitled: Bringing Oxytocin Into The Room: Notes On The Neurophysiology Of Conflict at
http://www.mediate.com/articles/cloke8.cfm; RichardBirkesCPRawardwinningNeuroscienceandSettlement:
AnExaminationofScientificInnovationsandPracticalApplications,publishedin25OhioStateJournalonDispute
Resolution at pp. 477529 (2010), and available online at http://www.pgpmediation.com/blog/wp
content/uploads/2011/05/neuroscience_and_settlement_.doc; and (iii) Michelle LeBaron & Mario Patera
Reflective Practice in the NewMillennium available online at http://law.hamline.edu/files/4LeBaronPatera
Reflective_Practice_FINAL_May_09.pdf.
5For
ageneral
description
of
the
Triune
Brain,
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
3/36
Page3of36
Figure1:TheThreeLevelsofEvolutionoftheHumanBrain
TheReptilianBrain:Thisisthemostprimitivelevelofthehumanbrainandsitsatthebottomof
thebrain,inthebrainstemregion. Itisbelievedtohaveevolvedover500millionyearsagoand
greatly resembles the brain of reptiles, from which it bears its name. The Reptilian Brain
containsautomaticandbasicinstincts(suchasbreathingandheartbeat)istheareainwhichwe
haveour
instinctive
and
evolutionarily
conserved
survival
reflexes.
These
include
the
flight,
flightorfreezeinstinctsthatwesharewithreptiles. Thesereflexesarebelievedtoinstinctively
takeoveranddominatewhenfundamentalissuesofsurvivalareatstake.
TheLimbicSystem: Thesecond layerof thebrain thatcanbediscernedevolutionarily is the
Limbic System, which evolved when mammals first appeared (and is therefore sometimes
referredtoasthepaleomammaliancomplexorasthemammalianbrain). Mammalsarethe
firstcreaturestosuckletheiryoungandtohavestrongemotionalinstincts. Itisbelievedtobe
thepartofthebrainthroughwhichallofoursenses(sound,taste,smell,sightandtouch)are
firstprocessed,andthearea inwhichwegenerateemotions,ourfirstandmostbasiccerebral
reactionstoanystimulus. Thisareawouldhaveevolved,accordingtoevolutionarytheory,asa
rapidrelevance
and
detection
system,
helping
animals
to
rapidly
work
out
(within
milliseconds
andbeforetimeforcognitiveappreciation)whethersomethingwastobefeared(inwhichcase
itwastobeinstinctivelyavoided),orareward(inwhichcaseitcouldbeapproached). Thispart
ofthebrainincludesthethalamus,asortofsignalandprimarysensoryfilterstationinthebrain,
aswellastwosmallalmondshapedregionscalledtheamygdala,whicharebelievedtobethe
areasassociatedwithearlystage,autobiographical,traumaticandunconsciousmemories,and
wherefeelingsoffear,safetyandpleasurearefirstgeneratedandregistered,alongwithother
primaryemotionssuchasangerandsadness. Theamygdalaactasarapidrelevancedetector,
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
4/36
Page4of36
helpingthehumanbodytorapidlysortoutandprioritizetheterabytesuponterabytesofdata
thatthehumanbraincaptureseveryfractionofasecond.6
TheNeocortex: This is the outer andmost recent layer of the human brain in evolutionary
terms,whichisparticularlydevelopedinprimatesandotheradvancedmammals,andallowsus
todohighorderthinkingandcognitiveappreciation. Itallowscomplexcoordinationofmotor
andsensoryfunctions,andiswhatallowsspeechcomprehension,andconsciousmemory. The
frontalpartofthisouterlayer,calledthefrontallobeorfrontalcortex,isparticularlydeveloped
inhumans,accountingforapproximately1/3rd insizeoftheentirehumanbrain. It isthearea
that deals with conscious, highorder integrated brain functions, such as abstract thought,
conceptualization,planningandtheconsciousappreciationofemotions. Thisthird levelofthe
brainseemstobecloselyregulatedbytheamygdala(andalsocanactasafeedbacklooptothe
amygdala, to regulateemotional responses),whichare connected to allbut8 regionsof the
cortex.
7
Whether or not this theory of the evolution of the human brain is sufficiently precise or
accurate,itprovidesausefulmetaphorforconsideringhumanbeingsinsituationsofconflict. Assuming
that thehumanbrainhas finiteand limited resources inglucoseandoxygenatanygivenmoment in
time,andthatthehumanbeinghasevolvedtomaximizetheefficiencybywhichoxygenandglucoseare
conservedorconsumed inthebrain(whichcanbevisualizedbyfMRI inthecaseofoxygen), itwould
appear that all senses are first scanned through an unconscious emotional appraisal system (in the
LimbicSystem),anddependingonitsfirstanalysis(e.g.,whetherthereisasenseoffeargeneratingan
avoidancereflexorasenseofrewardgeneratinganapproachreflex)eithertheReptilianSystemwill
beactivated(e.g.,fight,flightorfreezereflexes),ortheneocortex(andparticularlythefrontalcortex)
willbeenabledtoprovideacognitiveappreciationofthestimulusandindulgeinrationalreflectionasto
howbesttoadapttothedatatheemotionalsystemhashighlightedforattention. TheLimbicSystem
(andtheamygdalainparticular)canthusbeviewedasasortofrapidrelevancedetectorandaswitch,
thatactivatesorsuppressescorticalthinkingorreptiliannonthinking. Dependingoninitialreflexes
of fearor reward,oxygenandglucosemaybedistributedandconsumeddifferentlywithin thebrain,
whichsuggeststhatallperception,nomatterhowobjectiveorrationalitmayseemtobe,isinfactfirst
perceived and filtered throughemotions. Thismodel thusemphasizes theprimordial importanceof
emotions as the basis for all perception and subsequent cognitive thinking, which can only occur
downstreamof,andafterunconscious,emotionalappraisalofstimulianddatahasfirstoccurred. This
modelwouldexplainthedifficultyhumanbeingshaveinbeinglogicalandhighlyemotional(e.g.,angry)
atthesametime. Itsuggeststhatonce theneuralpathwaysthat lead toangerhavebeenactivated,
glucoseandoxygenareprovidedprimarilytothoseareasofthebrainthatregulatethisemotion,and
that the frontal cortex is deprived of such essential nutrients until the body has had time to self
regulate. Thiswouldalsoexplainwhyanangryperson tends tobecomemoreangrywhenasked to
thinklogically,orwhyitisdifficultforapersonwhoisdoingahighlycognitiveandabsorbingtask(e.g.,
6 Foradetaildiscussionoftheintriguingroleoftheamygdalaandtheirpossibleimportanceinconflictsituations,
see D. Sander et al, The Human Amygdala: an Evolved System for Relevance Detection, Reviews in the
Neurosciences,14,pp.303316(2003).7 SeeL.Pessoa,Ontherelationshipbetweenemotionandcognition,NatureReviewsNeuroscience,9,pp.148
158(February
2008)
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
5/36
Page5of36
addingcomplexnumbers,orsolvingmathematicalpuzzles)toexperiencestrongemotionsatthesame
time. Thethreelayersofthetriunebraincanthusbethoughtofasthreehighlyinterconnected,butat
the same time independentneuralnetworks,whichcanhavedifferent levelsofactivityanddifferent
levelsof arousal. Ouremotionswould thus reflecthowourmost fundamentalneedsmaydriveour
behavior at an animalistic and instinctive level, before cognitive appraisal can occur, and how our
subsequentreactionsandbehavioraffectourabilitiestoconsciouslyselfregulateandchangeourway
ofthinkingandprocessinginformationatanygivenmomentintime.8
Borrowingfromcreationisttheory,extrapolatingbeyondwhat isactuallyknownwithscientific
certainty, and setting asidemany responsible debates on possible interplaysbetween cognition and
emotionthatexisttoday,itispossibletovulgarizerecentdiscoveriesinneurosciencebysuggestingthat
humansmaybehardwiredevolutionarilyormayhavebeencreatedtorespondtothe followingten
neurocommandments:
1. Thou shaltconsumeyourbrains resourcesefficientlyandcreatepatterns: Thehuman
brain isjust2%of theaveragepersonsbodyweight. Yet itdemands20%of thebodys
blood flow and 20% of its oxygen at all times.9 The human prefrontal cortex is also
unusually large,accounting forapproximately1/3oftotalbrainsize (which iswhatmakes
thehumanbrainunique). Theprefrontalcortexisalargeconsumerofglucoseandoxygen,
andconsciouscognitivecapabilitiesareseverelydepletedwhenthebrainislowonglucose
or oxygen, or has had suboptimal time to rest (including sleep). The activity ofmany
regions of the brain follows an inverted Ucurve, where capabilities peak at a certain
momentandthendecreaseintheabsenceofaperiodofrestoringestionoffood. Thiscan
leadto
decision
fatigue
or
ego
depletion.10
In
order
to
conserve
energy,
the
human
brain
constantlyandinstinctivelyreallocatesinternallythat20%ofthebodysenergyitconsumes.
It does do by creating patterns and neural networks. If the brain had to maintain a
consciousappraisalofallofthesounds,smells,sightsandothersensethebodyisexposed
to, itsresourceswouldsoonbedepleted. Wehavethusevolvedwithneuralpatternsand
networks thatdonot require consciousawareness,but thatallowus tobeawareofand
screen our environment unconsciously, thus conserving the brains oxygen and glucose
resources.
2. Thy shaltpredict according to thypatterns: As humans grow, since childhood, they
developnewpatternsandscriptsofbehaviortoadapteasilyandmoreefficientlytotheir
environments.These
new
scripts
are
developed
at
different
phases
in
life,
especially
in
family andearly social interactions (e.g.,playground, school,etc), inprofessional training
8 For furtherdiscussionson the roleofemotions in thebrain, seee.g.: (i)P.Vuilleumier Howbrainsbeware:
neuralmechanismsof emotionalattention, Trends inCognitive Sciences, vol.9,No.12,pp.58594 (December
2005);(ii)R.J.Davidsonetal,Theprivilegedstatusofemotioninthebrain,PNAS,August17,2004vol.101no.33
1191511916;andH.Herwigetal,Selfrelatedawarenessandemotionregulation,NeuroImage50,pp.734741
(2010).9 BrainBulletin#54 6ThingsYouDidn'tKnowAboutYourBrain,TerrySmall(www.terrysmall.com/bb_54.asp)10
Foranexcellentreviewofthesephenomena,whichgobeyondthescopeofthispaper,seeJ.TierneyDoYou
Suffer from Decision Fatigue?, The New York Times (August 17, 2011), available online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/doyou
suffer
from
decision
fatigue.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
6/36
Page6of36
contexts (e.g., lawschool),and inorganizationalcontexts. Eachgrouporsocialsetting in
whichapersonworks(e.g.,movingtoanew lawfirm)cancreateanewcorporateculture
andpatternsofbehaviortowhichthepersonhastoadapt.11 Asweacquireanddevelop
thesepatternswetrytouseandrecyclethemtoanticipateeventsandbepreparedfornew
situations. Memory,itnowappears,hasnotevolvedtorecordthingsastheyactuallywere,
buttobeabletopredictthingsbetter inthefuture,shouldcertainsimilarities inobserved
eventsoccur, and toprovide a script should such similarities arise.12 Itwill also tend to
rationalizedecisionsoncetheyhavebeen taken, to fit them intoaconsistentpreexisting
patternofbehavior,especiallyafterhavingmadedifficultchoicesorhavingexperienceda
cognitive dissonance,where two contradictory choices of behavior seem to be possible.
Postchoicerationalizationoccursinthesecases,whenoneschoices(usuallyonesactions)
conflictwith ones prior attitudes about choice options, and do not complywith cogent
predictable
behavior.
This
dissonant
state
is
unpleasant
and
can
motivate
a
change
in
attitudesaboutwhatwaschosenand/ornotchosen(ordoneornotdone),whichservesto
bothjustifythechoiceexpostfactoandreducefurtherfuturedissonancesfromoccurring,
possiblyaffectingmemoryintheprocess.13
3. Thou shalt avoid and befar more sensitive to danger/fear than to reward/pleasure,
whichthoushaltseek:Thehumanbrain instinctivelydevelopstwofundamentalpatterns
ofresponse:anaway reflex,which isassociatedtopainor fear,andatowardsreflex,
whichisassociatedwithpleasureorreward.Theseinstinctivereflexesareapparenteven
inallsocialinteractions,especiallyincommercialdisputes,wheremoneymaybeperceived
asarewardthat is instinctivelyassociatedwithfeelingsofpleasureorsafety,orasapain,
wherehaving
to
pay
damages
can
trigger
fear
and
aggression.
The
away
reflex,
however,
appearstobefarstrongerandlongerlastingthanthetowardsreflex.14 Stimuliofpainor
a threatare typicallymuch fasteracting, last longerandare likely to increaseadversarial
behavior and reduce cognitive capacity, as more resources are conserved for flight or
flightbehavior,shouldthepersonneedtodefendthemself. Stimuliofpleasureorreward,
however,tendtobesloweracting,milder,andareshorter induration. Theyare likely to
stimulatecooperativeandcreativethinking,asthepersontriestoworkouthowtheycan
gettheawardtheyarenowawareof. Asinglenegativestimulus,however,mayoutweigh
manypositivestimuliandaffecthumanbehaviorforfarlonger.
4. Thoushaltfirstperceiveviaemotionsbeforebeingabletoselfregulate(unconsciously)
beforebeing
able
to
self
regulate
(consciously
or
by
habits):
The
human
brain
will
instinctively assess stimuli through emotions first, within the first few milliseconds of
11 ThiscombinationofearlyscriptsandpatternsisreferredtobyM.PateraandU.Gammasthementalmodel
bywhicheachpersondevelopstheirpersonality.12
L.Biel,TheCertaintyofMemoryHasItsDayinCourt,TheNewYorkTimes(November28,2011),availableat
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/health/thecertaintyofmemoryhasitsdayin
court.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all.13
L.Festinger,ATheoryofCognitiveDissonance,Row,Peterson. (1957). A typicalexample issmoking,where
peopleacceptthatsmokingcanbelethal,butwillrationalizetothemselvestheirdecisiontocontinuesmoking.14
SeeS.LeknesS&I. Tracey,Acommonneurobiologyforpainandpleasure,NatureReviewNeuroscience,9,pp.
314320(2008);andM.Kringelbach&K.Berridge,TheNeuroscienceofHappinessandPleasure,SocialResearch
Vol77
:No
2,
pp.
659
78
(Summer
2010).
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
7/36
Page7of36
exposuretoastimulus(especiallyonecreatingfeelingsoffear),beforethebrain isableto
have a cognitive appreciation of this emotion or stimulus. This is part of the evolved
efficiencyofthebraintoconserveresources. Aswetrytoconserveresourcesbyrelyingon
patterns andmental scripts, so thatwedonot require cognitive awarenessof all stimuli
provided tous,ourlimbicsystem(andtheamygdalainparticular)actasanearlyand rapid
relevancedetectortoprioritizesensoryinputanddeterminewhatweshouldpayattention
andgiveprioritytointermsofourlimitedresources.15 Itisonlyafterconsciousawareness
ofastimulus(afterapproximatelyhalfasecondfromoriginalexposuretothestimulus)that
a person is conscious of a stimulus, and can begin to selfregulate and try to overcome
scriptedpatternsofbehaviour. Stronglyrootedemotionscanthusbedampenedbyhaving
aconsciousappraisaloftheemotion,throughhabitandorconsciousmodificationthrough
deliberatebehavior. Thisabilitycanbedevelopedatanytimeandtouchesontheplasticity
of
the
brain.
16
It
appears
to
be
strongly
regulated
by
interconnections
between
the
amygdalaandthefrontalcortex.17 Interestingly,thebrainalsoseemstohaveanautomatic
andalmostemotionaldesire toavoid stressandassessdifficultdecisionsafter theyhave
been taken,toavoidcognitivedissonanceswhendifficultdecisionshavebeentaken, thus
facilitatinganexpostfactojustificationofpriorbehavior.18 Thiscanalso leadtodecision
fatigueandegodepletion.19
5. Thy Social stimuli shall be as powerful as thy Physical ones: Human beings are
gregarious animals that evolved to live in small groupsor cliques. Likeothermammals,
thereisanautomaticandinstinctiveneedtoassessonessocialstatusinagroup. Negative
social stimuli, such as social exclusion, bereavement, being treated unfairly or being
negativelycompared
in
asocial
context,
can
activate
trigger
feelings
of
pain,
that
activate
networks similar to those that are activated in cases of actual physical pain. Likewise,
positivesocialstimuli,suchashavingagoodreputation,being treated fairly,cooperating,
giving to charity, and even schadenfreude20, can active physical pleasure networks and
stimulatecooperativebehaviorandreciprocity. Wetendtounderestimatethisinadultlife,
butitisoftenaprimarydriverofsocialbehavior,whichcanoperateatanunconsciousbut
instinctivelevel.21 Thissenseofbelongingtoagroupcaninfluencenotonlyourfamilyand
senseofculture,butmaybelinkedtoasocioeconomicenvironmentandcaninfluenceour
senses of perception andwillingness to buy certain brands as opposed to others. This
15
See
D.
Sander
et
al
supra
at
footnote
6.
16 See M. Beauregard et al, Neural Correlates of Conscious SelfRegulation of Emotion, The Journal of
Neuroscience,Vol.21RC165,pp.16(2001); andM.Beauregard(ed.),Consciousness,EmotionalSelfRegulation
andtheBrain(AdvancesinConsciousnessResearch),JohnBenjaminsPubCo(January2004)17
S. Banks et al, Amygdalafrontal connectivity during emotion regulation, Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience,2,pp.303312(2007)18
See J.M. Jarcho et al, The neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision
making,SocialCognitiveandAffectiveNeuroscience,5,pp.18(2010).19
SeeJ.Tierneysupraatfootnote11.20
Definedaspleasurederivedfromthemisfortunesofothers. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude.21
SeeLiebermanandEisenberger,PainsandPleasuresofSocialLife,Science,323,pp.89091,(Feb,13,2009);
H. Takahashi et al. When Your Gain Is My Pain and Your Pain Is My Gain: Neural Correlates of Envy and
Schadenfreude,Science,323,pp.93739(Fev2009);N.Eisenbergeretal.,Doesrejectionhurt?AnfMRIstudyof
socialexclusion,
Science,
302,
290
92
(2003).
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
8/36
Page8of36
circuitry also appears to be regulated by interrelations between the amygdala and the
frontalcortex.
6. Thoushaltseeksafeorcomfortablestatuspositionsatalltimes: Thisisacombinationof
the5thruleaboveandtheoverwhelmingreflextoavoidpain,whichisamoredominantand
longlastingfeeling(rules1and2above). Accordingtoarecentstudy,theresult isthat in
situationswherepeoplearepositivelyprimedsocially (e.g.,asclever),theymaybehave
more cautiously to conserve theirpositive status,whereas theymay actmore rapidlyor
incautiously,wheretheyhavenotbeenpositivelyprimed,orhavebeenprimednegatively
(e.g.,asstupid).22 Italsomayexplainthecomplexandmultifacetednatureofwhathas
beentermedhumanecosysteminteractionsandtheacceptanceofallocationsofcommon
pool resources by and within communities, and how people seek to avoid shaming or
shunning within their communities.23 A sense of status will also affect the ability to
empathize
with
others.
Empathy
and
altruistic
behavior
appear
to
differ
between
humans,
dependingonwhether theybelieve themselves tobelong togroupsofhighor low socio
economicstatus.24
7. Thou shalt relateand empathize ingroup (but not outofgroup): Humanshave a
fundamentalneedtotrustandbeabletorelyonotheranimalswithintheirsocialorfamily
groups. This need appears to be neurobiologically driven in two ways: (i) by a
neuropeptidethat isfound inthebraincalledoxytocin;and(ii)bythepresenceofneurons
in thebrain, called mirrorneurons,which induce the same activationofneurons in an
observer as are actually flaring in apersonbeingobservedwho is doing an action (e.g.,
playingasport)orexpressingafacialemotion(e.g.,grimacing). Theneuropeptideoxytocin
hasbeen
studied
in
detail
and
plays
akey
role
in
social
attachment
and
affiliation
in
mammals. It increases thewillingness to accept social risks in interpersonal interactions
withinthesamesocialcommunity.25 Thisincreaseintrustduetooxytocinonlyappearsto
occurintragroup,however,andnotasbetweengroups,whereothersmaybeperceivedas
beingdifferent. Infact,increasedoxytocincanleadtomoredefensiveandaggressiveforms
behaviortowardspersonsperceivedascompetingorbeingoutsideofasocialgroup.26 This
automatic tendency toempathizeand relate tootherhumans (at least intragroup, ifnot
outofgroup)may alsobe supportedby the activityofmirrorneurons in thebrain, that
allow nonverbal communication between people and a natural sense of empathy to
22 SeeS.Bengtssonetal.,Primingforselfesteem influencesthemonitoringofonesownperformance,Social
CognitiveandAffectiveNeuroscience,6,pp.41725(2011)23
For a general discussion on shunning, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning. These neuro
commandmentsmayalsobeusefulininterpretingtheworkofElinorOstrom(2009NobelLaureateinEconomics)
ontendenciesofgroupstoshame,shunorrefusetodobusinesswithothers,orthetragedyofcommonsand
collectiveactionproblems. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commonsandM.OlsonsTheLogic
ofCollectiveAction:PublicGoodsandtheTheoryofGroups,HarvarduniversityPress(1965,rev.1971).24
Y.Ma et al, Neural responses toperceivedpain in otherspredict reallifemonetary donations in different
socioeconomiccontexts,NeuroImage,Volume57,Issue3,pp.127380(August2011)25
M.Kosfeldetal.,Oxytocin increases trust inhumans,Nature,435,pp.673676 (June2005);P.J.Zaketal.,
OxytocinIncreasesGenerosityinHumans,PLoSONE,2(11):e1128.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001128(2007)26
C.K.W.DeDreuetal,TheNeuropeptideOxytocinRegulatesParochialAltruism in IntergroupConflictAmong
Humans,Science,
Vol.
328,
no.
5984
pp.
1408
1411
(June
2010);
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
9/36
Page9of36
occur.27 According to recent research inwhichmirrorneuronsweredirectlymeasured in
humans for the first time, the existence ofmirror neurons provide a complex and rich
mirroring of the actions of other people. Because mirror neurons fire both when an
individualperformsanactionandwhenonewatchesanotherindividualperformthatsame
action, it isbelieved that this "mirroring" is theneuralmechanismbywhich the actions,
intentionsandemotionsofotherpeoplecanbeautomaticallyunderstoodbytheobserver,
inparticularviafacialexpressionsofemotion.28 Thesemechanismsarebelievedtocreate
an automatic and instinctive ability for humans to detect emotions and be able to
empathizewith oneanother. It appears, however, thatmirror neurons flare lesswhen
similarbehaviorisobservedingroupsthatarenotareperceivedasbeingdifferent,andthat
oxytocincan increaseaggression insteadoftrustwhenanotherperson isnotperceivedas
belongingtothesamegrouporanimalclique.29 Itwouldthusseemthatourabilitiesto
empathize
are
not
as
effective
when
a
person
is
not
considered
to
belong
to
a
different
grouporclique.
8. Thoushaltreactnegativelytounfairbehavior:Functionalneuroimaginginvestigationsin
the fieldsof socialneuroscience andneuroeconomics indicatehowdecisions affecting a
senseof status, socialbelonging,oraboutmoneymayactivatepain/reward reflexes,and
thatapartofthebraincalledtheanteriorinsularcortex(theAI)isconsistentlyinvolvedin
empathy, compassion, and interpersonal phenomena, such as fairness and cooperation.
These findings suggest that theAIplays an important role in socialemotions,defined as
affectivestatesthatarisewhenweinteractwithotherpeopleandthatdependonthemina
socialcontext. Incertainstudies (e.g.,theUltimatumgame,whereoneplayerhastosplit
moneyin
away
that
is
accepted
by
another
player
in
order
for
the
money
to
be
kept
by
both),areceivingpartywillrefuseabenefitevenifitistohis/hernetadvantage,iftheyfeel
theotherpersonmakingthesplitisbehavingunreasonablyorselfishly(e.g.,byproposinga
99:1% split, even though the 1% increment would still benefit the receiving party as
opposed to receiving nothing). Behavioral experiments show thatwhere proposals are
deemed as being fair (a 50:50 split being perceived asmost fair) they have far higher
chancesofbeingaccepted,whereasunfairproposalsaremorelikelytoberejected. When
participantsplaysuchgamesinanfMRIscanner,acomplexinteractionbetweentheAIand
anareaofthefrontalcortexappeartobeactivatedveryrapidly,inmilliseconds,preceding
thetimepossibleforacognitivedecision. InamoreextremefMRIexperiment,participants
observedfair
or
unfair
players
receiving
painful
electrical
shocks.
This
study
showed
an
interestingdifferenceinbehaviorbetweenmenandwomen. Mensempathyrelatedneural
responsesweresignificantlyreducedwhentheyobservedunfairplayers,whichwasnotthe
caseinwomen. Whilemutualcooperationusuallyresultsinfeelingsoftrustandfriendship,
a lack of cooperation results in anger and indignation, and thus an acceptance or a
willingnesstopunish(moresoinmenthaninwomen). TheAIseemstoplayacentralrole
27 Seean interviewofM Iacoboni in TheMirrorNeuronRevolution:ExplainingWhatMakesHumans Social,
ScientificAmerican,17,pp.1718(July2008).28
R.Mukameletal.,SingleNeuronResponsesinHumansduringExecutionandObservationofActions,Current
Biology20,pp.750756,(April2010)
29CITATIONS?
ASK
FRANCOIS.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
10/36
Page10of36
in social empathetic emotions ranging from pain, and pleasant emotions to fairness,
admiration and compassion. The AI seems to have evolved as a primary means of
generating and predicting self and otherrelated feelings,where a sense of unfairness is
experiencedasaformofpain.30
9.
Thoushaltbemotivatedbyautonomyorbyfeelingautonomous:Humansdonotcope
wellwhentheybelievetheyareforcedorobligedtobehaveacertainway. Arecentreview
ofscientificliteratureconfirmsthathumansrequiretheperceptionthattheyareincontrol
oftheirenvironmentandhavefreechoiceinordertofeelwell. Thisneedforaperception
ofcontrolisprofound. Itisaneedthat isnotonlypsychologicalbutprofoundlybiological.
The bodys neural systems seem to have hardwired the need for control as a biological
imperativeforsurvival,althoughthiscanbetemperedincertaincollectivistgroups. Forthis
reason,most humans (as is the case for themajority ofmammals) will languish when
deprived
of
autonomy.
31
10. Thoushaltoperatecognitivelyin2gears(X&Cmodes): Thisisatheoryproposedby
Matthew D. Lieberman, according to which human beings have two basic modes of
consciousfunctioning. Thefirstiscalledthereflexivemode,whichismediatedbyneural
assemblies inthebrain(referredtoastheXsystem). Thissystemreliesprimarilyonour
patternstopredictunconsciouslyandonourcognitivereflexes. Thisisthestatewetend
tofunctioninmostofthetime,andcanbeexaggeratedlydescribedasasortofzombieor
autopilot state,which occurswhenwe are in a low state of conscious arousal. The
secondmodeiscalledthereflectivemodeandismediatedbyadifferentneuralassembly
system(theCsystem). Thislevelofcognitivebehaviourisseldomactivatedandinvolves
highlevel
concentration.
Humans
tend
to
cruise
like
acar
in
first
gear,
using
their
X
systemmode,whereglucoseandoxygenareconsumedveryfrugally(e.g.,whenadriverof
acar isconsciousbutcannotremembermuchofwhatwasconsciouslydone,onaroutine
basis,duringthejourney). Furthermore,althoughmanyofusbelievewearegoodatmulti
tasking, it appears that our cognitive appreciation and responses are impairedwhenwe
seektodoso. Weseldommove intooursecondandoptimalgearofcognitivethought
using our Csystem. When the Csystem is activated, it is far more focused and
demanding in terms of oxygen and glucose consumption. The brain becomes deeply
absorbed in very complex activities requiring intense concentration (e.g., mathematical
calculations),andcannotsustain thismodeofcognitivebehaviorwithout frequentbreaks
andnutrition.
32
According
to
this
theory,
we
tend
to
go
about
our
daily
affairs
(and
remember things) paying little attention to internallyfocused processes and only have
strong sensesof cognitionwhen sufficientlyaroused todo soonexternallyfocused tasks
requiringfullconcentration.
30 C.Lamm&T.Singer,Theroleofanterior insularcortex insocialemotions,BrainStructFunct,214,pp.579
591(2010)31
L.Leottietal,BorntoChoose:TheOriginsandValueoftheNeedforControl,TrendsinCognitiveSciences,Vol.
14,No.10,pp.45763(October2010).32
M.D.Lieberman,SocialCognitiveNeuroscience:AReviewofCoreProcesses,AnnualReviewofPsychology,58,
pp.25989
(2007).
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
11/36
Page11of36
Whatdothesetenneurocommandmentssuggestformentaldecisionmakingprocessesorin
situations of conflict? The author submits thatmuch of observed behaviormay not be optimally
assessedatthecognitive level,andthatweseldomactivateourCsystemswhenresolvingconflicts.
Ourtendenciesto instinctivelyandrapidlyfilter informationviaemotionalnetworksbeforethefrontal
cortexcanexertfullycognitiveassessmentsofthesituation,ourneedtopredictandavoidsituationsof
uncomfortablestatusorpain,andoursocialneedspreventusfrombehavingobjectively. Wealsocan
influence outcome by priming disputants abilities to empathize with oneanother and engage in
cooperativebehavioriftheyareabletocreateasenseofbelongingtoacommongroup,suchasseeking
amutually acceptableoutcome. Ourdesire to avoiduncomfortable cognitivedissonances andpost
choice rationalizationmeans that theuseofa singlewordasopposed toanothercan triggerentirely
differentneuralpathwaysandformsofbehaviorbeforewehavehadthetimetoconsciouslyrealizethis
andmakeafullyinformeddecision.
Anexcellent
example
of
how
our
scripts
are
activated
unconsciously,
leading
to
different
cognitive behaviors and outcomes, can be found in a recent experiment conducted in the United
KingdombyDeMartinoetal.(2006),wheretwogroupsweregivenidenticalchoicesframeddifferently
bytheuseofonlytwowords:keepandlose.33 Bothgroupsweregivenafiftypoundnoteandwere
given theoptionof gambling tokeep the full amountof50. Theonlydifferencebetween the two
groupswasthatonegroupwastolditcouldkeep20orgamblewhereastheothergroupwastoldit
couldlose30orgamble. Theriskof losingtheentire50bygamblingwasthesameinbothcases,
andcarriedahighprobabilityofloss(2/3). Fromamathematicalperspective,keeping20isidentical
tolosing30. Arationalassessmentbybothgroupsshouldthereforehave ledtoidenticalbehavior,
whichiswhatonewouldexpectifhighorderCsystemthinkingwereengaged. Asitis,thetwogroups
behaved verydifferently, andobservationsof theirbrainsunder fMRI showed that thedecisionwas
modulated and shaped very rapidly by two differentneural networks, depending on the use of the
wordskeepasopposedtolose. Thewordkeep isasafeword. Inthegroupofferedthekeep
20option,thedecisionappearstohavebeenmodulatedbyazoneinthefrontalcortex,astherewere
no adverse emotions activated. The majority of the people in this group, who appeared to be
processingthisdecisionintheirfrontalcortexaccordingtofMRIpictures,chosenottogamble,thinking
itbettertokeep20thanrisklosing50. Ontheotherhand,thewordloseisnotasafeword. Itcan
triggera fear reflex,dependingon individual subjectiveconditioning topriorpressure responses,and
socioeconomicinfluences. Inthegroupofferedthelose30option,thedecisionappearsindeedto
have beenmodulated by fearnetworks in the limbic systemmoreprecisely in the amygdala as
shownby fMRI imaging (SeeFigure2below). Themajorityof thisgroupchosetogamble, thinking it
bettertoriskeverythingratherthanlose30.
33 B.DeMartinoetal.,Frames,Biases,andRationalDecisionMakingintheHumanBrain,Science313,pp.684
87(2006).
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
12/36
Page12of36
Figure2:TheFramingEffectofKeepv.Lose
Whatis
interesting
about
this
experiment
is
that
it
shows
the
extent
to
which
human
choices
andbehavior canbe influencedbya singleword. By framingor reframingdirectionsasprocedural
choices instead of as orders, or by using neutral, positive or negativewords, itmay be possible to
change the very neural pathways and mental processes by which decisions are made, leading to
differentoutcomes. This iswellknownbyexperiencedmediators,whohavediscoveredthatanoffer
thatwasrefusedinthepastfromanotherpartymaysuddenlybecomeattractivesolelyasaresultofthe
wayinwhichtheofferwasreformulated,orduetothefactthattheofferwasperceivedascomingfrom
themediator. Theabsenceoffear inthesecasesmaymeanthatdifferentassemblies inthebrainare
activated.34 It iswith thisexperiment inmindanda knowledgeof thehypothesisof the 10neuro
commandments thatwe can now turn to conflict resolution procedures, anddiscuss howwell our
default mechanisms for resolving differences are suited to our neurobiological composition and
conditioningasaspecies.
34 Although itmaybeasomewhatuncomfortablethought,mediationmaybeconsideredasaformofhypnosis.
Although the commondefinitionofhypnosis is that it isa trancelike state that resembles sleep, it is in facta
processthatpermitsanewmentalstateofmind,wheresubjectsarefullyawakeandcanrefocustheirattention.
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis. Insofarasaskilledmediatormaychangeapartysperception,byusing
differentwordsorreformulations,(s)hemayinfactbeactingbyinducingoractivatingnewpathwaysforconscious
appraisal,e.g.,byactivatingapartysCsytemtoassessanoptionasopposedtotheirXsystem,orbytriggering
theirtowardsreflexesasopposedtotheirawayreflexes. Thisraisespotentiallydisturbingandnewconcerns
aboutthe
ethics
of
using
neurobiology
to
shape
ADR
processes,
as
discussed
in
Section
VI
below.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
13/36
Page13of36
III. APPROPRIATEDISPUTERESOLUTION:COMPETITIVEvs.COLLABORATIVEPROCESSES
There is awide range of Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes available to the
partieswhenever
adispute
arises.35
We
tend,
however,
to
operate
at
the
extreme
ends
of
this
ADR
spectrum when faced with an emerging conflict, jumping straight into litigation after attempts to
negotiatehavefailed,orusingprocessesthattendtoescalatethedisputeratherthanseektoresolveit
optimallywhenconsidered fromaneurobiologicalperspective. JoannaKalowski,a leadingAustralian
mediator,presentsthespectrumofchoicesasfollows:
35 Forreasonsalreadyexplainedbythisauthorinapreviouspublication,itisbettertodescribeADRintermsof
Appropriate as opposed to Alternative or Amicable Dispute Resolution. By separating litigation or
arbitration from negotiation,mediation, conciliation and other dispute resolution processes, parties and their
counsel will start to think of them as mutually exclusive options, as opposed to as possibly complementary
processes, thatmayhavepositiveneurobiological synergies. See J. Lack, AppropriateDisputeResolution: The
SpectrumofHybridTechniquesChapter17inADRinBusiness:PracticeandIssuesacrossCountriesandCultures,
A.Ingen
Housz
(ed.)
(2011),
available
online
at:
http://imimediation.org/index.php?cID=278&cType=document.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
14/36
Page14of36
Figure3:J.KalowskisADRSpectrum
The default and natural form of behavior of most disputants (and their lawyers) it to act
adversariallyorcompetitively. Littlethoughtisnormallygiventotheprocessitself,oritsimpactonthe
futurerelationsbetweentheparties. TherearethreedistincttypesofADRprocessesthatuseaneutral
withinKalowskisADRspectrum:mediation,conciliationandarbitration,as indicated inredinFigure3
above. Eachofthemmayhaveaverydifferent impactontheparties futurebehavior,whenviewed
fromtheperspectiveofneurobiologyorthe10neurocommandments. Theincreasedlossofcontrol
orincreasinglyadversarialnatureoftheprocess,asonemovesfromoneextremeofthespectrumtothe
other,suggests
that
different
fear
and
cognitive
appraisal
processes
may
be
activated
depending
on
whichprocesswaschosen. Thisputsanewlightonthestatementgivenatthebeginningofthispaper
byDavidPlant,awellknownarbitratorandmediator, regarding the importanceofchoiceofprocess,
andthevaryingusesorstylesofanADRneutral,whichmaybeakeypartoftheproblemtoberesolved
from aneurobiologicalperspective. Selecting anoptimalprocess neurobiologicallymay thus very
wellshapetheoutcome itself. Theuseofaneutral,however,presupposesanaturaltendencybythe
partiestotrytonegotiateatfirst. Itisimportant,therefore,beforecomparingthesethreeformsofADR
thatarefacilitatedbyaneutral(amediator,conciliatororarbitrator)tothereforefocusonnegotiation.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
15/36
Page15of36
AlthoughnegotiationispresentedinKalowskisspectrumasbeingthemostconsensualprocess,
wherethepartiesretainfullautonomy,andwherethereisnobodyelsepresenttoevaluatetheprocess
orwithwhomapartycanseekacoalitionindecidingwhoisrightandwhoiswrong,thereisanatural
tendencyforhumanstotrytousepowerorpersuasiontoconvincetheotherpartytoletthedominant
partyhavethings itsway. Thus,althoughnegotiationsmaystartoffpleasantandconsensual,there is
alsoatendencyforthemtobecomeincreasinglyconflictual,whichiswhythirdpartiesareoftenbrought
intohelpresolvethematter,ortosimplydecideit.
Thereare two fundamentallydifferentmodesofnegotiationpossible,which typically lead to
different forms of human behavior: one is intuitive, and resorts to our natural neurobiological
tendencies(the10neurocommandments),andtheotherone iscounterintuitive,butcan leadtoa
better social process and optimize Csystem thinking to envisage and create new solutions. The
formertypeofnegotiationiscalledpositionalnegotiation,inwhichtwopartiesrealizethattheyhave
differentpositions
as
to
what
should
be
an
acceptable
outcome,
and
seek
to
persuade
and
influence
oneanother (exertingpressure ifnecessary)toabandon theirrespectivepositions. The lattertypeof
negotiation is called interestbased negotiation (sometimes also referred to as problemsolving
negotiation),wherethepartiestrytoavoidtakingpositionsbutseekto identifyoneanothersneeds
andconcerns,andjointlyexploreoptionsformutualgain. Muchhasbeenwrittenaboutbothtypesof
negotiation, but they merit being reviewed once again in light of the possible neurobiological
implicationsthatusingonesystemornegotiationmayentailasopposedtoanother,andinlightofthe
10neurocommandmentspresentedinsectionIIabove. Althoughitispossibletoframethisdebatein
terms of positional (or adversarial or competitive) as opposed to interestbased (or
cooperativeoramicable)negotiation,thisanalysisextendsnotonlytonegotiationbuttoallforms
ofADR,wherethenaturalhumanreflextoresolvemattersadversariallyorcompetitively(i.e.,starting
frompositions)alsotendstoinfluencethewaysinwhichneutralstendtobeappointedandused(e.g.,
asevaluativeneutrals,asopposedtononevaluativeneutrals).
ApositionalnegotiationorADRprocessisessentiallyacompetitiveoradversarialprocess. Itisa
tugofwarofpositions,eachsidetryingtoinfluencetheotherpartytoreachacompromiseclosertoits
ownstartingposition. Thisisanaturalandinstinctivewayofresolvingdisputes,whereeachpartywill
useacombinationofcarrotsand sticks toactivateaway reflexesandtowards reflexesand try to
influence the other disputant. By definition, the parties separate and distinguish themselves as
belongingtooneoranothercamp,asseparategroups,whichmakesitmoredifficulttoempathizewith
oneanorther.
Parties
will
often
use
power
(financial,
social,
reputational
or
otherwise)
to
convince
the
otherpartytomoveintheirdirection,andwillleveragetheirlegalrightsandthreatenintermsofwhat
mighthappen inacourtof lawasa sanction fornotbehaving. This formofnegotiation isbasicand
instinctive. Itactivateslonglastinganddominantfearreflexes. Itleadstopsychologicalphenomenaof
anchoring(wherebyeachpartywillrefusetomakeafurtherconcessionorshift itspositionuntil ithas
seenasignfromtheothersidethatitiswillingtomakeasimilarconcessionorequallyshiftitsposition)
aswellas reactivedevaluation (whereanoffer from theotherparty isviewedasa risk inviewof its
source, and is consequently automatically rejected ordevalued). These sorts of conflicts frequently
escalateas the frustrationbuildsup,whileeachpartyaccuses theotherofbeing intransigent. What
seemed to initiallybeperceivedas theother sides inability tounderstand rapidlyescalates tobeing
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
16/36
Page16of36
perceivedasstubbornness,bad faith,orathreatthatneedstobecontrolled, initiallyby limitedsteps
andultimatelybya formofwar. Neutralsareoftenbrought intosuchnegotiationswhen theparties
starttohitawall. Theinstinctisstilltousetheneutralcompetitively,however,byaskingthemtotakea
positionaswell,orseekingtocreateacoalitionwiththatneutral. Whereasneutralscaninvokethelaw,
rightsorexternalobjectivenormstotryandactfairly,ortoreachanoutcomethatwillbedeemedtobe
inaccordancewithsocialnorms, this too isessentiallyapositionalapproach,usingexternally shaped
normsas thebasis for reachinganoutcome. Insuchcases,althoughaneutralwillstartoffasbeing
impartial,theneutralwillbepulledtoonesideoranotherandwillusuallyenduptakingonepartysside
overtheothers,basedontheirevaluationofthelawandthefacts. Bythetimeanawardisrendered,
anarbitrator isoftenperceivedasbeingpartial,nomatterthecaretakentotrytoact,andbeseento
act, impartially. Iftheneutral isactingasamediator,(s)he isstill likelytobepushedbythepartiesto
expressaviewinfavorofonesideasopposedtoanother. Mediatorsmaybeaskedtofacilitatepurely
positional
negotiations,
where
it
is
common
for
the
parties
to
try
and
convince
the
mediator
to
put
pressureontheotherside incaucus. Thesemediationsoften involvetheneutraldoinga lotofreality
testingwiththeparties,andrelyinggreatlyoncaucusesorprivatesessions. Mediatorswhenfacilitating
suchpositionalorcompetitivenegotiationswilloftenusebracketing techniquestoalloweachside to
demonstratetheirwillingnesstocompromiseiftheotherwillreciprocatefairlyandcompromiseaswell,
dependingonhowdeeplyanchoredorentrenchedtheyarewithrespecttotheirpositions. Positional
negotiations or ADR processes may be viewed neurobiologically in terms of the 10 neuro
commandmentsasdiagrammaticallydepictedinFigure4below.
Figure4:Positional(CompetitiveorAdversarial)DisputeResolution
InpositionalADRprocessesthetenneurocommandmentsare likelytobeprimednegatively
duetotheinherentlycompetitiveoradversarialnatureoftheseprocesses. Thepartieswillnotbehave
empatheticallyand
expect
to
be
pressed
to
make
concessions.
They
will
expect
and
seek
to
avoid
pain,
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
17/36
Page17of36
are likelytobedominatedbypatternsoffear,mayhavenosenseofcertaintyorpredictabilitydueto
theirperceptionoftheothersirrationalorbadfaithbehavior,maybeinfluencedbystrongemotionsof
anger,are likelytoavoidallsocial interactionwiththeotherparty (oftenpreferringtospeakthrough
theirlawyers,orusingcaucusesifamediationhasbeenstarted),mayfeeltheirstatusbeingquestioned
orundermined(e.g.,havingbeenaccusedofwrongfulbehavior),maybecomecompletely incapableof
empathizinge at allwith the other side (who is viewed as belonging to an adversarial group),may
perceivethatotherasactingunfairly(thusfurtherexacerbatingsensesofpainorsocialexclusion),may
feeltheotherparty is impingingontheirautonomy,andmayberendered incapableofhighorderC
systemcognitivethinking,asdominantemotionalneuralnetworksmayconsumeoxygenandglucose
andlimittheabilityforobjectiveanddispassionateanalysis. Thisexplainsthetendenciesoftheparties
towardsanchoringandreactivedevaluation. Thelikelyresultofsuchprocesses,ifthepartieshavenot
beenabletoreachacompromisewithintheirzoneofpossibleagreement,andiftheneutralisnotable
to
change
the
process
or
impose
an
outcome
(as
in
arbitration)
is
further
escalation
of
the
conflict,
and
itisnotunheardofforpartiestorejectanarbitralawardandrefusetocomplywithit.36
The alternative form of negotiation or ADR processes, however, whereby the parties are
encouragednottofocusonthreatsorfears,butontheirinterests,aremuchlessinstinctiveorintuitive.
This reorientation of the parties attention to what is positive as opposed to negative can have
fundamentaleffectsontheirbehaviorandpermitentirelynewwaysofprocessingdatarelatingtothe
conflictintheirbrains,somewhatanalogouslytoDeMartinosexampleofreframingthingsaskeepv.
lose. PositionalnegotiationsorADRprocessestypicallyendinwinloseorloseloseoutcomes. It
ispossible,however,togeneratewinwinoutcomesusinginterestbasedADRprocesses,even inthe
most entrenched positional situations. This is where an understanding of the neurobiological
implicationsofvariousprocessesmaybekey. Thechoiceofprocessmay inandof itselfchange the
neuralpathways that are activated in thepartiesdecisionmakingnetworks, and lead to completely
unexpectedresultsorfaster,betterand/orcheaperoutcomesascomparedtopositionalADRprocesses.
ThisformofnegationwasfirstproposedbyRogerFisher,WilliamUryandBrucePattonintheirseminal
work Getting to Yes, and is sometimes referred to as problemsolving negotiation or dispute
resolution, whereby the parties work collaboratively on solving the problem rather than trying to
convinceoneanotherofanything.
InterestbasednegotiationorADRprocessesarecounterintuitiveandhighlycognitive,requiring
heightenedcorticalthinking. Theyrequireconceptuallyseparatingthepartiesfromtheproblem(thus
depersonalizing
negative
personal
emotions),
focusing
on
interests
rather
than
positions
(invoking
towardsreflexesasopposedtoawayreflexes)andinvokingmutualneedsratherthanindependent
strategies. In interestbasednegotiationsorADRprocesses,thepartiesareencouragedtounderstand
oneanothers alternatives to a negotiated agreement (i.e., their best, worst, probable and/or
reasonable alternatives to a negotiated agreement referred to in ADRjargon as their respective
BATNAs,WATNAs,PATNAsand/orRATNAs),butnot for thepurposeof inducingpositionalor
36 Theescalationofconflicts in suchcases isperfectlymappedout innine stepsbyFriedrichGlasl inhisbook
ConfrontingConflict,HawthornPress(2002). These9stepscanfurthermorebeusedtodiagnosetheconflictand
craftappropriate interventions. TheyarediscussedbelowatSection IV. Seealso J.Lack (2011)at footnote39,
supra.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
18/36
Page18of36
competitivebehavior. Thepurposeofunderstandingthesealternativesisrathertoprovideareference
point with respect to time, costs, possible outcomes and likely consequences if no agreement is
reached,and tosee ifthepartiescanworkcooperatively togenerateoutcomes thatwouldbebetter
than their respective BATNAs or PATNAs.37 This involves working cooperatively, brainstorming to
exploreandgeneratenewpossible solutions (basedonneedsand interests)beforeevaluating them,
andseekingoptionsformutualgainthatcanbe implementedormonitoredusingobjectivecriteria,so
thatbothpartieswillhaveanincentivetocomplywiththefinaloutcome. Suchprocessesalsocreatea
senseofsharedpurposeandcancreateanewsenseofbelongingtothesamegroup,wheretheparties
aremore likely to empathizewith oneanother and seek to cooperate. Where these processes are
properlyhandled,thereislittlechanceoftheconflictescalatingandthepartiesareoftenabletocome
upwithsolutionsthatwouldnothavebeendreamedasevenbeingremotelypossibleusingapositional,
competitiveoradversarialADRprocess.
Figure5:
Interest
Based
(Cooperative
or
Amicable)
Dispute
Resolution
The neurobiological impact of using nonevaluative interestbased or problemsolving ADR
processes is summed up diagrammatically in Figure 5. From the perspective of the ten neuro
commandments,suchprocessesare likelytoactivateneuralpathwaysanddecisionmakingprocesses
thatareverydifferentfromthosenormallyusedinpositionalADRprocesses. Theyarelikelytotrigger
ingroup behavioural patterns and allow the parties to empathize naturally, and generate trust
betweenthemselves. Byseekingacooperativeapproach from theverybeginning, thedisputantsare
37 Usually one partys Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) will be the other partys Worst
Alternativeto
aNegotiated
Agreement
(WATNA)
and
vice
versa.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
19/36
Page19of36
notconditionedtorespondtopotentialfearsbuttotryandshapeandgeneratetheirownrewards. If
the techniques ofGetting to Yes (and related literature) are skillfully applied, it is likely that away
reflexeswillbeabatedandthepartieswillactivatereward (andtowardsreflex)circuits. Ifthreats
are removed, the parties should bemorewilling to engage in dialogue, listen to oneanother, and
engage in instinctive empathy and cognitive perspectivetaking (which is more energy consuming).
Socialgregarious impulses createa senseof ingroup cohesivenessas thepartiesjointly tackle the
problems that face them. The absence of any evaluative third party in interestbased negotiations
means thatno coalitions canbe sought, so there are reduced risks to status, lossof faceor lossof
autonomy. The reduced activation of the anterior insular cortex (the AI) is likely to allowmore
interpersonal phenomena, such as compassion, fairness and cooperation. Most importantly, by
breakingtheprocessdownintoajointexercise,wherethepartiesalignthemselvesbyseekingoptions
formutualgainthatcanbeobjectivelytrackedandimplemented,trust(andoxytocin)maybereleased,
X
system
standard
interpretation
of
patterns
of
behavior
may
be
abated,
and
the
parties
are
more
likelytobeabletoactivatetheirhigherlevelCsystemanalyticalpathwaystoassessthesituationfrom
adifferentperspective. ThisisthelogicbehindCollaborativeLaw,wherebythepartiesandtheircounsel
forsakefuturelitigationandcommittoresolvingadisputecooperativelybyjointlysigningaparticipation
agreementobligingthelawyerstowithdrawfromengaging inany litigiousactivities ifnegotiationsare
not successful. Indoing so,partiesand their counseleffectively commit toworking ina cooperative
frameworkwithgreatersocialintegrationandenhancedcorticalthinking. Suchprocessesoftendonot
includeaneutralforfearthataneutralmaystarttoactevaluatively.
Bringinginaneutral,however,canbringmanybenefits,evenininterestbasednegotiationsor
in collaborative law situations. If skilled facilitatorsarebrought in to actnonevaluatively, theymay
have an immediate systemic effect and theirmere presencemay immediately provoke unconscious
changes instatus. It is important,however, fortheseneutralsto realizethepotential impactoftheir
additional presence, and to adapt themselves and their social behavior to build upon preexisting
cooperativeandingroupbehavioralreflexes. Itisallthemoreimportantinsuchcasesfortheneutral
nottoactevaluatively,nottoassertahighsenseofstatus,nortoactas ifthiswereapositionalADR
process. Theyshouldunderstandtheirrolenotonlytobeprimarilyfacilitativebut inthecontextofa
socialprocess.
Although two different approaches of positional v. interestbased ADR may sound
somewhat theoretical and evenutopian, they are commonlyusedwith great successby skilledADR
professionals.It
is
extremely
important
for
the
parties
and
these
professionals,
however,
to
understand
how their role and presencemay impact the neurobiological propensities of the parties and their
counsel to perceive or process things differently depending on whether a
positional/competitive/adversarialADR framework isused,oran interestbased/cooperative/amicable
ADRframeworkisused. Itisimportanttoalsoremember,however,thathumansarebiologicallyprimed
toinstinctivelyusethepriorADRframeworkbydefault,andthattheseprocesseshaveexistedsincethe
dawnoftime. Theseprocessescorrespondtohumannatureandthewaydisputantsandtheircounsel
arehardwired,andare likelytoprefertoactasanimals,whenresolvingconflicts. InterestbasedADR
processes aremoredifficult to explainor implement in viewof their counterintuitivenature. They
often require suspendingdisbeliefandsettingasidenatural instincts. This isoneof the reasonswhy
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
20/36
Page20of36
manydisputantsandlawyerswillpreferlitigationovermediation,andwhysofewcaseswillactualend
upinmediationintheabsenceofexternalpressurefromjudgesorpublicpolicypressuretodoso. The
useofhybridADRprocessesmaybeofparticular interesthere,as thepartiescanseek tooperateat
bothlevelssimultaneouslyorsequentially:followingtheirnaturaltendenciestoactcompetitivelybutat
thesametimeallowingthemtoapproachtheconflictinanewway,withthebenefitsthatcooperative
problemsolvingoftenentail. OnceinterestbasedADRprocesseshavebeenimplementedtheytendto
workextremelysmoothlyandreducetheriskof furtherconflictescalation. Theycanalsoprovide far
betteroutcomesthanpositional,competitiveoradversarialADRprocesses. Theneuralpathwaysofthe
partiesandtheircounselbecomeattunedtobuildingrapportandworkingcooperativelyasateam.
Inmany situations, however, there is no real choice. Collaborative Law processes succeed
becausethe lawyers involved inthemarehighlyskilledandtrained in interestbasednegotiation. The
formality of the process (e.g., the signing of a participation agreement) creates a clear ingroup
dynamicwhere
the
team
is
united
on
its
desire
(and
need)
to
reach
amutually
acceptable
outcome
throughcooperativebehavior. It isdifficultfordisputantsor lawyers,however,whohavehad littleor
notrainingininterestbasedADRtoabandontheirpositions,exposetheirintereststooneanother,take
stockoftheiremotionsandtheirpatternsofcognitivereflection,andindulgeinempathybuilding. Itis
forthisreasonthatbringinginaneutralcanbehelpfulasacomplementtonegotiation,andwhycourt
annexedADRprogramsaretobeencouraged. Onceagain,thechoiceastowhichtypeofADRprocess
or neutral to use, andwhat skills tobring in, is very important. Should thisneutralbedirectiveor
facilitative,nonevaluativeorevaluative?38 Ifevaluative,shouldthisbeasanormgeneratingneutral,a
normeducating neutral, or a normadvocating neutral?39 The choices canbe laid out in amodified
RiskinGridasshownbelowinFigure6.
38 SeeL.L.Riskin,Decisionmaking inMediation:TheNewOIdGridandtheNewNewGridSystem,NotreDame
LawReview,Vol.79:1,pp.153(December2003)39
SeeE.Waldman,IdentifyingtheRoleofSocialNormsinMediation:AMultipleModelApproach,HastingsLaw
Journal,Vol.
48
No.
4(1997)
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
21/36
Page21of36
Figure6:SelectingADRProcessesusingaRiskinGrid
Each of these neutrals or styles of ADR processesmay activate the neural pathways of the
partiesandtheircounseldifferently,dependingonhowtheneutralsrole isperceived. It is important
forthe
parties
to
decide
ifthey
wish
the
neutral
to
act
amediator,
aconciliator
or
an
arbitrator,
which
going back to Kalowskis ADR spectrum, reflects three different zones in the ADR spectrum. It is
important to differentiate between these three types of ADR neutral, as each process is likely to
implicatethetenneurocommandmentsdifferently.
There is considerable confusion in the international conflict resolution circles between the
wordsmediationandconciliation,whicharebelievedbymanylawyerstobesynonymous,butarein
fact very differentprocesses from a neurobiological perspective. In order to better understand the
differencebetweenmediation and conciliation, it isuseful to startwith arbitration, and to compare
themvisuallyasisdonebelow.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
22/36
Page22of36
Figure7:Arbitration,ConciliationandMediationCompared(J.Kalowski)
Arbitration, conciliation and mediation are three commonly available forms of Appropriate
DisputeResolution. Understanding thedifferencesbetween them is importantwhenassessing these
proceduralchoices
from
aneurobiological
perspective,
as
mediation
is
anon
evaluative
process
(where
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
23/36
Page23of36
noevaluationorcoalitioncanbesoughtwith theneutral),whereas inconciliationandarbitrationthe
neutralssubjectmatterexpertise is typicallysought tohelpsetnorms,makeproposalsordecidethe
matter (acting evaluatively and as a person with whom a coalition can be built). This distinction
betweenarbitration,conciliationandmediation isvery important fromaneurobiologicalperspective,
butisoftenconfused,especiallyininternationalcommercialdisputes.40
Inarbitrationthepartiesdelegatecontroloftheprocessandtheoutcometoathirdparty,the
arbitratororpanelofarbitrators sitting as an arbitral tribunal. The resolutionof thedispute is thus
decidedbythearbitraltribunal. ThisisaclearpositionalADRprocess. Theroleofthelawyersandthe
objectiveofthepartiesistoconvincethetribunaltoresolvethematterinaccordancewiththepositions
onwhichthetribunalhasbeenbriefed,andwhichthelawyershaveadvocated.
Inconciliation, theprocess issomewhatpositional,butalso lessclearly so than inarbitration.
Theconciliator
acts
somewhat
as
an
arbitrator,
but
does
not
have
the
power
to
resolve
the
matter.
The
conciliatoractsevaluatively,byidentifyingobjectivenormsbywhichtheprocesswouldbeinvolvedbya
tribunalorcourt. Theconciliatortypicallyhelpsthepartiestounderstandtheparametersthatcouldbe
usedtodispositiveofthematter,andtounderstandthekeyelementsineachpartyslineofreasoning,
identifying key issues of fact or law. It is ultimately a process of helping the parties to reach a
compromisewithinaZoneofPossibleAgreement(ZOPA)definedbythepartiespositions. Basedonthe
conciliators understanding of the applicable law or the rules of the relevant industry by whose
standardsasolutionmaybesought,thepartiesareassistedinidentifyingprecedents,rulesoracademic
doctrines thatwould suggest an outcome. The conciliator helps the parties to understand possible
outcomethatwouldbereachedapplyingthesenorms,andhelpsthepartiestosetanewZOPAinwhich
theycan
negotiate
an
outcome
similar
to
what
the
law
or
another
objective
process
would
provide
for,butdoingsomorespeedilyorcosteffectively. Theconciliatorcanalsomakeproposalsbasedon
theseparameters,andsuggestpossibleoutcomestothepartiesbasedonthesenorms. Conciliation is
thus a process that can be procedurally facilitative, but substantively evaluative, since possible
outcomesareidentifiedandresolvedbymeansofobjectivenormsandcriteria. Itremains,however,a
positionalandcompetitiveprocess,albeitonewherethepartieshavegreaterautonomy.
40
This
confusion
between
conciliation
and
mediation
is
captured
by
the
UNCITRAL
Model
Law
on
International
Commercial Conciliation (2002). Article 1(3) of the Model Law states that For the purposes of this Law,
conciliationmeansaprocess,whetherreferredtobytheexpressionconciliation,mediationoranexpressionof
similarimport,wherebypartiesrequestathirdpersonorpersons(theconciliator)toassistthemintheirattempt
to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute arising out of or relating to a contractual or other legal
relationship.The conciliatordoesnothave theauthority to imposeupon thepartiesa solution to thedispute.
(Emphasisadded). YetunderArticle6(4)itisclearthattheUNCITRALmodellawisaimedatanevaluativeprocess,
sinceitstates:Theconciliatormay,atanystageoftheconciliationproceedings,makeproposalsforasettlement
ofthedispute. (Emphasisadded). MediationpuristswoulddeemthistomeanthattheUNCITRALmodellawis
notdirected tomediationwherenoproposal shouldeverbemadeby theneutral butonly toconciliation,
whereaconciliatorisencouragedtomakeproposalsandcanbeusedcompetitivelyasaresult. Puristswillargue
thatamediatorshouldnevermakesettlementproposals,andinanyeventnotatanearlystageoftheproceedings
orbeforehavingbeenaskedtodosobyallparties. Fromaneurobiologicalperspectivethesedifferencesarequite
fundamental.They
spell
out
the
differences
between
acompetitive
ADR
process
and
acooperative
one.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
24/36
Page24of36
Inmediation,however,theprocessoughttobepurelycooperativeandinterestbased.41 There
isnoZOPA. Norarethereanyobjectivecriteria. Thegoalinmediationisforthemediatortofocuson
eachpartys subjectivedesires,and tohelp them toarticulate themand reachanoutcomebasedon
thesesubjectiveconsiderations,whichwillbemutuallysatisfactorytobothsides. Unlikeaconciliator,a
mediator refrains frommaking proposals unless requested to do so by both parties or as part of a
generalbrainstormingexercise toproposenewoptions. Themediatorsjob is tohelp theparties to
reacha resolutionto thedispute that isbasedontheirsubjectiveneedsand interests, looking to the
future.42 From aneurobiologicalperspective, thejobof amediatormaybedescribed asminimizing
perceptionsofdanger,enablingcognitiveappreciationsofemotions(e.g.,verbalizingthem)todampen
amygdalaandhelpthepartiesselfregulate,recognizeADRnotonlyasafacilitatednegotiation,butas
partofasocialprocessinwhichthedisputantscanrelateingroup,bond,demonstrateempathy,and
buildcomfortablesocialrelations. ThemediatorenablesthepartiesinsodoingtodampenXsystem
cognition,
and
resort
to
C
system
optimal
decision
making,
allowing
cognitive
assessments
of
possible
rewards(perspectivetakingv.empathy)toshapefutureoutcomescooperatively.
This isnottosaythatmediation isbetterthanarbitrationorconciliation. Eachdisputehas its
owndynamicandallthreeprocesseshavethebenefitofenhancingreflectivev.reflexiveappreciation,
albeitindifferentways. Eachone,whenmanagedproperly,canassistthepartiesinreachingoutcomes
thatcanbeenforced(ifnecessary)orcompliedwith,andfasterandcheaperoutcomesthanresortingto
traditionallitigiouspathways. Eachonehasitsrespectiveadvantagesanddisadvantages,whenassessed
intermsofwherethepartiesarelocatedintermsofconflictescalation. Thereisahigherrisk,however,
afteranawardisissuedbyanarbitratororaproposaloropinionarerenderedbyaconciliator,forthe
partiestoviewitasunfairorbiased,evenifthiscanbeprovennottohavebeenthecase.43 Thepointis
that these variousADRprocesses should allbe consideredandassessed inparallel, in termsof their
41 ThismorethecaseincontinentalEuropethaninNorthAmericaandtheUK,wheremediationisconsideredto
be a dispute resolution process that is distinct and separate from conciliation. In theUSA andUK, however,
mediationisoftencombinedwithorhandledinthesamewayasconciliation,asasomewhatevaluativeprocess. It
isoftenthecasethatmediationsarerunasasingledaylongprocessinthesecountries,wherethemediatorstarts
offactingnonevaluatively inthemorning (e.g.,purely facilitatively),butbecomes increasinglyevaluativeduring
theday (and thus, changing intoa conciliator) closer to theendof theday,when theneutralhashad several
caucusesduringthedayandhasanideaastowherethecasemightsettle. Itisalsoincreasinglycommoninthese
countries forthepartiesandthemediatortoproposethat (s)hemakesamediatorssettlementproposalatthe
end
of
the
day
if
the
case
does
not
settle,
which
means
that
the
parties
tend
to
view
the
neutral
as
a
person
whose
opinionmatters,andneedstobeinfluenced. Thefocusisthuslessontheothersidesunderstandingandinterests
thanontryingtoinfluencethemediatorcompetitivelytoformaviewofthecaseclosertothepartyspositions.42
This distinction betweenmediation and other forms ofADR is captured in the Swiss Rules of Commercial
Mediation,asfollows:Mediationisanalternativemethodofdisputeresolutionwherebytwoormorepartiesaska
neutralthirdparty,themediator,toassistthem insettlingadisputeor inavoidingfutureconflicts.Themediator
facilitates the exchange of opinions between the parties and encourages them to explore solutions that are
acceptable toall theparticipants.Unlikeanexpert themediatordoesnotofferhisorherown viewsnormake
proposalslikeaconciliator,andunlikeanarbitratorheorshedoesnotrenderanaward.(Introduction,p.5,para.
2,emphasisadded).
43 SeeB.Bediouetal,Effectsofoutcomesandrandomarbitrationonemotions inacompetitivegamblingtask,
Frontiersin
Emotion
Science
(in
publication).
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
25/36
Page25of36
possible neurobiological impact on the parties, their counsel and their mental decisionmaking
processes,takingintoaccountthetenneurocommandments.
IV.
CONFLICTESCALATION
THEORY
AND
PROCESS
DESIGN
Anunderstandingofthetenneurocommandmentsclearlysuggeststhatthetypeofprocess
that is used is likely to have a huge influence on the outcome. It gives credence to David Plants
quotation at thebeginning of this article,which is often a blind spot inmany litigations. Once a
processhasbeenchosen itactuallybecomespartoftheproblem itself. Thepartiesandtheircounsel
often limittheirthinking towhat theprocess requires,andwillbeconditioned tobehave inacertain
way, trapped by their unconscious patterns of perception and behaviour, and only using their
traditionalXsystemnetworks,thusoftengraduallyleadingtoincreasinglyentrenchedpositionsoran
inability to look to the futureor to seekpossibleoutcomes formutual gain that analyse the clients
interestsdifferently.
Muchhasbeenwrittenaboutthedangersofconflictescalationandthepropensityofpositional
orcompetitiveADRprocessestoescalateiftheydonotresolvethemselves,oriftheneutralisnotable
to assist the parties in reaching an agreement or imposing an outcome. Conflict escalation theory,
however, isa topicseldom taught in lawschools. Yet it isavitalelementto take intoaccountwhen
designingADRprocesses. Itisnotatopiconthebarexamofmostcountriesorstatesanditisaconcept
manylawyersarenotfamiliarwithatall. Theconceptcanbehelpfultodiagnoseandidentifywherea
conflict currently stands, and itspropensity to escalate furtheror todeescalate. This can help the
partiestoreflectonpossibleneurobiologicalmechanisms influencingtheprocess,whichmayevenbe
driving
its
escalation.
Identifying
a
conflict
along
a
measurable
scale
(even
if
it
requires
subjective
appraisal) allows parties and their counsel to think numerically,where and how they are currently
positionedonit,andwhichareaofthescaletheywouldliketoresolvetheirdispute. Thesimpleactof
askingthepartiesandtheircounseltonumericallystatewheretheyareonascaleandwheretheythink
theotherparty ison the same scale, can triggernew thinking andperspectivetaking,using cortical
pathwaystorevealunexpectedanswers.
AnexampleofsuchascaleistheninestepdiagnostictestdevelopedbyProf.FriedrichGlasl,an
Austrianneutralandconsultant. Itisextremelyhelpfulwhenanalysingconflictsfromaneurobiological
perspectiveandwhen thinkingofappropriateprocedural interventions. Glasls9 step scale suggests
thattherearethreepossiblezonesinwhichthepartiesmaywishtoresolveaconflict:awinwinzone
(which is essentially where interestbased ADR is practiced, and where the parties can work
cooperatively), a winlose zone, (in which there can be a winner and a loser in a conventional
positionalADRprocess),andaloselosezone(wherethepartiesmaybestuckandmayfeelthatthey
need a third party neutral to simply come in and decide the situation for them).44 This scenario is
termed loselose because even if the neutral (e.g., an arbitrator) is capable of fully resolving the
matterinacosteffectiveandrapidmanner,theemotions,time,energyandotherresourcesthathave
beenspenttodateaswellaslostrelationshipscanneverberecouped.
44 F.Glasl,Konfliktmanagement.EinHandbuchfrFhrungskrfte,BeraterinnenundBerater, (Bern:PaulHaupt
Verlag,1997).
See
also
www.trigon.at.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
26/36
Page26of36
Figure8:Glasls9StepsofConflictEscalationandADROptions
ThesethreezonescorrespondtoGlaslsninestepsintheconflictescalationscaleasindicatedin
Figure 9 above. This escalation cycle is typical in positional ADR processes, which are the default
methodswe
use
to
resolve
conflict,
and
each
step
merits
further
attention
and
can
be
described
as
follows:
1. Stage1:Disagreement TheProblem: Thepartiesbecomeawarethattheyhavedifferentviews
aboutan issue. Thedisagreementtakesonthedimensionofaproblem,wherethepartiesstartto
discusstheproblemandseektobringtheotherpartyaroundtotheirlineofthinking. Iftheycannot
agree,theirviewsthentendtohardenintopositions.
2. Stage2:Debate&PolemicThePeople: Theproblemhasturned intoapositionaldispute. The
partiesarearguinganddebatingtheirrespectivepositions. Theywishtheothertounderstandthe
logicandstrengthoftheirposition,andtoagreewithit. Ifadebatehasnotresolvedthematter,a
senseoffrustrationsetsin,andthepartiesenterStage3.
3. Stage3:Actions,notWords: Oneorbothsideswillstarttotakeaction. Thepartiesperceptions
arethattheyhavetriedtonegotiateingoodfaithbutfailed,andthattheotherisbeingobstinate,
unreasonable or in bad faith. Communication breaks down as each party believes that further
discussion isuseless. Thenatural step in theescalation cycle is Stage4, as theparties feel that
nothingcanbeachievedthroughfurtherdialogue.
4. Stage4:ImagesandCoalitions: Thedisputantsstartcreatinggroupsorcamps,seekingrecognition
frompeers,leadersorexpertsastothecorrectnessoftheirpositionandtoreinforcetheirimageof
themselvesasbeingrightandtheotherpartyasbeingwrong. Theyareinpain. Havingfailedto
convince theother side,each side tries to convince thirdparties to confirm theyare right,or to
intervene
on
their
behalf.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
27/36
Page27of36
5. Stage5:LossofFace: Themomentapartyhassucceeded inwinningoveragroupofpeople,the
othersidewillseeitsimageasbeingtarnishedandasbeingunderattack. Theresultisperceivedas
adeliberatelossoffacedeliberatelycausedbytheotherparty. Incollectivistsocietiesthismaygive
rise toprofound feelingsofshame. Publicrefutation isnow required. Thisrefutationmustshow
thattheotherdisputant isneitherright,norreasonablebutsimplywrong,causinghim/hertoalso
lose facewithinhis/herowncommunity. There isastrongsenseofangerorhumiliationthathas
beencreated,whichrequirescorrectivemeasures. Thepartieswillalsostartattributingantagonistic
intentionstotheotherpartysobservedbehaviour.
6. Stage6:ManagementofThreat:ByStage6,theothersidesbehaviourandrefusaltochangehas
nowbecomea threat thatmustbemanagedand contained. Therearenow clearly two groups:
thosewhoarerightandthosewhoarewrong. Thedisputantswillstarttomakecounterthreats
andimposeultimatums. Lettersbeforelegalactionwillbesent. Partiesarenowentrenchedintheir
positions
and
there
is
mutual
fear
given
that
their
initial
threats
and
deadlines
have
not
been
heeded. If the threatwill not disappear, remedial actionwill be needed. The brain resorts to
instinctivepressuretacticstoconvincetheothersidetogivein.
7. Stage7:LimitedDestructiveBlows: Theparties feelcompelled to takeprotectivemeasuresand
start toexert realpressure, suchas initiating legalproceedings. They feel theyhavebecome the
agents of the other partys actions, and are compelled to take appropriatemeasures to defend
themselves. They perceive their actions as reasonably constrained and feel that they aremere
respondingtotheotherpartysintransigence,havingnootheroptions. Theirautonomyisseriously
impinged. By now, all communication between the parties is deemed to be useless and even
counterproductive. The disputants prefer to communicate only via their lawyers, and all social
relationsand
opportunities
to
restore
relations
are
cut
off.
It
is
now
amatter
of
survival
and
protecting oneself. Fear and the away reflex has become the fundamental factor driving the
partiesbehaviour.
8. Stage8:FragmentationoftheEnemy: Atthisstagethepartiesareinpureselfpreservationmode.
Theconsequencesofeachpartys limiteddestructiveblows isthattheotherpartyfeelswounded,
andunderincreasedpressuretotakeevenmoreforcefulanddemonstrablemeasures. Theconcern
isnotbecomingoneofsurvival. Asthepartiesincreasethepressureononeanother,thisleadsto
furtherfragmentationandthepartiesstartfightingopenly. Atthisstage,theotherpartyceasesto
beconsideredasapersonbutasanenemy. Itneedstobedealtwithonceandforall. Noempathy
orhumancontactisevenconceivable.
9.
Stage9:
Together
in
the
Abyss:
By
this
stage,
the
parties
are
no
longer
reasoning
in
terms
of
their
ownpreservation. Angerandadesiretopunishtheotherstartstosetin. Inextremecases,thegoal
hasnolongerbecomewinningthedisputebutsimplyinflictingthegreatestamountofdamageand
destroyingtheotherparty. Atthisstagetheconcern isnotonlyaboutsurvival,butpunishingthe
enemy and exacting revenge. Mattershave degraded so far that inflicting greaterharmon the
othersidethantheyhaveinflictedthemselvesbecomesaseriousmotivation. Thedesiretodestroy
the other side overtakes everything else. Whether the disputant loses all of its assets, has to
fabricateevidence,hastolie,gobankrupt,orriskajailsentenceisnolongerimportanttothem,so
longastheothersideisdestroyed.Thisphaseisaptlycalledtogetherintotheabyss.
-
7/25/2019 J. Lack & F. Bogacz -- The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design (Neuroawareness)
28/36
Page28of36
It is possible to see from Figure 8 how these nine steps correspond to the ten neuro
commandments, and to understand how each of these ten social and behavioural drivers can be
impacted by procedural interventions as the conflict escalates. The challenge becomes how to de
escalatetheconflict,andmoveitbackintothegreenwinwinzone,ifpossibleandifthisiswhatthe
partieswish. It is also important at this stage to realisehow thepresenceof anevaluativeornon
evaluativeneutralcanmakeabigdifference. Theborderbetweenstages3and4iscrucial,sincethatis
wherethepresenceoftheneutralmayshiftthepartiesbehaviourfromapositional/competitivestance
intoan interestbased/cooperativeone. Thiscanoccurbothways. Bringing ina facilitative (butnon
evaluativeneutral)canhaveanimpactatallstagesoftheconflictevenatstage9sinceitallowsthe
partiestotaketimeoutto focusforamomentonpossiblerewardsandwhether,and ifsohow,they
wishtobringtheconflictbackintothegreenzone. Thiscanoftenbeachievedbyusingcombinationsof
ADRprocessesandhybrids.45 Whereasarbitrationscanbeveryeffective in the red zone,where the
parties
feel
incapable
of
resolving
the
problem
themselves
any
longer,
conciliations
can
help
the
parties
to compromise rapidly and cheaply the yellow zone. Mediation, however, remains a ubiquitous
possibility,thatcanhelpthepartiesreachthegreenzoneandstaywithin it. Theneutral inthiscase,
however,mustbeverycarefulandconsciousoftheconsequencesofbecomingevaluativeandallowing
the conflict tomigrate to step 4. By acting evaluatively the neutral runs the risk of escalating the
process once again through the creation of a coalition, thus reactivating competitive and positional
neuralpathways.
Viewed differently, it is possible to caricaturize the escalation process in terms of neural
pathwaysand regionsof thebrain thatexertakey influenceonhow thecase isevolving