Maximizing Technology to Establish Trust in an Online, Nonvisual Mediation Setting
Maximizing Technology to Establish Trust in an Online, Nonvisual Mediation Setting
As mediators increasingly rely on technology for all or part of their mediations, they must be cognizant of the best ways to effectively communicate especially when attempting to engender and maintain trust among all participants. The majority of our communication relies on contextual cues such as eye contact, proximity, personal space, and demeanor. Yet these same cues are lacking in a nonvisual, nonverbal environment such as email, chat rooms, and instant messaging. The written word, therefore, becomes the focal point of online communication.We all know that an important part of a mediator’s job is to engender trust in both herself and in the process so that participants will feel at ease and share open, candid dialogue during a mediation. Trust is a multidimensional concept and definitions vary depending on different social sciences such as sociology, psychology, political science, history, economics, anthropology, and sociobiology. Although few agree on what the various dimensions of trust are and how the dimensions interrelate, let me simplify a definition for our discussion purposes. Trust is a subjective concept because it is based on perceptions. The trustor must infer feelings of trust. In doing so, the trustor must take a risk to rely on personal expectations that someone else will fulfill a promise or duty, exposing him to vulnerability and some reliance on faith. The trustor, therefore, lacks control over another’s actions.
Relying on background research regarding trust taken from fields other than mediation, I have developed Six Building Blocks of Trust to help a virtual mediator establish professionalism, credibility, reputation, integrity, competence, and other positive characteristics inherent in trustworthiness. As I developed these building blocks for the virtual mediator, I realized that most of them apply to mediators in a F2F setting as well. So here is a summary of my Building Blocks. What do you think? Let’s start a dialogue this week.
1. Establish Online Reputation and Credibility
Building Block 1 provides helpful information for mediator marketing purposes in terms of website design and capitalization of online referrals designed to help a mediator be resourceful with a community.
Building Block 2 is helpful for mediators to recognize the necessity of connecting psychologically to mediation participants and recommends creating a social presence in website design as well as applying social presence norms to online communication.
The purpose of Building Block 3 is to demonstrate how a virtual mediator can gain and maintain credibility, and therefore trust, by using skillful text and skillfully managing the text of mediation participants.
Building Block 4 is a corollary to Building Block 3 because it suggests methods that a virtual mediator can use to send and manage written messages, but adds a level of optimism through the generation of positive messages and perceptions.
The purpose of Building Block 5 is to highlight the fact that mediator competence in a face-to-face setting is not necessarily the same thing as an online experience. There are additional considerations that the virtual mediator must consider.
Building Block 6 is necessary to demonstrate the critical role of technology to engender trust in the virtual mediator and in the online mediation process.
Moderated by:
Susan Nauss Exon is a Professor of Law at the University of La Verne College of Law in Ontario, CA, U.S.A. She is co-chair of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution Ethics Committee and a member of the Section's Ethical Guidance Committee. She has been mediating civil disputes since 1998.
______________________________________________
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stanley A. Leasure on
-
Nick: I read an article recently entitled "Nonverbal Website Intelligence" that made some good points on this very issue and others regarding the design of websites. In line with Building Blocks 1 and 6. Sorry I don't have the link.
-
Permalink Reply by A. Kramer on
-
I appreciated Kevin's comment, and I completely agree with his comparison. Working in higher ed (on the admission side of things) put this online trust-building front and center for me each spring. We'd host online chats, moderate message boards and check College Confidential every so often (for a good laugh). But, at least in the context of high school students, I don't have much faith in the creation of "quick trust." The beauty and problem with the internet is the access to vast amounts of information. I may try to dispell a rumor about the application process via an online chat, but that doesn't go very far when the kid on the other side can so quickly find other sources to support her (incorrect) belief. I never felt like I made a connection with a student via email/chat/message board, probably because I was wondering if I the person on the other end was actually a supremely awkward kid who sat in a closet all day, playing video games. But bringing this back to the realm of ODR, this forum also makes me wonder how a mediator can trust that the other parties are genuine in their statements. What do the studies on success rates of non-visual, online mediation vs. in-person mediations tell us?
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Nauss Exon on
-
Stanley, I would love to read the article. Do you remember the author's name?
Stanley A. Leasure said:
Nick: I read an article recently entitled "Nonverbal Website Intelligence" that made some good points on this very issue and others regarding the design of websites. In line with Building Blocks 1 and 6. Sorry I don't have the link.
-
-
A. Kramer said:
I appreciated Kevin's comment, and I completely agree with his comparison. Working in higher ed (on the admission side of things) put this online trust-building front and center for me each spring. We'd host online chats, moderate message boards and check College Confidential every so often (for a good laugh). But, at least in the context of high school students, I don't have much faith in the creation of "quick trust." The beauty and problem with the internet is the access to vast amounts of information. I may try to dispell a rumor about the application process via an online chat, but that doesn't go very far when the kid on the other side can so quickly find other sources to support her (incorrect) belief. I never felt like I made a connection with a student via email/chat/message board, probably because I was wondering if I the person on the other end was actually a supremely awkward kid who sat in a closet all day, playing video games. But bringing this back to the realm of ODR, this forum also makes me wonder how a mediator can trust that the other parties are genuine in their statements. What do the studies on success rates of non-visual, online mediation vs. in-person mediations tell us?
-
-
You bring to the surface another issue. Does the age of the participants make a difference in how or whether they can develop trust from online, nonvisual communication. With all of the social networking these days I would think that younger people, especially high school kids, would actually develop online trust faster than some of us old folks who did not grow up with computers and technology.
What I have read about in online education is that constant and predictable communication fosters greater trust in online education groups and results in better group projects. Thus, I have built into Building Block #3 the idea of predictable and prompt responses. In other words, taking the education research and applying it to mediation, the mediator should keep the participants engaged and not let long periods of down time lapse between communications. Additionally, if the mediator can help keep participants focused, higher levels of trust may occur in contrast to situations in which the participants are not focused.
A. Kramer said:I appreciated Kevin's comment, and I completely agree with his comparison. Working in higher ed (on the admission side of things) put this online trust-building front and center for me each spring. We'd host online chats, moderate message boards and check College Confidential every so often (for a good laugh). But, at least in the context of high school students, I don't have much faith in the creation of "quick trust." The beauty and problem with the internet is the access to vast amounts of information. I may try to dispell a rumor about the application process via an online chat, but that doesn't go very far when the kid on the other side can so quickly find other sources to support her (incorrect) belief. I never felt like I made a connection with a student via email/chat/message board, probably because I was wondering if I the person on the other end was actually a supremely awkward kid who sat in a closet all day, playing video games. But bringing this back to the realm of ODR, this forum also makes me wonder how a mediator can trust that the other parties are genuine in their statements. What do the studies on success rates of non-visual, online mediation vs. in-person mediations tell us?
-
-
Derek Halpern is the author of the article I referenced. SAL
-
-
To follow on A.Kramer and Susan's response regarding age and acceptance. I developed an online class called Negotiation, Mediation, and Arbitration in Business. This semester it went online for the first
time. The students conduct negotiations using role plays over the internet (audio/video). One of the on line discussions we had yielded surprising results. Most of my students had a very strong preference for face to face negotiations as compared to electronic methods including those which synchronously capture audio and video (which we use in the class). At the bottom of the list was email. Astonishingly, texting was absolutely rejected as an appropriate means of negotiating.
-
-
Did the students say why they preferred F2F? Did their preferences have anything to do with trustworthiness if you know? Has anyone tried having students negotiate or mediate using telepresence technology?
Stanley A. Leasure said:To follow on A.Kramer and Susan's response regarding age and acceptance. I developed an online class called Negotiation, Mediation, and Arbitration in Business. This semester it went online for the first
time. The students conduct negotiations using role plays over the internet (audio/video). One of the on line discussions we had yielded surprising results. Most of my students had a very strong preference for face to face negotiations as compared to electronic methods including those which synchronously capture audio and video (which we use in the class). At the bottom of the list was email. Astonishingly, texting was absolutely rejected as an appropriate means of negotiating.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Thompson on
-
Stanley,
Which tech did you use- Skype? Any link to the Halpern article? As I am doing my PhD on nonverbal communication and mediation, I am sure it is interesting to see what it says (like affordances, etc.).
Susan,
Do you include in your "agree to mediate" forms that confidentiality applies to e-correspondance as well?
Also, admittedly it is not the same, but F2F, synchronous methods such as Skype and ooVoo allows many of the nonverbal elements to be present. It is not as ideal, but like I often say during mediations sessions, it can be the "best given the situation" and not the "best in a perfect world." :)
-jeff
-
-
Jeff, I have not referred to e-correspondence in my agreement to mediate but should probably do so in a more general way perhaps by referring to all forms of communication, whether in person or by technology. When I talk to counsel separately by telephone prior to a mediation session, I always preface our conversation by saying it is confidential. That simple statement seems to put the attorneys at ease and they open up and discuss their client's case freely. It is during these conversations where my voice can be heard that I really try to make points to establish credibility, thus trust in both me and the process.
Jeff Thompson said:
Stanley,
Which tech did you use- Skype? Any link to the Halpern article? As I am doing my PhD on nonverbal communication and mediation, I am sure it is interesting to see what it says (like affordances, etc.).
Susan,
Do you include in your "agree to mediate" forms that confidentiality applies to e-correspondance as well?
Also, admittedly it is not the same, but F2F, synchronous methods such as Skype and ooVoo allows many of the nonverbal elements to be present. It is not as ideal, but like I often say during mediations sessions, it can be the "best given the situation" and not the "best in a perfect world." :)
-jeff
-
-
Jeff:
We use Adobe Connect for those we want to record and upload to Blackboard for peer critique. We use Skype for the rest. A number of students were nonplussed with the quality of Skype. Stan
Susan:
I went back and looked at the discussion board from a couple of weeks ago. A few examples:
"face-to-face fosters stronger relationships (referencing as examples student relationships in online course vs. seated course)
"better social interaction"
"loss of non-verbal communication"
"smiley faces are not the equivalent of voice inflection and body language"
"face-to-face communications are needed to build lasting business relationships."
"Face-to-face communications help overcome cultural differences, when present"
"loss of verbal cues"
"loss of ability to see reaction to information you present"
One student referenced the movie "Up in the Air" in which George Clooney's under-study advocated the use of video conferencing to fire people
-
-
Susan have you had any experience with telepresence technology? Is there somewhere to go to test it? I am interested. Stan
About
@ADRHub Tweets
ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University
© 2024 Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.
Powered by
