Recognizing & Facilitating Emotions
Recognizing & Facilitating Emotions
Moderated by Anita Vestal
Emotional content usually shows up with parties in a dispute resolution process. We know that emotions contain a great deal of information and we know that satisfying emotional issues is important for lasting resolution. As ADR professionals, what do we do with emotional expressions? When the ADR process is online, should one handle emotions differently than in a face to face session? Do we seek out the emotional content and if so, how?
Online mediation presents challenges in reading emotions, particularly when there is no video conferencing. In the Discussion Forum, we reflect on questions about our comfort level, skill, training and experience handling emotions during online mediation. Are you comfortable facilitating the feelings of the parties in mediation? Do you feel you have the training and skills to allow the parties to express their emotions? Is it worthwhile to allow expression of feelings or does it waste time?
To get the discussion started, let’s take a look at the facial expressions chart and try to identify what emotion is being expressed in each photo. Next let’s try to give some examples of ways to identify how one is feeling when we are not able to see the face and body, such as an audio conference without video or simply an email or discussion post.
Moderator Bio:
Dr. Anita Vestal has been practicing and teaching conflict resolution for 15 years, teaching ADR courses at Nova Southeastern University, Sullivan University, and Eastern Mennonite University. As a researcher, she studied the role of emotions in resolving conflicts of young children and she currently trains teachers on emotional literacy and conflict resolution in addition to a mediation practice. Her recent books on the importance of emotional intelligence for both children and adults, include:
Vestal, A (2012). Making Friends with the F Word: Forgiveness. http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/152327 ISBN 9781476356273 and
Vestal, A. (2009). Conflict Resolution in Preschool: A Model for Teachers and Children. Koln, Germany: LAP-Lambert Academic Publishing. ISBN 978-3-8383-1017-6
______________________________________________
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by C Morton on
-
Spotting emotions in any sort of online communications is particularly tough. I have never done any sort of ODR, but it seems to me that one way to make things work better is to be consistent in the form of communication you use. If you are going to use a chat room, use chat for your intake and preparation. If you are going to use video conference or email the same rule would apply, because then you have a baseline to determine what the person’s normal style of communication in that medium actually is.
Everyone is different and online communications are not as natural, and never will be as natural, as sitting in the same room as someone and communicating with them directly in a mediation or other type of ADR. It is easy and common to misread emotions in person and we are all hardwired with the DNA to do that. No one is born to really understanding how the subtle nuances of face to face communication translate into email, chat, or even video conferencing. It’s a minefield and if you go in with no idea about how the parties communicate it seems even riskier.
I do think there are a variety of cues you can use if you already understand a person’s style of communication in the medium. For instance, the complexity of language and sentence structure is helpful in emails, but without the extra context of facial cues, body language, and variations in tone you are losing most of the subtext unless you have a deep understanding of how the person uses written language.
As an earlier commentator mentioned I do believe that online dispute resolution is better than no dispute resolution at all, but I don’t believe it is optimal and it might actually be good to reconsider some of the basics of ADR in the online setting. I don’t have the experience to suggest what those changes might be, but ADR was not developed for online communication and therefore ODR should be reexamined from the ground up before it is widely adopted for critical disputes.
-
-
Hi all,
To me, the biggest thing lost in online dispute resolution is the relationship building aspects that normally come with negotiating or mediating with people repeatedly. In Nebraska the legal field is small. You get to know everyone and you know what to expect from them. This relationship building is largely lost in ODR. You do not have the before and after and mid negotiation breaks to small talk and learn about the mediator or other lawyer. This lost knowledge has a dramatic affect on your ability to communicate. The more you know someone the easier you can communicate and understand them. You learn their communication tendencies and nuances. With ODR you may negotiate with the same lawyer or mediator, but you lose the small chances to learn about them. For all the benefits of ODR, of which there are many, there are certainly downsides.
-
Permalink Reply by Anita Vestal on
-
I can agree with you that for some mediators and for some parties and for some situations, ODR is probably not the ideal setting. Instances where I feel it can be valuable are when the parties are so spread apart in distance that finding a convenient venue might prohibit their coming together for a process. All of your points are valid in today's world. I do wonder if the future developments in technology and the way people communicate may mitigate some of those issues. Do you think that might be a possibility>
C Morton said:Spotting emotions in any sort of online communications is particularly tough. I have never done any sort of ODR, but it seems to me that one way to make things work better is to be consistent in the form of communication you use. If you are going to use a chat room, use chat for your intake and preparation. If you are going to use video conference or email the same rule would apply, because then you have a baseline to determine what the person’s normal style of communication in that medium actually is.
Everyone is different and online communications are not as natural, and never will be as natural, as sitting in the same room as someone and communicating with them directly in a mediation or other type of ADR. It is easy and common to misread emotions in person and we are all hardwired with the DNA to do that. No one is born to really understanding how the subtle nuances of face to face communication translate into email, chat, or even video conferencing. It’s a minefield and if you go in with no idea about how the parties communicate it seems even riskier.
I do think there are a variety of cues you can use if you already understand a person’s style of communication in the medium. For instance, the complexity of language and sentence structure is helpful in emails, but without the extra context of facial cues, body language, and variations in tone you are losing most of the subtext unless you have a deep understanding of how the person uses written language.
As an earlier commentator mentioned I do believe that online dispute resolution is better than no dispute resolution at all, but I don’t believe it is optimal and it might actually be good to reconsider some of the basics of ADR in the online setting. I don’t have the experience to suggest what those changes might be, but ADR was not developed for online communication and therefore ODR should be reexamined from the ground up before it is widely adopted for critical disputes.
-
-
Good point, Jason. There can be "small talk" during breaks online, but it would not have the same quality of face to face. Can you think of any ways to overcome that challenge?
Jason Bring said:Hi all,
To me, the biggest thing lost in online dispute resolution is the relationship building aspects that normally come with negotiating or mediating with people repeatedly. In Nebraska the legal field is small. You get to know everyone and you know what to expect from them. This relationship building is largely lost in ODR. You do not have the before and after and mid negotiation breaks to small talk and learn about the mediator or other lawyer. This lost knowledge has a dramatic affect on your ability to communicate. The more you know someone the easier you can communicate and understand them. You learn their communication tendencies and nuances. With ODR you may negotiate with the same lawyer or mediator, but you lose the small chances to learn about them. For all the benefits of ODR, of which there are many, there are certainly downsides.
-
-
As other people have said, emoticons, bolding, capitalization, and other effects can be used to express emotions over the internet. This could help understand the parties when you are not actually seeing them. However, I think that if a party was crying and put a crying emoticon, it would not have the same influence as seeing someone cry in person. It would be hard to ignore a crying person, while a sad emoticon could be overlooked. I think the same goes for underlining, bolding, or capitalization. A person yelling is feeling a lot of things, such as anger or they may feel as if they are not being heard, but caps does not portray that in the same way.
-
-
This topic is something talked about in almost all of my classes this semester. Metamessages in particular when dealing with people in person, whether that be face to face of the phone. Metamessages can tell you a lot about how a person feels and gives you a pathway on how to proceed in the conversation. Is a caucus needed so the person can take a break? Would now be a good time to summarize, clarify, etc? As many times it has been told, it is not what you say, but how you say it. This is precisely the point.
Now, when handling ADR online, this poses its own challenges. I can think of numerous occasions, both professional and personal, in which I or the other party, misinterpretted a text or an email because it is harder to guage what emotions the person is conveying. If there is an ongoing relationship, this becomes easier because you generally know the pattern and verbage that person usually uses to convey different messages. This becomes ever challenging when it is a new contact. You have to do your best by looking at the adjectives, punctuation, capitalization, etc. I have found it helpful before jumping to comclusions on the tone of the email, to ask a clarifying question. This is an unobtrusive way to guage whether your gut instinct about feeling it correct.
More today, dispute resolution and communication in general, is orginating online for purposes such as convenience. As this becomes more prominent, skills will improve.
-
-
Thanks Anita, I agree that holographs and so on may one day bring things closer to the reality of being in the actual presence of another person, but we are a long way from that today.
Anita Vestal said:I can agree with you that for some mediators and for some parties and for some situations, ODR is probably not the ideal setting. Instances where I feel it can be valuable are when the parties are so spread apart in distance that finding a convenient venue might prohibit their coming together for a process. All of your points are valid in today's world. I do wonder if the future developments in technology and the way people communicate may mitigate some of those issues. Do you think that might be a possibility>
C Morton said:Spotting emotions in any sort of online communications is particularly tough. I have never done any sort of ODR, but it seems to me that one way to make things work better is to be consistent in the form of communication you use. If you are going to use a chat room, use chat for your intake and preparation. If you are going to use video conference or email the same rule would apply, because then you have a baseline to determine what the person’s normal style of communication in that medium actually is.
Everyone is different and online communications are not as natural, and never will be as natural, as sitting in the same room as someone and communicating with them directly in a mediation or other type of ADR. It is easy and common to misread emotions in person and we are all hardwired with the DNA to do that. No one is born to really understanding how the subtle nuances of face to face communication translate into email, chat, or even video conferencing. It’s a minefield and if you go in with no idea about how the parties communicate it seems even riskier.
I do think there are a variety of cues you can use if you already understand a person’s style of communication in the medium. For instance, the complexity of language and sentence structure is helpful in emails, but without the extra context of facial cues, body language, and variations in tone you are losing most of the subtext unless you have a deep understanding of how the person uses written language.
As an earlier commentator mentioned I do believe that online dispute resolution is better than no dispute resolution at all, but I don’t believe it is optimal and it might actually be good to reconsider some of the basics of ADR in the online setting. I don’t have the experience to suggest what those changes might be, but ADR was not developed for online communication and therefore ODR should be reexamined from the ground up before it is widely adopted for critical disputes.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Bean on
-
Great conversation. I'm coming full-circle to be reminded that even in-person, we experience others' emotions behind a veil. Until we have a way to be inside someone else's skull, we're always going to be guessing what they're feeling based on what we perceive.
One of the most opaque veils I experience is being a guy. An American Guy. I've been programmed to ignore, suppress, or at least control my emotions. And to pay more attention to the expressed ideas and concepts from others and less attention to their expressed or repressed emotions. That's my challenge, and being aware of it is a big step in overcoming it. It means I am very aware that I need to check-in regularly with whomever I'm interacting.
I think it was John Medina (UW brain anatomist, Brainrules.net, great speaker, BTW) who said something like we humans are very good generally in knowing "something's up" with the other person, but we're not very good at knowing exactly what it is. And that those who rise to leadership roles in societies of the larger primates are not those who are stronger or bigger or faster, but those who know best the motivations of others. And yet, his point was, even those who can discern those emotions best will still be wrong most of the time.
Makes sense to me. Even with the broad-brush taxonomy of 7 basic emotions, there's still a 86% chance we picked the wrong one. Maybe we can be on the right side of the spectrum (e.g., happy not sad, fearful not angry, etc.) but in our first guess we're still more likely than not to get it wrong in at least the particulars.
I think of some interactions I have in my personal life with people I call "empaths." These are the folks who seem to be extremely confident with their ability to read others' emotional state. So much so that they seem to believe that they know my emotions even better than me! And they react to their perception of what they think is my emotional state without checking-in with me on it first. Even if we do raise the conversation to a discussion of our currently-felt emotions, they are resistant to accept my description of what I'm feeling, because it doesn't match what they think they know about what I'm feeling! Not being heard or understood at that level (a need I've recognized in myself), I can tend to become frustrated in these situations. So the "empaths" in my life probably have the opinion that I spend most of my existence in the low-end of the anger spectrum because that's how they've experienced me where we've left-off our conversations. ("You're angry." "Well, yeah, I'm angry now!")
So knowing what it feels like to have someone misread my emotional state, and not being raised from the cradle to deal with them subconsciously, I keep very front-of-mind that I need to check-in with the other. A lot.
Getting back to technology-mediated interactions, we of course need to be aware that using asynchronous text or even synchronous visual/audio, we're not getting the whole story. But that's nothing new. We never get the whole story. Even when we're there in-person.
I'm not sure which I would say is the more opaque veil in my reading of others' emotions: the technology-mediated interaction, or my being an American Guy. Both are challenges for me. Overcoming the challenge of technology doesn't seem as daunting in that context.
-
-
Gracias Alberto,
Creo que van a tener gran exito con el proyecto SIMEDIAR. Inscribi para participar.
Alberto Elisavetsky said:Anita, en virtud que no tenemos suficiente experiencia en el manejo de las emociones a distancia hemos creado un proyecto llamado SIMEDIAR, simulacion de mediaciones a distancia, www.simediar.com , es como un simulador de vuelo de aviones, pero de simulación de mediaciones a distancia.
Comienza el martes 6 de noviembre & contamos con 10 universidades de iberoamerica que designaron cada una 2 becarios, para participar de una experiencia de 6 clases.
Cada becario recibe un entrenamiento de la siguiente forma.
Clase 1) Conocimientos técnicos de como manejar una sala de mediacion en tiempo real a distancia
Clases 2, 3 ,4 & 5 role play de 4 casos sobre distintos temas
Clase 6 ) modelo de evaluacion de eficacia y eficiencia de la mediacion a distancia.
Cada alumno para concluir el entrenamiento debe generar un documento con sus experiencias y opiniones, para ser certificado.
Cada participante durante el entrenamiento recibe una sala de mediación a distancia interactiva para su uso y entrenamiento.
Se componen 4 grupos de 5 miembros cada uno
SIMEDIAR logo
Alberto
-
-
Dear Kathleen,
as an eternal optimistic and also as one who has watched the dispute resolution field for nearly twenty years, I do agree with all you have shared. Thank you for your concluding remark, particularly, where you speculate that we will improve our skills as ODR catches on. ODR is in its infancy or early childhood; with time, I expect that technology, comfort level and mediator capabilities will be enhanced.
Kathleen said:This topic is something talked about in almost all of my classes this semester. Metamessages in particular when dealing with people in person, whether that be face to face of the phone. Metamessages can tell you a lot about how a person feels and gives you a pathway on how to proceed in the conversation. Is a caucus needed so the person can take a break? Would now be a good time to summarize, clarify, etc? As many times it has been told, it is not what you say, but how you say it. This is precisely the point.
Now, when handling ADR online, this poses its own challenges. I can think of numerous occasions, both professional and personal, in which I or the other party, misinterpretted a text or an email because it is harder to guage what emotions the person is conveying. If there is an ongoing relationship, this becomes easier because you generally know the pattern and verbage that person usually uses to convey different messages. This becomes ever challenging when it is a new contact. You have to do your best by looking at the adjectives, punctuation, capitalization, etc. I have found it helpful before jumping to comclusions on the tone of the email, to ask a clarifying question. This is an unobtrusive way to guage whether your gut instinct about feeling it correct.
More today, dispute resolution and communication in general, is orginating online for purposes such as convenience. As this becomes more prominent, skills will improve.
-
-
Dear Jeff,
Appreciate the honesty, sincerity and the self-reflection. Absolutely in agreement that awareness is the first step to changing and you can certainly be recognized for your self awareness. The "American Guy" as you say is like a culture in its own right. I have read many wonderful books and attended many wonderful seminars on this issue that you are wrestling with. Your American Guy-ness is unique and different from my American Gal-ness, so I can never truly know what it is like to be in your culture.A big eye opener for me was a textbook we used for a course I taught on Managing Conflict in a Diverse Workplace ten years ago. The author believes that "There may be no greater, more significant void in the knowledge of educated adults than cross-cultural understanding." This is what you have described. How can I really know your culture of American Guy and how can you know anyone else outside of this culture? Use of emotions and interpretation of those emotions are in the same vein, I believe. Anyway, here is the book... the discussion on the idea of high context versus high content cultures has implications for emotional recognition and facilitation.
Scarborough, J. (1998). The Origins of Cultural Differences and their Impact on Management. Wesport, CT: Quorum Books
-
-
I think it's very interesting that you bring up the point of how knowing a person helps you understand a person's form of communication online. This gave me the idea that maybe a preliminary in-person or video meeting would help a mediator understand the emotions of a party on a better level.
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
