Selective Perception

Selective Perception

One of the many ‘evil’ traits that frequently are displayed by parties in mediation is selective perception. People form their own idea of an event or situation and then anything that is said or information that arises after the fact which contradicts their opinion is dismissed or ignored.

I say it is ‘evil’ as selective perception hinders the process of getting the parties to work in a collaborative and cooperative mindset. Selective perception does not allow the party to see and understand the interests of the other party.

As the mediator it is important to realize this is being displayed. I think it is important for a mediator to know the names of behaviors and actions such as selective perception and other attribution biases listed [here]. Sure, a good mediator can help move the party away from a hindering position while not knowing the name of the act but it makes things easier knowing it because then it will be easier to respond accordingly. Step one is naming it, while step two would be properly responding.

Getting the party to open up more about their thought process behind their position can not only help display a potential selective perception to you, but it then can also be picked up by him or her- the one displaying it.

If the person does not pick up on it, and then after the other party presents their side of the event, many times, what I do is ask the first party something is along the lines of, “It sounds like party B viewed the event/situation different to way you described it. Now that you have heard his/her version, what do you think?” It might seem unnatural to ask an open-ended question but by doing it this way it diminishes the chance for a one word answer. The more they talk, the more they think about what they are saying and going to say.

A note I would like to mention is I do this with both parties. If I were to do this type of questioning with just one party it could present the illusion I am picking sides and trying to get one side to change their mind. Checking in with party A after party B has spoken (and vice versa) is a way to ensure they are effectively listening as well as opening their mind to the other side’s viewpoint. Promoting empathy is crucial to assist the party(s) move away from their selective perception. I tend to stress that understanding the other side’s point of view is not agreeing with them.

In order for an agreement to be reached in mediation, I tell them both sides have to agree. As simple and possibly silly it might sound, I think reminding the parties if an agreement is possible of being achieved, each one needs to be able to understand the other.

Enjoy and I hope this little ‘golden nugget’ helps.

                        author

Jeff Thompson

Jeff Thompson, Ph.D., is a professor at Lipscomb University, researcher, mediator, and trainer. He is also involved in crisis and hostage negotiation as well as a law enforcement detective. His research includes law enforcement crisis and hostage negotiation in terrorist incidents. He received his doctorate from Griffith University Law School… MORE >

Featured Mediators

ad
View all

Read these next

Category

Better than Papelbon: What’s Your Best Elevator Pitch?

Nobody likes doing an elevator pitch. It's nerve-wracking. A bit embarrassing. And, surely you never quite get out all the words you practiced for so long. And, yet... if you...

By Dina Beach Lynch
Category

Dynamics of Conflict Resolution

Join host Jeff Thompson and Bernie Mayer in the Part Two (listen to Part One here) of their conversation as they discuss conflict resolution, an update to his popular book-...

By Jeff Thompson
Category

Adaptive Management

From Larry Susskind's blog on the Consensus Building Approach Most environmental advocates and planning professionals know that every effort to manage natural resources or deal with threats to public health...

By Larry Susskind

Find a Mediator

X
X
X