Survey Results and Synthesis:

First, I want to thank those who spent their valuable time taking the survey associated with this phase of this research. A high enough value cannot be put on the energy and thoughtfulness that those who took the survey put into their responses. The comments alone are very thought-provoking and full of rich information and experiences. We work in a community of good people. Thank you.

The balance of this paper will explore the five common capacities through a survey of cross-cultural mediators, peacemakers, conflict managers, and facilitators. The goals of this Phase 1 stage are:

· Get a sense as to whether practitioners experience these same five core abilities in their clients
· Explore the possible innate vs. learned origin of each capacity
· Explore other possible core capacities missed in this review
· Understand how practitioners would use the capacities to help their clients, if they knew these capacities existed.

The quantitative data will be presented first, with a summary of the qualitative aspects to follow.
A fourteen-question survey was developed to answer and explore the above-mentioned goals. Eighty-four mediators/conflict managers were identified from a variety of different disciplines. Commonalities in those surveyed include a mostly North American orientation: 70 are members of Mediators Beyond Borders – a non-profit conflict resolution group working throughout the world and 83 consider themselves mediators. Conflict management experience levels vary from new mediators and students of mediation to some of the most experienced international mediators and coaches in the world. The survey was conducted through the on-line service Survey Monkey. It was confidential, individually delivered via e-mail, and only available on-line. The total response rate was 56% for a total of 47 responses from 84 participants. Although the results presented here are adequate for getting a sense of what some peacemakers generally believe, the relatively low number of people surveyed along with the unknown experience levels of those that answered the survey, make the results here a “healthy start” rather than a comprehensive study.

The following data and analysis of each section is meant to show trends in the thinking of peacemakers as to the capacities of their clients. The information is meant to inspire further thinking about the potential commonalities in most people and how those commonalities may be used to help resolve conflicts. Fourteen questions were posed. Five “yes” or “no” style questions were asked centering on the ideas and the core capabilities outlined in this paper so far. Respondents were asked whether or not they believe that their clients possess these capabilities. Five more questions were asked, centering on those same capabilities. These second tier questions were meant to elicit ideas and feelings as to whether the capacities are the result of nature or nurture. Each respondent was given the opportunity to explain each of their answers in a “please explain” area of the survey. Respondents were also asked whether or not they would use these capabilities if they knew their clients all came to the conflict with them. Respondents were then asked for other core capabilities they see in their clients that were not mentioned in the previous questions. They were also asked to explain how they would use any or all of the five core capacities to help their clients. The results are as follows:

Having The Capacity For Empathy (continued)

De Waal (2008, 292) concludes in a comprehensive study of empathy and altruism:[1]

"More than three decades ago, biologists deliberately removed the altruism from altruism. There is now increasing evidence that the brain is hard wired for social connection, and that the same empathy mechanism proposed to underlie human altruism (Batson1991) may underlie the directed altruism of other animals. Empathy could well provide the main motivation making individuals who have exchanged benefits in the past to continue doing so in the future. Instead of assuming learned expectations or calculations about future benefits, this approach emphasizes a spontaneous altruistic impulse and a mediating role of the emotions. It is summarized in the five conclusions below:

1. An evolutionarily parsimonious account (cf.deWaal1999) of directed altruism assumes similar motivational processes in humans and other animals.
2. Empathy, broadly defined, is a phylogenetically ancient capacity.
3. Without the emotional engagement brought about by empathy, it is unclear what could motivate the extremely costly helping behavior occasionally observed in social animals.
4. Consistent with kin selection and reciprocal altruism theory, empathy favors familiar individuals and previous cooperators, and is biased against previous defectors.
5. Combined with perspective-taking abilities, empathy’s motivational autonomy opens the door to intentionally altruistic altruism in a few large-brained species." (DeWaal, Frans 2008)

Neuroscientists over the past twenty years have discovered what they call “mirror neurons” in human beings and other animals. A neuron is a nerve cell in animals that processes and transmits information via electro-chemical means. A mirror neuron is a neuron that transmits both when an animal acts and/or when an animal observes another animal act. Although an extremely complex area to prove and to understand, the theory is worth exploring. Some neuroscientists believe that the discovery of these neurons will one day be as important to the understanding of human behavior as DNA is to the understanding of human biology. “The simple fact that a subset of the cells in our brains-the mirror neurons- fire when an individual kicks a soccer ball, sees a ball being kicked, hears a ball being kicked, and even just says or hears the word ‘kick’ leads to amazing consequences and new understandings” says Marco Iacoboni in his in-depth exploration and detailed account of research in the field of mirror neurons (Iacoboni, 12). If we are neurologically stimulated from action emanating from ourselves and by observation of, or thoughts about others, then the concepts of empathy, imitation, sympathy, compassion, emotional understanding, etc… and how they are part of our natural behavior becomes easier to understand. As the research unfolds and we begin to understand more about how mirror neurons affect empathy, the innateness of their existence may guide us towards a better understanding of how we use empathy as a tool in conflict resolution. All signs point toward empathy being a crucial and present common ability that most humans have and use. Physiological and psychological studies about empathy from various parts of the world would be a natural next step to take in this exploration in order to compare and contrast beliefs and potential human differences in various settings.

_______________________________________________________________

[1]Altruism is the unselfish concern for the welfare of others. In Zoology it is; instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species. (American Heritage Dictionary 54)

HAVING THE CAPACITY FOR EMPATHY:

Empathy is the capability to understand and identify with someone else’s feelings, situation, and motives for action or inaction. It is a direct window into someone else’s mind where you can “put yourself in their shoes.” Except in cases of some neurological disabilities, most humans have the capacity for empathy and it is an ability with which we are born. After a moderately comprehensive research review, talking with mediation practitioners, working as a mediator, and working to understand a recent survey of mediators, I am confident in making the statement that most people have what it takes to understand what someone else is feeling and encountering via their ability to empathize. That being said, I also believe that this capacity, like the others explored in this paper, can be enhanced or suppressed through what we are exposed to or not exposed to during our lives. Empathy is an ability that many people in the conflict management profession hold up as an absolute necessity for moving conflicts towards resolution. (2)Both the people in conflict and the conflict manager must have empathy. Empathy is not sympathy, or compassion, and although empathy may lead to sympathy and compassion, it stands on its own as the mechanism for arriving at an understanding.

About empathy, Donald Saposnek writes, “This capacity for being able to understand and connect with the feelings of others is a skill that, according to research, lies on a continuum. At one extreme (as in pathologies of Asperger’s disorder and sociopathy) are people who either do not have, or are extremely deficient in, the capacity for empathy. At the other extreme are effective mental health practitioners, who are high in what Daniel Goleman (1995) refers to as emotional intelligence. This innate, intuitive capacity to understand and feel what other people are feeling and to read the emotions of others, by both verbal and nonverbal clues, is crucial for an effective mediator” (Saposnek 250). Empathy is also crucial for the parties in a dispute to have in order for them to move productively toward resolution. Daniel Goleman, through his work around emotional intelligence, concludes that “empathy is a given of biology” (Goleman 103). Daniel Batson et. al. in their studies on empathy and altruism conclude that empathy in individuals is not something that is derived from self-satisfaction but is quite selfless and altruistic. This fits into the general notion of empathy being derived for others and ties directly into our core ability to cooperate. We do not feel and act with empathy simply because we want pleasure, we do it as part of our instinct, almost like breathing (Batson 425).

(2) Batson Baril Peacemaker Survey – April 2009 shows surfacing party empathy as a key conflict engagement tool used by those surveyed. See also Chart # 1 and Appendix A.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECIPROCAL NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS:

The effect that past, current and future relationships have on the resolution of conflict can be profound. Relationships are the most abundant connecting bond in the universe. For every one entity, there is the relationship between it and every other entity, and starting with every single element there is a relationship between it and the groups of relationships made up by all the other elements. Some relationships are peripheral and make no real difference to the participants, while others create a connection, a bond, and potentially, a dependence, or inter-dependence upon those in the relationship. Some elements in a relationship may not have an awareness of the connection as in the relationship between a page in a book and its cover, while other relationships like those between a mother and daughter are explicit and have natural expectations and influences on behavior.

Having an understanding of the reciprocal nature of relationships may be a key factor in resolving conflicts from the participant’s standpoint. From a very early age, we humans understand our reliance on, and relationship to, other human beings. In North American societies, we tend to think of relationships between individuals while in more community-driven societies people tend to think of relationships having a broader spectrum of people that are involved. Lederach describes the Central American experience of thinking of the community as a large “net” of entangled relationships. Describing the word “encredo” which is a synonym for conflict in Central America, he says, “The image is one of knots and connections: an intimate and intricate mess. A net, when tangled, must be worked through and undone slowly and patiently. Even untangled, it still remains connected and knotted: it is a whole…In other words, encredo is a concept of conflict embedded in tight-knit, primary social relationships” (Lederach 78). Whether it is in a society that is driven by individuals or by groups and the community, there will be relationships at play in all conflicts.

The relationship value each party perceives is a critical factor in relationships and their influence on conflict resolution. Relationship value is the level of importance that each actor in a relationship perceives. In a study of relationships in primates van Schaik & Aureli write “…we expect that relationship value will explain much of the variation in all aspects of conflict resolution, not just reconciliation, and will probably do so in both primates and non-primates” (Schaik 308). They go on to say “The most important generalization to emerge from two decades of work on reconciliation (i.e., post-conflict, friendly reunion between opponents) in primates is that individuals that reconcile are likely to have a strong social bond” (Schaik 307). Social bonding and its benefits is the commonality that attracts humans, primates, and other species to making peace with one another.

By understanding the value of relationships and the reciprocity they can deliver, we have the potential for resolving conflict. Bonta highlights that a major commonality in peaceful societies is their appreciation for, and attending to, ongoing individual and community relationships (Bonta 1993, 1996). His research points to the idea that we understand the nature of relationships and that that awareness can create a space for conflicts to be more readily resolved than if there is no relationship. It is hard to prove that humans understand the nature of relationships from the time they are born, but it would seem that as a species, we have an awareness of the importance of relationships with other people and groups, and we have a deep understanding of the reciprocity that goes hand in hand with that awareness.

Next time I will dive into the exciting area of capacities we call empathy.

HAVING THE COGNITIVE CAPACITY TO FORGIVE - Part 2:

A 1982 study of young people explores the correlation of apology to forgiveness and points to some important age considerations. It is important here that the younger students have a greater capacity to forgive and judge without social input, i.e. an apology, than older students do.

In 2 experiments, 221 kindergartners and 1st, 4th, and 7th graders judged actors who committed a transgression under conditions of low or high responsibility and low or high consequences. The actors’ motives were good or bad and the act was intended or accidental. The actor then either did nothing or employed 1 of 3 increasingly elaborate apologies. As hypothesized, the actor's predicament was most severe, producing the harshest judgments when (a) the actor had high responsibility for committing an inadvertent act that produced high consequences, and (b) the act was the result of a bad rather than good motive or was intended rather than accidental. More elaborate apologies produced less blame and punishment and more forgiveness, liking, positive evaluations, and attributions of greater remorse. The judgments of the 7th graders were more affected by the actor's apology than those of the younger students (Ss). These age differences reflect the younger Ss' poorer ability to integrate social information and appreciate the implications of social conventions. However, the younger Ss' judgments were similar to those of older Ss (Darby 742).

These age differences seem to confirm that the capacity to forgive is present at an early age but becomes more refined as we learn to use it and work with others to elicit it.

These studies and comments start to reinforce the idea that the act of forgiveness is a part of most human behavior, starting at an early age. The complexities of how and when forgiveness can occur are too extensive to explore in this project but are important and worth further study. The evidence points to the act of forgiving as being directly associated with others actions (i.e. an apology) both as humans get older and more socialized and as a function of cultural differences. Both of these sway me toward the belief that there is a large element of learning involved in the understanding and act of forgiving, even if the cognitive ability is innate.

As pursued earlier in this paper, the capacity and desire for reconciliation appears to be a behavior/trait that is very much rooted in most people from a very early age and can be traced within other animal species as a core survival technique. The correlation and interdependency between forgiveness and reconciliation is important. If reconciliation can be achieved in a “truce” like resolution without forgiveness, but true long-term reconciliation that allows for healing and real reduced anxiety, requires forgiveness, components of relationship closeness and cooperation may also be a factor when forgiveness becomes a vital element. The understanding of relationships, at which we primates seem to be so good at, may be innately intertwined with our capability to forgive. Research points to forgiveness being a behavior which humans tend to become more skilled in as they mature. The research also indicates that most people have at least some access to a capacity to forgive, even if that forgiveness behavior must be predicated by an apology or other reconciling behavior (Darby 742).

HAVING THE COGNITIVE CAPACITY TO FORGIVE:

There is a large element of learning involved in the understanding and act of forgiving, even if the cognitive capacity is innate. Seung-Ryong Park writes “Forgiveness is not reconciliation. Forgiveness is an internal release that a forgiver has achieved after much effort; reconciliation is a behavioral coming together that a forgiver and the forgiven may establish with trust” (Park 359). Park also speaks to the idea that reconciliation is dependant upon some level of forgiveness and cooperation by stating, “Reconciliation without forgiveness is hardly entitled to constitute genuine reconciliation. It is rather a truce or an interaction based on mutual interests” (Park 359).

Bernard Mayer talks about the emotional aspects of forgiving and apologizing and I believe points us toward the idea that we are geared to move toward emotional resolution:

"The role of forgiveness and apology in reaching emotional resolution can also be critical. I have noticed that delivering an apology is usually more important to reaching closure than receiving one, and forgiving is often more important than being forgiven. Both apologizing and forgiving, when genuinely offered, are acts of emotional resolution. In effect each is a way for people to put some part of the emotional aspect of a conflict behind them. By offering an apology or forgiveness, disputants move themselves toward emotional resolution, even if their action does not have that effect on others." (Mayer 104)

Ken Heare, in his in-depth study of South African reconciliation, shows that even in situations where history and long standing disputes should cause the act of forgiving to be impossible, the human capacity to forgive can still be found if one digs deep enough:

"The question should no longer be whether forgiveness is possible. The case of South Africa has provided example after example of individuals and groups who have effectively engaged in the process. The question now becomes how do we change our societal view to encourage forgiveness as a normal process? Professionals in the field of ADR have the opportunity to create the societal mindset toward forgiveness. By creating dialog, we open the door to exploring interpersonal healing. We create the space for stories to be told and empathy for perpetrators and victims to be realized.” “If we are truly concerned with resolving conflict, we must take a step into the painful and often messy process of reconciliation and forgiveness." (Heare 24)

Could there be varying levels of forgiveness aptitude or effect among different cultures, and, what causes these differences? Clinical observations that focused on US based groups that are exposed to forgiveness treatment and interventions vs. those that are not exposed have shown significant decreases in anxiety, anger, and grief compared with control groups that had not yet received the treatment/intervention. (Park 360, Coyle and Enright 1997). Less of a direct correlation was found in similar experiments made in Korea and Taiwan (Park 361).

Understanding the Benefits of Cooperation (Continued # 2)

There is a growing body of evidence showing that cooperative behavior has origins in the physical make-up of humans. Ken Cloke writes in a recent article that explores the nuerophysiology of the brain, “Oxytocin is widely believed responsible for prompting empathy, compassion, trust, generosity, altruism, parent-child bonding, and monogamy in many species, including human beings.” Oxytocin[1], or the lack of, may explain some of our conflict behaviors and the chemical reactions in our bodies. It may one day lead to a better understanding of common capacities, reactions, and behaviors. Cloke continues, “Clearly, aggression and war are ‘hard-wired’ into the brain, but so are empathy and collaboration. Recent research has emphasized the cooperative aspects of warlike behavior, which forms a core element not only in gangs, but sports teams, organizations and nation states, which use internal cooperation as an aid to external competition. Indeed, modern warfare can be seen as requiring a high level of internal collaborative activity” (Cloke 7). If we can explain some of our behaviors via common universal physical reactions, it could follow that we all share the capacities for these bahaviors.

Whether or not we can show that humans have the ability to act cooperatively in a certain circumstance, I believe that the prevailing theories and research show that cooperative behavior is a part of our biological core. I now wonder if further study, comparing the literature of cooperation in more communal societies with that of more individualistic and competitive societies would highlight learned differences in those societies or would it reinforce the biological potential for common roots in cooperation. Natural cooperative behavior is an area rich with possibilities for cross-cultural study and research and should certainly be focused on in the phase two and three work of this overall project.
[1]Oxytocin is a hormone released from the posterior lobe of the pituitary gland. (American Heritage 1259)

Next time I will focus on the human capacity to forgive!