Brain Studies Prove That A Fair Deal is A Happy Deal

Most Mediators are taught to ensure fairness in process above all. After many years, and hundreds or thousands of negotiations, it can sometimes feel tedious and unnecessary to do so. However, at this past weekend's Employment Mediation Conference sponsored by the Southern California Mediation Association, some of the attorneys expressed shockingly disappointing results where the mediator failed to take the time to explain the process and ensure it's fairness. The outcome of the negotiation, it appears, is not determinative of the parties' ultimate satisfaction.

This morning, our local newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, included an article in the "Health" section, which explains that brain science backs up this effect. It's a good reminder for all of us: and those of you who are tempted to skip that process, in service of making the deal! I've copied the article here, but basically, it concludes that the brain actually responds differently when the studies made a "fair deal" v. merely "a deal" that ends the negotiation. I thought it interesting and informative and have copied it in it's entirety for you below.

Fairness is emotionally rewarding, a study finds
A fair deal activates parts of the brain also stimulated by earning money, looking at attractive faces or eating chocolate, UCLA researchers find.
By Elena Conis, Special to The Times
May 12, 2008
What's new: The sinking feeling that creeps in after you've paid too much for a house, car or new pair of shoes may actually be a hard-wired, neurological response to being treated unfairly.

On the flip side, getting a fair deal on that same car or pair of shoes stimulates parts of the brain associated with reward and happiness.

The finding: Researchers at UCLA's Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior recently reported in the journal Psychological Science that getting a fair deal activated the same parts of the brain -- the ventral striatum, the amygdala and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, together known as the reward circuit -- that are stimulated by earning money, looking at attractive faces or eating chocolate (in those who like the stuff).

Lead study author Golnaz Tabibnia, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, said the findings suggest people care about fairness itself not just because unfairness is unpleasant, but because fairness generates positive emotions. Fairness, in and of itself, she said, is emotionally rewarding -- regardless of how much money may come (or go) in the deal.

How the study was done: The researchers conducted two separate experiments. In both, the study subjects, all UCLA students, played a so-called ultimatum game in which a person called a "proposer" offered to split with them a certain amount of money, say $10. Sometimes the proposer would offer to split the money in half (a fair deal), at other times he or she would offer less than half. If the student accepted, proposer and student kept the money. If the student rejected the offer, proposer and student walked away with nothing.

In the first experiment, the 29 students who played the game were asked to report how happy or upset they were about each offer. In the second experiment, 12 students played the game while their brain activity was monitored using functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI. The fMRI measures changes in blood flow to different regions of the brain, indicating which parts of the brain are more or less active.

When students were offered $5 out of $10, they'd typically accept the offer -- and their reward circuitry would light up. When offered, say, $2, roughly half the students rejected the money, and their brain region associated with disgust would light up. In the half that accepted the meager offer, their disgust region wasn't activated, but neither was their reward circuitry -- instead, the part of the brain that came into play was the region involved in self-control. "It's the neural pattern of what swallowing your pride looks like," Tabibnia said.

Why it matters: Essentially, the results bolster the maxim that money doesn't buy happiness. No matter how much money people make, or lose, in a deal, what determines how they feel at the end of the day, the study suggests, is how fairly they think they've been treated. "Certainly money is rewarding," Tabibnia said. "But more and more research is suggesting that our social relations with other people can also be rewarding, and can be very strong determinants of our happiness and satisfaction."

What we still don't know: Scientists think -- but aren't sure -- that emotional responses to fair or unfair treatment could differ based on gender, cultural background or socioeconomic status. Being poor, for example, conceivably could build tolerance to unfair treatment -- but the idea is pure conjecture.

The Luxury of Time to Resolve Conflict

This past week I conducted a rare (for me) mediation in an outside office. For the past seven years, I have conducted my hearings in my own offices, or those of ADR Services. In each location, I have access to an office where I can obtain e-mail, voice mail, real mail or more during breaks and before and after the sessions. This one lasted eleven hours, during which I had no access to computer, voice mail or telephone messages. Although all of the participants were drained by the end, it occurred to me what a modern luxury is the gift of a full day "un-wired". Wouldn't we all appreciate having the undivided attention of a professional to spend the day listening to our problems and helping us achieve a satisfactory solution? Wouldn't we love if our spouse or children or parents, our partners or associates would similarly indulge us a full, uninterrupted day to think about how to make us feel better about past issues or relationships? I dare say that even a full day alone--without interruption from PDA's and phones, would go a long way towards helping any of us solve our problems. And so it occurred to me that one of the best features mediation has to offer is the eyes and ears of a professional who dedicates the day to helping the participants to solve their conflict. A full day's commitment to being unwired, unhurried, giving undivided attention to the participants is a wonderful luxury!

Leaving the Narrows

Last night we celebrated the beginning of Passover. During the Seder, we recall the story of Exodus--as the Jews fled Egypt, (where they were slaves) and travelled for 40 years, carrying journey bread, or Matzoh on their backs, until they reached what is now "Israel"--the land of milk and honey. The Hebrew word for Egypt is "Mizrayim" which is also the word for narrow places (loosely translated, I think). And so I considered all of the ways in which parties in conflict are in their own "narrows"--with walls to the left and to the right and only a glimmer of light between them. The challenge for the mediator is to guide the parties out of their personal narrow places and into a new state. It is the guidance from slavery or tyranny or debt to sweetness and hopefulness and freedom. With freedom, of course, comes a heavy responsibility. It is our challenge to inspire parties caught between only two choices (as in slave holders or slaves) to freedom fighters who, by their own might and imagination dare to visualize a different future and take that chance to achieve it. There are so many profound messages in the Passover story, but for now I wish to merely challenge my readers to dare to imagine a different choice than the obvious. Only then can we hope to transcend our own narrow places!

Empathy Deficit Disorder in the USA?

I recently borrowed Barack Obama's Book, "The Audacity of Hope" from my 80 year old father. I am intrigued by this articulate and engaging candidate--even though I meet every criteria to be a Hillary Clinton supporter (middle aged, professional, Caucasian woman). In the Chapter he calls "Values", he talks about his mother's simple principle--"How would that make you feel?" as a guidepost for his politics. Then he says, "It's not a question we ask ourselves enough, I think; as a country, we seem to be suffering from an empathy deficit." My own work as a mediator compels me to concur.

Lately, I have been mediating business disputes where employees urge fair treatment from their former employers, or a business deal gone sour demands recompense to make things right. On the other side, I see struggling business people and professionals who cannot afford the inflated demands made of them--even though they may have agreed to those terms (before the costs of litigation were added) in more economically favorable times. And I, standing "in the middle" can simply urge empathy. Obama says, "No one is exempt from the call to find common ground". I am grateful that I listened to the call and act daily in an effort to bring mutual understanding and then action by those in conflict. It's my own contribution towards addressing the Empathy Deficit Disorder from which our country may be suffering.

The Art of The Spin: Another Benefit of Using Mediation

This week I attended a professional conference where I heard two compelling presentations. The first was on "The Ethics of Negotiation". First, was a thought provoking discussion presented by my colleague, Michael Young, an attorney and mediator here in Los Angeles and former Federal District Judge John Wagner, also now a mediator. The central thesis was that lawyers and negotiators need to use caution and discretion lest their puffery and strategic communication be relied upon as false facts. In California and the U.S., there's broad leeway in using exaggeration or puffery and also manipulating the timing and "bottom line" claims in the context of the litigated case. The only bright line offered seems to be the conduct which would otherwise be actionable as a material misrepresentation of fact.

The following day, the keynote address was delivered by Tony Snow, former Press Secretary to George W. Bush. He spoke of the invasion in Iraq, the surge in troops against popular tide of approval and, in an unabashed claim, his deft management of creating an appearance of the wisdom of staying in the Middle East even in the face of unprecedented negative ratings.

So it occured to me, that in the case of a difficult negotiation, the mediators role in so many instances is to create the spin that will sell the other side on reasons to accept a deal they were unwilling to accept before they engaged the mediator. What's more, the mediator will not likely present facts which will be relied upon (or rejected as untrue), but will merely "reframe" those details which she believes the parties need to highlight in order to make an informed decision about the best outcome they can achieve in the particular negotiation. What's more, the mediator's communication to the parties is confidential, and therefore not actionable. Mediators have ethics, too and won't lie for either party or knowingly present facts which are false. But they certainly will withold facts which they are asked to maintain as confidential!

During the course of this week, for example, I negotiated a re-finance of a home, a claim for attorneys fees rebated, a personal guaranty on a business debt and the proceeds of a fire insurance policy. Each of these negotiations were already attempted before filing a lawsuit and after...but it was only with the benefit of the mediator's "spin" that, like a Press Secretary, the parties were able to see the wisdom in an unpopular war based upon carefully chosen words and artful intervention. Like a figure skater, parties to a negotiation are well advised to bend as far as possible without causing a crack in the ice or skater!

Leap! What Will We Do with the Rest of Our Lives?

I've just finished reading Sara Davidson's "Leap!" and I wanted to share it with my own readers as a kind of broad and deep guidepost for travelling through "the narrows" and onward and upward. She concludes with a reminder that those of us who enjoy writing, should continue to write. In fact, she reminds us that a moral review--as in the narrative I blogged about earlier, is a healthy exercise and that a weekly review of those moral issues and resolutions is also an excellent, self-reflective tool. The work that we do as mediators, the kind of active peacemaking is an invaluable service which has this kind of far-reaching potential as teachers and guides for the good. I'm still processing the book, but I highly recommend it for those still searching for answers to the question of "what is the next decade or two going to look like for me?" Consider it a template of options for aging baby boomers who have had a half century or more of thoughtful engagement with our country, our communities and one another.

So here's my week past: two friends lost their parents (both in their 80's), one friend had a Bat Mitzvah for her 13 year old daughter, one friend is flying back East with her husband of almost 30 years for experimental and aggressive cancer treatment.

Taking a breath, reviewing and restocking and taking time for internal reflection is, indeed not only imperative to each of us--but a useful exercise for those in conflict that come before us for advice, empathy and resolution.

Read the book!

Be Careful What you Wish for: Have the High Costs of Arbitration Succeeded in Diminishing That as a true Alternative?

I attended an excellent Law & Employment Symposium put on by the L.A. County Bar Association this week. My colleague and friend, Lisa Klerman, a full-time mediator specializing in Employment Law chaired the conference. It's now been over a decade (I think) since safeguards were thrust into place to protect employees from the high cost of "mandatory" arbitration in employment matters. Employers eagerly insisted upon every case they could therefore compel to go into Arbitration, a forum in which they believed they'd get a lower verdict, based upon an arbitrator being less likely to be carried off onto an emotional or irrational tangent when reaching a verdict on the intangibles, such as emotional distress and punitive damages. Employee's and their lawyers resisted this, demanded the employer pay 100% of the costs, and built in other protections to ostensibly level the playing field. What the employer's lawyers have discovered, however, is that arbitration can be much more expensive than litigation (because the employer assumes the costs of the arbitration from both sides) and no faster. Last evening, I had dinner with a friend who is revising an old family LLC agreement and inquired whether he'd be better off including a binding or non-binding arbitration clause. I had to think for a few minutes (before I finished my margarita!) and honestly respond that I thought he should include a mediation clause, in a family agreement, and omit the arbitration provision. This lead me to do some introspection on whether we've taken this too far in terms of "fairness" and "accessibility". My last case as a litigator was taken out of the court system (over my protest) and sent to a binding arbitration. My client couldn't afford the costs, so I advanced them. We lost the arbitration after 5 days and several thousand dollars in costs alone. We had no right of appeal and no explanation. I still think the retired Judge got it wrong. Has Arbitration outlived its usefulness as a true alternative to Court?