Psychologists Jeremy Frimer, Linda Skitka, and Matt Motyl conducted a study in 2015, published last year in "The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology," about our willingness to listen to opposing views.

People were asked their opinion about a controversial issue, in this case, same-sex marriage. 

Those opposed to it were offered to read and answer questions about arguments that agreed with their opinion (in which case they would be entered into a drawing for $7).

If they were in favor, they were then asked to read and answer questions about arguments that disagreed with their opinion (in which case they would be entered into a drawing for $10).

About 2/3 chose to read arguments agreeing with them for a chance at less money.

Simply stated, the beneficial option to read statements against one's beliefs wasn't preferred and the study clearly pits economic self-interest .vs avoiding opposing arguments.

The researchers repeated their study with a variety of other social issues and found the same outcome -- participants were not financially motivated to hear opposing opinions.

The results suggest that during a time when free speech is being challenged on college campuses, it shouldn't come as a surprise that people are less willing to listen to others with different viewpoints.

I constantly advocate that the one skill basic to all conflict management is listening. Listening for conflict management shouldn't include the act of listening to prepare to argue back because such a choice is likely to further separation and conflict.

Listening for conflict management is listening for understanding, listening for the opposition's issues and listening for the opposition's feelings about those issues. However, listening for conflict management does not mean giving up one's own beliefs, but does mean asking for clarifications and summations of what we understood the opposition to say.

Unless we can listen to one another, we will continue to be divided.

A young couple who were separating and dividing their assets once asked me to be their mediator. The couple's relationship had become bitter and any attempts to divide their assets only resulted in shouting and growing resentment. After I determined that there were no children involved and that both parties were committed to using mediation, I agreed to help.

After coming to terms on how the mediation would proceed, we met in a business conference room in the evening. One of the partners started by telling the history of their relationship. They were very young at the beginning of their careers when they moved in together. He said that she had been very successful moving up at her employment by meeting more and more new people with whom she had sexual relationships. Her response was that he was in the same job he had right out of college. He expressed how hurt he felt by her behavior.

At this point I asked both of them privately in caucuses if there was any chance of repairing the relationship. Both said there was not and that they wanted to separate.

They then were able to address dividing their assets—or actually I should say dividing their modest assets and substantial debts. While the environment was tense, they were able to deal with their home, automobiles and significant personal property, such as a piano and other family heirlooms. However, the discussion began to grow heated again as they addressed their credit card debt.  The young man refused to accept financial responsibility for his partner’s charges at restaurants and hotels. She contended they were travel expenses. The mediation was close to breaking down. He then said he would not pay for her hospitality charges. She then refused to pay for his charges at auto parts stores. They started to review statements and mark disputed charges but in the end agreed to split the costs as long as they both had copies of all the statements.

I asked, “Is that all we need to discuss?” She said, “There’s the dogs” and took out pictures to show me. “What are we going to do about the dogs?”  I can’t tell you how the tenor of the discussion changed from tense to cooperative.  Suddenly both focused on “what will be best for the dogs.” After three hours of stressful bitterness the two were now working together on the welfare of the pets. Their voices became less strident and their postures became more relaxed. Even though each would be taking one of the dogs, they worked out a schedule of “play time” for the canines to be together.

There’s always something to agree on. As this couple were able to work out an agreement for their dogs their attitude toward one another softened and their resolve to parting on a better tone improved. As they said when they left the mediation, “Let’s make this agreement work.”

I was reminded of this mediation when I saw an article in the Chicago Tribute about a new law in Illinois that gives judges in divorce proceedings more options than awarding pets to one side or the other.  Instead, judges can now consider the well-being of the animal by awarding joint or sole ownership.