I was surprised to recently read a Pew Research Center report from 2014 reporting that 9% of married individuals or in committed relationships have resolved an argument with their partner either online or by text message as an alternative because they were having difficulty resolving their conflict in person. 

This seems to contradict several “self-help” books, which generally suggest that using social media to resolve conflicts is harmful to interpersonal relationships. For example, one author suggests that Twitter users in particular don’t expect a response to their tweets, so when they put private communications on Twitter they are really venting by using the platform as “a megaphone.”

The Pew Research Center report concluded, though, that technology can add to shared emotional intimacy. They found that 21% of internet users or cell phone owners felt closer to their partner because of online or text exchanges. In fact, about 25% texted their partner while both were home together. 

What does this tell us about using cell phones and Zoom for mediation and dispute resolution? In the early years of online mediation critics were concerned that such sessions provided less important nonverbal cues than face-to-face interactions. Others were concerned that it was easier for participants to deceive the other party. However, it’s become clear these issues do not seem to deter mediators from using technology successfully for mediation. 

One possible difference was suggested by research that demonstrated participants in online mediation preferred the mediator to be more directive. Perhaps in the online mediation the participants were less tolerant of distractions that took away from the issues at hand.

Nonetheless, today’s social distancing requirements have increased the number of online mediations and preliminary evidence suggests that it’s been working quite well.

I’ve received requests asking where to find a qualified mediator. There is no national training requirements nor credentialing for mediators. The qualifications vary widely from state to state so there is no national registry for mediators. Generally, then, the following are sources to consider:

1. Mediators affiliated with a community program. Most community mediation centers have their own training and experience standards for their mediators. Search the internet for the nearest community mediation program.

2. Private mediators are individuals who offer their services to the general public. In general, there are no training nor certification requirements to be a private mediator. Many publicize their services on the internet.

3. Mediators listed through national and state nonprofit professional organizations. Some of these organizations do set training and experience requirements to be listed in their directories, but the requirements will vary from group to group.

4. Mediators listed on commercial directory websites. Many of these also do set training and experience requirements to be listed on their websites, but the requirements will vary. The most well-known is mediate.com.

My guideline for selecting a mediator is the number of sessions the individual has conducted as a mediator or co-mediator including, of course, volunteer dispute resolution. All things considered, I put the most weight on experience.

Some mediators will advertise a “success rate.” By that, they mean what percentage of their mediations resulted in agreements. If a mediator tells you they have a 95% success rate my concern is how much was that person forced a positive outcome in order to maintain a high settlement rate. In other words, was the mediator not honoring the ethical standard of self-determination to have such results.  

You can’t evaluate a mediator by their fee. Most mediation is of no or low cost to the participants. Community mediation centers provide services on a sliding scale or at low or no cost. Some of the very best mediators I know don’t charge at all because they are volunteers.

In mediation you will often get much more than what you pay for.