Mediators are often asked if they think a disputant is lying.

Small Claims Court mediators who weren’t able to reach an agreement after listening to participants in court will tell you that it’s not unusual for parties to swear by a statement that was contradicted by something they said earlier during mediation.

Saint Augustine observed “It makes a great difference with what intention and on what subject one lies.”  So clearly there are different kinds of lies. With that in mind, consider the following: 

•             Self-interested lies, such as bluffing, which benefit the deceiver and harms the other

•             Prosocial lies which gain trust (“You look really great today” regardless of how the person looks.)

•             Informational lies about facts

•             Emotional lies or misrepresentions of one’s feelings

•             Lies of omission

•             Lies of commission

•             Paltering or failing to disclose relevant information           

  Several management authors have defended bluffing as “just part of the game of business” and morally permissible because both parties endorse the practice and contend that negotiation simply isn’t possible without it. 

Researchers have studied the consequences of deception in negotiation. Of course, there is the possible short-term economic benefit and possible long-term loss. Deception can result in retaliation. Most assume that deceptions results in a loss of trust. The research has shown it’s not that simple, but that trust may never be restored, after self-interested informational deception, even after apologies and promises of change.

Research has also shown, however, that sales people in stereotypical contexts who engage in self-interested deception are viewed as competent and gain trustworthiness. And, interestingly, people who engage in prosocial deception are more likely to be seen as more moral than those who are actually honest. Maybe that suggests “don’t lie to me about facts that can be verified, but it’s okay to flatter me.”           

Mediation is basically guided negotiation where the mediator may become aware of deception. The mediator is not there to make a decision, but to ensure a fair, competent decision-making process. Which begs the question, should the mediator allow the process to continue with lies based on the assumption that participants expect there to be some made or should the mediator stop the process entirely?

In May, 2021, the director of the CDC endorsed the use of the COVID vaccine for 12 through 15-year-old adolescents and in late October, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the emergency use of the COVID vaccine for children 5 to 11 years of age. What happens when parents don’t agree about vaccinating their children? This can be particularly troublesome for separated parents whose court-approved plan requires they share medical care decision-making. A separated parent with a court approved plan who acts independently to have their child vaccinated risks action in court.

 Just in the past few months we’ve seen parents go to court over their child’s vaccination. Litigation is expensive, doesn’t deal with the emotions attached to this issue, and results in an imposed outcome with one parent winning and one parent losing.

 Some parents have been willing to try mediation. Canadian mediators Laura Tarcea and Eva DiGiammarino discussed this with Heather Hui-Litwin in recent YouTube videos. They stress first accepting each parent’s concerns. Some might agree to establish criteria to make a joint decision. Some might discuss what they will accept as credible information sources. In their experience, they’ve had success helping parents work together to compile a list of pros and cons and, if appropriate, meet jointly with their child’s doctor. Some parents may agree to delay a decision until some future firm date, such as after three months of data and information regarding the impact of this vaccine on children.

 More importantly, they help parents use agreed standards as to what’s in the best interest of the child. When appropriate, the child’s viewpoint is considered. They give as an example a teen who would not be able to play on his soccer team unless he was vaccinated. During the mediation, the parents had to consider the teen’s wishes.