“It’s not the money, it’s the principle of the thing,” has probably ended more mediations than any other phrase and is often given as the excuse for refusing to negotiate or even consider reasonable offers.

Some may use that position to simply disrupt a mediation, but others use principles to guide their views as to what is right and wrong. Principles can be tied to a dollar value, but perhaps in a way that is not obvious.

For example, a person who receives a meal while dining out feels one dish isn’t prepared as it was ordered. The patron might create quite a stir, calling over the manager, speaking loudly about the faulty food preparation. Asked why they choose to cause such an issue over a minor mistake, the answer is typically, “It’s the principle of the thing.” Some refer to this as the “Law of Disproportionate Response,” whether it be enraged over a scratch to their car or suing for a small amount of money, even if the financial outcome would be less than the cost of time, lawyer fees and more. They’d still feel vindicated because of principle.

Ironically, this position is usually taken when the dollar amount awarded is not that significant. When there is a great deal of money involved, I’ve rarely heard that phrase uttered. This does suggest that principles may well have a value cutoff.

How then do mediators deal with such disputants? The first step is to help the party distinguish between principles that are less negotiable than others. For example, security is not an easily negotiable item, while parking spaces are. Then for those more negotiable principles, the question becomes one of “pouring good money after bad.” With some parties I have asked “Just how much is the principle worth to you?” As people struggle with their answer they typically come to conclude that causing a scene in a restaurant isn’t worth overcooked potatoes.

Mediators typically heard this phrase by people who would rather take the dispute to court than negotiate. It helps to consider the possible outcomes - "you may win or lose, but either way you’ll end up spending a lot of money and wasting a great deal of time. Is that worth it in the end?” When encouraged to cost out the value, most people will do as former U.K. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said, “I would rather be an opportunist and float than go the bottom with my principles round my neck.”

Artificial Intelligence programs, such as ChatGPT, have the potential for expanded use in dispute resolution.

ChatGPT has direct access to internet resources, which enables it to understand, interpret, and respond in natural language. But many are wondering if the new technology can assist mediators and if it could one day replace mediators entirely.

ChatGPT has the ability to process and analyze large amounts of information and can quickly provide a mediator with useful data. If ChatGPT is used to generate a transcript of a mediation, it can easily answer questions about what was said or agreed to. ChatGPT can also provide the mediator with dispute resolution techniques and generate potential solutions.

But can ChatGPT replace mediators? Perhaps some day, but presently ChatGPT has its limitations. It is not necessarily neutral or free of bias. ChatGPT is not independent of the gender, racial, and other biases on the internet. ChatGPT currently has no access to nonverbal cues, such as gesture and facial expressions. ChatGPT may not recognize cultural factors. Participants may not find ChatGPT an empathic listener able to recognize emotions.

Researchers Sonja Weisheit and Christoph Salger from Mediate.com asked ChatGPT if it could replace a mediator. It’s response: “As an AI language model, I can provide information and suggestions based on data and algorithms, but I cannot replace the role of a human mediator. A mediator is a trained professional who helps parties in conflict to reach a mutually agreeable solution. A mediator often relies on a combination of communication skills, active listening, empathy, and the ability to recognize and address power imbalances to help people in dispute find common ground. While I can provide general information on conflict resolution, I cannot replace the human qualities that a mediator brings to the process. Mediation often involves emotional intelligence, which is an area where AI models like myself will have limitations.”

I don’t see ChatGPT replacing mediators any time soon, but the strength of ChatGPT in analyzing data and generating possible solutions is a valuable tool for disputants and mediators alike.