Everyone on occasion has felt a person they’re dealing with isn’t being logical.

In mediation, both parties can feel the other is simply not being rational and typically account for this as emotions getting in the way of logic.

But there is another explanation to consider called “Cognitive Biases,” which refers to these deviations from rational judgment and the ones most commonly seen during mediation include:

1.) Anchoring - This refers to the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information one acquires. However, some consultants advise negotiators to use anchoring to make the first proposal favorable to the negotiator to ensure further discussions center around that initial idea.

2.) Confirmation Bias - This refers to the tendency to search for and only remember the information that confirms one’s preconceptions. It isn’t unusual to hear disputants in a session upon hearing details of the other party’s story to say something like, “I wasn’t aware of that,” or “I hadn’t considered that,” when in fact they may well have but cognitively chose not to recall that bit of information.

3.) Egocentric Bias - This refers to the tendency to rely only on one’s perspective. Parties in mediation become convinced “any logical person would agree with me,” even when another person has good reasons to disagree. Obviously, mediators encourage parties “to see the situation from the other perspective.”

4.) Prospect Theory - This refers to what is also called the “Endowment Effect,” where we tend to demand more for a possession than we’d be willing to pay to acquire it. In other words, if a person wants $100 to give up an item, they might admit to being willing to pay $85 if they were to acquire it.

5.) Self-Assessment - This refers to a tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their abilities and for experts to underestimate theirs.

So, how do mediators address these errors in judgment? One approach is to encourage parties to begin thinking how each is perceiving the situation and not how they would perceive it if in that person’s position. “Putting yourself in the other’s person’s shoes” doesn’t necessarily change what you see, but instead one needs to apply empathy for how the other party sees it from their point of view.

“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.”