Couples can experience conflicts over a long list of issues, including job or school commitments, past relationships, personal habits, behaviors, affection and sex - And those are just some of the issues that can arise when living together.

I’ve had couples ask me if mediation can help. I first ask them if the issue is, “This relationship must end,” or, “This relationship must change?” If the answer is the latter, I suggest counseling or mediation.

But which? Marriage counseling or couples therapy employs psychotherapy to help with relationship dysfunction and establish new behavior patterns to repair a relationship. Therapy is an extended process that tends to go into the history of the relationship.

In contrast, mediation helps couples deal with specific issues in their relationship in one or a few sessions. Mediators do not focus on the past, but focus on the future. The goal of couple relationship mediation is to help the parties define problems, discuss workable options, and make decisions.

Mediators who specialize in relationship mediation will most likely identify themselves as marital or family mediators. They may have backgrounds as social workers, marriage family counselors, psychologists, attorneys, clergy, or other professionals. They had specialized training in mediation and may have additional training in interpersonal relations, relationship dynamics, domestic violence, and substance abuse.

Whatever their background, relationship mediators are non-judgmental and non-confrontational, maintain confidentiality, and will impose a decision on the parties.

Some people consider the tactic of faking anger to be an effective negotiating tool.

In 2010, after the British Petroleum oil spill, President Obama was criticized first for his initial calm response and then again for his display of anger on a television program because it was deemed disingenuous.

Past experimental studies have demonsrated how displays of outrage during negotiations led to the parties believing the angry person was tough, had ambitious goals, and unlikely to make concessions. Later studies, however, have shown this only applies if the anger is real—not faked.

Even more recent studies conclude anger that isn’t truly believed can have quite different outcomes. When the faked anger leads to a reduction in trust and the party becoming intransigent leads to increased demands from the counterpart. Faking anger erodes confidence and thus is detrimental to conflict resolution.

So, how should a negotiator respond the faked anger? Don’t respond in kind or take it seriously. After all, the other party is just acting. Instead, call for a recess and restate the negotiations later.

Reference--Stéphane Côté, Ivona Hideg, and Gerben A. van Kleef, The Consequences of Faking Anger in Negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2013, 49, 453-463.