A Mentalizing‐Based Approach to Family Mediation: Harnessing Our Fundamental Capacity to Resolve Conflict and Building an Evidence‐Based Practice for the Field*

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12132
• Author: Jill Howieson,Lynn Priddis
• Date: 01 January 2015
• Published date: 01 January 2015

A MENTALIZING-BASED APPROACH TO FAMILY MEDIATION:

HARNESSING OUR FUNDAMENTAL CAPACITY TO RESOLVE

CONFLICT AND BUILDING AN EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE FOR

THE FIELD*

Jill Howieson and Lynn Priddis

This article presents the results of a research study into mentalizing in family mediation. The study employeda mixed-method

approach, which included quantitative and qualitative empirical analysis of mediation transcripts and postmediation surveys.

The research identified that, when the mediators adopted a mentalizing stance to facilitate the parties to engage their

mentalizing capacities and, in particular, to mentalize for the child, the mediation process became more constructive and

meaningful. The article makes recommendations for incorporating a mentalizing-based approach into the research and

education of mediation and building an evidence-based practice for the field.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

• Empirical evidence into the interventions used in family mediation

• Introducing a mentalizing-based approach to practice

• Creating an environment for constructive family dispute resolution

• Methods to keep the best interests of the child in mind in mediation

Keywords: Empirical Research;Evidence-Based Practice;Family Dispute Resolution;Family Mediation;Mediation Inter-

ventions;Mentalizing for the Child;and Mentalizing.

INTRODUCTION

A particular challenge for family mediators in Australia is mediating in a manner that works in the

“best interests of the child” and also invokes what is known as the mediation shift—the breakthrough

moments that occur when the parties shift from their entrenched positions to engaging in a more

constructive discussion about their dispute (Gaynier, 2005). Much has been written on child-focused

and child-inclusive mediation and several longitudinal and experimental studies have been conducted

on the efficacy of various approaches to mediation (Emery et al., 2001; Ballard et al., 2013; Bell,

Cashmore, Parkinson, & Single, 2013; McIntosh, Long, & Moloney, 2004; McIntosh, Wells, Smyth,

& Long, 2008). Surprisingly however, there has been very little mediation research that has surveyed

the efficacy of the process from a theoretically grounded approach or that has systematically studied

the effect that the mediators’ specific interventions have on the progress of the mediation (the

exceptions are Cobb, 1997; Greatbatch & Dingwall, 1999; Candlin & Maley, 1993; Bickerdike &

Littlefield, 2000; Trinder, Firth, & Jenks, 2010). In addition, few studies have investigatedwhat occurs

psychologically in the interaction between the mediators and the parties and how this might influence

the mediation process. As Boulle (2005) notes, mediation practice has tended to precede theory and,

consequently, much of the research to date has focused on the outcomes of particular programs rather

than on critical process differences or particular mediator competencies.

In 2012, wanting to cast a more critical eye overits child-focussed mediation practices and to begin

to build an evidence-based approach to practice, Relationships Australia (WA) (RAWA) commis-

sioned a research project. Aware of the propositions regarding the application of the mentalizing

concept to mediation made by Howieson and Priddis (2012), RAWA decided to analyze its mediation

Correspondence: jill.howieson@uwa.edu.au; l.priddis@ecu.edu.au

FAMILY COURT REVIEW,Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2015 79–95

© 2015 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts

practices from a mentalizing perspective, thus giving the project grounding in an existing underlying

theory.The mentalizing concept refers to the ability to understand our own and others’ behavior based

on a plausible reading of, and wondering about, mental states (Allen, Fonagy, & Bateman, 2008) and

derives from theory and research in the areas of attachment, developmental psychology, mental health,

philosophy, and neuroscience (Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist, & Target 2002; Sharp & Fonagy, 2008).

Howieson and Priddis (2012) advanced several propositions in their article. In particular, they

proposed that, if mediators take a mentalizing stance and create space for the parties to mentalize well

and mentalize for the child, then this might not only assist mediators to maintain a child focus but also

help to shift the parties to a more meaningful mediation.

MENTALIZING

Mentalizing is a universal human capacity that develops in our first year of life and is essential for

our social development and lifelong resilience (Michels, 2006). It is a capacity to understand our own

and others’ behavior based on intentional mental states (Allen et al., 2008). Mental states refer to

representational states such as thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, and imaginings, which are composed of

concepts that people can conceptualize or “see” (cognitions) and qualitative states such as feelings,

sensations, and emotions that have a distinctive“feel” character about them (affect). Mental states also

refer to past, present, and future mental states. Intentional means that these mental states are about

something or that they have meaning. Therefore, the capacity to mentalize means the ability to make

appropriate meaning of our own and others’ mental states, including those that the parties might have

experienced in the past, that they might be experiencing in the present, and that they envisagethat they

might experience in the future (Allen et al., 2008).

When we mentalize, and do so in an unrestricted manner, we are able to understand what our own

motivations might have been in a particular situation and what the motivations of the others with

whom we were interacting might have been. When we are mentalizing well, we are able to plausibly

read situations and, therefore, we are able to understand other people’s behavior better. This gives us

a sense of being in control of our behaviors and of ourselves and enables us to communicate more

clearly about our situation (Allen et al., 2008).

We could think of mentalizing as a fundamental human capacity similar to other human capaci-

ties such as memory. Like memory, the neurobiological evidence suggests that we all have different

ranges of mentalizing capacity, that mentalizing has plasticity so it can be improved and that the

ability to mentalize can become impaired when we experience emotional arousal such as when we

are in conflict or challenged by stressful situations (Luyten, Fonagy, Lowyck, & Vermote, 2012;

Kuhlmann, Piel, & Wolf, 2005). In a heightened state of arousal, we lose memory. We forget

names, for example, and details of events from the past, and we lessen our capacity for creative

thoughts. Similarly, under stress, we lose mentalizing capacity, which lessens our ability to make

sense of what we or anyone else might be thinking or feeling. If we have a low mentalizing ability,

or our mentalizing capacity becomes impaired due to stressful experiences such as divorce and

conflict, then we are less able to make sense of our own and others’ mental states and consequent

behaviors. This could result in our acting or communicating in ways that might be alien to others

and ourselves, and consequently, our behavior might become unpredictable and erratic (Allen et al.,

2008). In a family mediation context, an impaired mentalizing ability might present as positional,

uncaring, and nonempathic as the party loses the capacity to make meaning of his/her own and/or

the other party’s mental states.

In 2012, we proposed that, if a mediator is able to create space in the mediation for the parties to

engage their mentalizing capacities, then this could be fundamental in assisting the parties to com-

municate better, think more clearly about their dispute, and become more flexible in their thinking.

They theorized that, if a mediator is able to intervene and assist the parties to begin to make meaning

of their own and the other party’s mental states (i.e., to engage their mentalizing capacities), then this

would in turn enable the parties to understand their own and each other’s behaviors and experience in

80 FAMILY COURT REVIEW