U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Mediation-Intravention Discussion: Toward an Integrative Perspective

NCJ Number
112316
Journal
Negotiation Journal Volume: 4 Issue: 2 Dated: (April 1988) Pages: 143-148
Author(s)
D E Conlon
Date Published
1988
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article discusses some oversights in the theoretical discussion by Carnevale and Murnighan in the October 1986 issue of 'Negotiation Journal' regarding the concepts of mediation, intravention, and arbitration.
Abstract
Murnighan asserts that the defining characteristics of mediation include an outside mediator's being selected rather than choosing to become involved and the mediator's having no final decisionmaking or sanctioning power. A mediator may take the initiative to mediate between parties, such as when a supervisor chooses to mediate between subordinates. A mediator also influences decisionmaking through input and can inject sanctions and incentives that facilitate agreement between the parties. Murnighan identifies several factors that distinguish mediation from intravention, including an increase in the third party's power over the participants, the third party's ability to inject his/her own interests into the likely solution, and a compelling need for the disputants to request the third party's services. The first point is acceptable, but the final two require clarification. Intravention differs from mediation in that the third party can render a binding judgement, and it differs from arbitration in that the third party has the option to let the parties decide how to resolve the dispute. 1 figure and 10 references.

Downloads

No download available

Availability