As mediators, our role is to remain neutral, providing a space where participants can feel heard, validated, and supported as they work through their conflicts. But neutrality isn’t always as simple as it sounds. Each of us carries unconscious biases, shaped by our experiences, culture, and even personal beliefs. Over the years, I’ve committed myself—and my team—to an ongoing process of self-reflection and awareness to ensure we are constantly addressing and minimizing the impact of bias on our work.

In this post, I want to share some of the most important biases that mediators need to be aware of, how they can creep into the mediation process, and what I’ve learned about monitoring and mitigating these biases in myself and my team.

1. Confirmation Bias

• What it is: This bias occurs when we subconsciously look for information that supports what we already believe or expect. In mediation, this can happen when we start favoring one party’s narrative or expect a particular outcome based on initial impressions.
• How to recognize it: I’ve learned to question my first assumptions. After hearing an initial explanation from one party, there’s a natural inclination to believe their version of events, especially if it resonates with our own values or past experiences. But mediation is about seeing the full picture, and that requires a conscious effort to remain open.
• How we address it: In our practice, we constantly remind ourselves to stay curious rather than conclusive. I personally ask myself, “Am I seeking out only the information that confirms my initial understanding?” If the answer is yes, I reset by engaging the other party with the same open-mindedness, ensuring both voices receive equal weight.

2. Empathy Bias

• What it is: Empathy bias happens when we empathize more with one party over another due to shared experiences, personality similarities, or perceived vulnerability. While empathy is essential in mediation, over-empathizing with one side can skew the process.
• How to recognize it: Sometimes people tend to lean toward parties who exhibit emotional vulnerability or share similar life experiences. While this connection is human, it can unintentionally influence our approach, perhaps making us more lenient or protective toward one individual.
• How we address it: To counter this, we work to balance empathy with accountability. While it’s important to acknowledge someone’s emotions, we must also hold space for both parties’ perspectives and responsibilities. One practice we use is to recenter the discussion on facts, ensuring the process remains fair, even in the presence of strong emotions. Moreover, having two mediators from our team working together on the same case has proven to be highly effective in mitigating this bias.

3. Halo Effect

• What it is: The halo effect is when positive attributes in one area influence our perception of unrelated traits. For example, if someone is charismatic or articulate, we might assume they are more honest or trustworthy.
• How to recognize it: This bias often appears when one party is particularly eloquent or has likeability. It is natural to give more weight to a well-spoken participant’s perspective while possibly discounting the quieter or less polished participant.
• How we address it: Remind ourselves that style does not equal substance. As a team, we practice active listening, focusing on the content rather than the delivery of each participant’s input. I ask myself, “Am I responding to the person’s words or their delivery?” This helps me correct any unconscious favoring of more charismatic parties.

4. Stereotyping and Cultural Bias

• What it is: This bias involves holding preconceived notions about a participant based on their race, gender, age, cultural background, or profession. Stereotyping can lead to making assumptions that may not be accurate or fair.
• How to recognize it:t It’s essential to check in with yourself when interacting with participants who come from a background or identity you may have less exposure to. Cultural differences in communication styles, emotional expression, or conflict resolution approaches can easily lead to misinterpretations.
• How we address it: As a team, we stay conscious of our cultural lenses and engage in ongoing education about different cultural approaches to conflict. One practical way to address this is by asking more questions rather than making assumptions. By learning from the participants themselves about their unique contexts, we avoid falling into the trap of stereotyping.

5. Attribution Bias

• What it is: Attribution bias occurs when we attribute someone’s behavior to their character rather than considering the context or external factors. For instance, if someone is late to a session, we might think they’re irresponsible, without considering external circumstances.
• How to recognize it: This bias shows up when being judgmental or making quick assessments about someone’s motives. It’s easy to label a behavior as “difficult” or “uncooperative” without fully understanding the reasons behind it.
• How we address it: We regularly practice pausing and reflecting on the context. Instead of jumping to conclusions, we take a step back and explore the external factors that might be contributing to someone’s behavior. Compassionate inquiry allows us to understand people more holistically, rather than attributing their actions solely to personality.

6. Recency Bias

• What it is: Recency bias occurs when we give disproportionate weight to the most recent information presented, rather than considering the full history of the situation.
• How to recognize it: After hearing a strong closing argument or recent statement from a participant, there is a tendency to prioritize that information, sometimes forgetting earlier key points.
• How we address it: We mitigate this by documenting key moments throughout the process and frequently recapping previous discussions to ensure all aspects of the mediation are given equal consideration. By maintaining a comprehensive view of the entire timeline, we avoid over-prioritizing recent events.

How We Monitor Bias Within Ourselves and Our Team

Bias is something that every mediator, no matter how experienced, must actively guard against. Over the years, I’ve learned that awareness of these biases is not a one-time achievement—it’s a continuous practice. Here’s how we’ve built this awareness into our daily work:

1. Regular Reflection: After each session,  my team and I take time to reflect on our own internal process and ask—“Did I lean more toward one party? Was I swayed by emotion? Did I miss any crucial context?” This self-check has become an essential part of my personal practice, and my  my team as well.
2. Team Feedback: Within our team, we practice open feedback loops. We regularly debrief after mediations to discuss any potential biases that might have crept in. Having trusted colleagues hold up a mirror to our actions has been invaluable in staying accountable.
3. Ongoing Training: We actively engage in professional development to ensure we remain up-to-date on the best practices for recognizing and mitigating bias. Through workshops and courses on cultural sensitivity, unconscious bias, and trauma-informed mediation, we sharpen our skills and broaden our perspectives.
4. Grounding Practices: Before each mediation, I engage in grounding exercises, ensuring that I enter the space with clarity and openness. This helps me reset my mindset, reducing the risk of carrying biases into the session.
5. Structured Processes: Sticking to a structured mediation framework helps us avoid being unconsciously influenced. By following clear steps, we ensure that each participant’s voice is equally heard and that no personal bias can interfere with the process.

6. Team-Based Approach for Complex Cases: In particularly complex or high-stakes mediation processes, we take an additional step to mitigate biases by working with two mediators instead of one. This practice allows us to have a second set of eyes on the process, providing balance and ensuring that one mediator’s biases or blind spots do not affect the outcome. Having two mediators ensures that the process remains fair and collaborative, especially when multiple perspectives are needed to manage complexity.

7. Supervision: Beyond self-reflection and peer feedback, our team also works with supervisors who provide us with external guidance. Regular supervision offers an objective perspective on our cases, helping us remain accountable and aware of potential biases that we may not recognize on our own. This structured support helps ensure we are always refining and improving our approach, staying aligned with the highest standards of mediation practice.

In Conclusion

Mediators, like anyone else, are human, and we are not immune to bias. However, by continuously monitoring these tendencies and integrating self-awareness and structured reflection into our practice, we can mitigate their impact and maintain the neutrality that mediation demands. For me, this is an ongoing journey of growth, both personally and professionally, as I strive to remain both humble and confident in my role as a mediator.

My team and I are committed to holding ourselves accountable, and through these practices, we ensure that our work remains grounded in fairness, compassion, and integrity.