Transcript of Arthur Trossen’s lecture on the introduction of cognitive mediation theory at the conference on integrated mediation “Mediation in everyday life” in Frankfurt on October 3, 2020.

My presentation will be reflecting the mechanism behind the mediation. I will try to develop why what happens in mediation and how mediation leads to their success. The answer to all those questions is provided by the so-called cognitive mediation theory.

The thesis of my lecture is:

With the help of cognitive mediation theory, every step in mediation can be derived and planned. The theory has been incorporated into the concept of integrated mediation. It became the guarantee for a high-qualified mediation that can be used everywhere.

My name is Arthur Trossen. I developed the theory based on the experience of integrated mediation. As a trainer, practitioner and researcher it became more and more important for me to test the limits of mediation and to define its functionality as precisely as possible. This is a very brief introduction. I’ld like a scientific discourse arises.

Scientific basics of mediation

Asking about the scientific background or looking for a theory behind the mediation you will be concerned on the Harvard Concept. The Harvard research was done to find out how negotiations can be improved. Though its principles have been incorporated into mediation, it is not a theory of mediation, explaining why what is happening there.

There are other theories that play a role in mediation. For example, the principle of consensus, conflict theory, communication theory, systems theory and many others. All those theories are use in mediation but not explaining it.

According to my research, the cognitive mediation theory is the only approach that can describe mediation in all its functionality .

Mediation as a process of gaining insights

The cognitive mediation theory describes mediation as a cognitive process. It assumes that the parties must gain insights, since they are not able to find a solution at the beginning of the procedure, but at its end. They need to gain insights when suddenly empowered to do so. More precisely, they do not just need to be enlightened during the mediation but also before, when taking decisions to conflict resolution. Thus mediation can and must also have an effect outside of the formal mediation process.

The starting point

When parties have to find the solution themselves, they will have to think, not the mediator. Now the question is how they can manage when the mediator does not decide or recommend,  when considering is very limited and there will be no suggestions for a solution?

In trainings we teach the mediator to stop thinking about solutions. How can that help the parties? Seems that thinking plays an important role in mediation. Thinking seems to be important in mediation. Its a part of cognition, but it also has an effect on receiving information, processing information and transmissioning information. Mediation prepares the mental path. The scientific derivation of mediation that describes and studies this process is known as the cognitive mediation theory.

The cognitive mediation theory

The cognitive mediation theory aims to provide the answer to the question of where and how thinking finds itself in mediation. She assumes that mediation is a mediation of understanding. It differs from arbitration, which is mediation. The exact delimitation of the procedures results from a procedural system that was developed by integrated mediation and which will not be discussed in more detail here .

However, if understanding is in the foreground in mediation , the theory must deal with what is to be understood, how mutual understanding is made possible and what mediation helps to ensure that the thoughts of the parties search together and find a constructive one and enable sustainable solutions. Dealing with the process of understanding does not only affect the quality of mediation. It also gives advice on how to use and market mediation. However, this must be dealt with elsewhere .

As an introduction to cognitive mediation theory, I will look at the following chapters:

  1. The challenges that stand in the way of the constructive train of thought.
  2. The basics to accept and master the challenges.
  3. The mediation s logic that leads to a logical thinking in the mediation.
  4. The assembly instructions with which the elements of mediation can be identified and processed.
  5. The operator that gives the formula for coping with mediation and the complexity that goes with it.
  6. The consequences of using the theory.

Chapter 1: Challenges

To make the process of understanding mediation be to write and deal to find out what mediation can help such that the thoughts of the parties enable the joint search and finding a constructive, sustainable solution, the theory must first with the question of what prevents the parties from developing the thoughts themselves. The focus is on the obstacles that make it so difficult for the parties to find a solution . The mediator needs to understand how to use mediation to overcome these obstacles .

The basic obstacles that the collaborative process of L complicate ösungsfindung , are:

  • The complexity that extends to the procedure and the case .
  • The thinking that the parties usually steer linearly into the problem from controversial positions .
  • The focus that guides thinking into positions or into solutions .
  • The reflection that leads to knowledge, but is often only possible to a limited extent in a conflict .
  • The strategy, which leads to thinking in zero-sum game and a confrontation near places .
  • The interactions based on selective perception and aggressive communication and finally ,
  • d ie other influences, which the process of understanding the parties influence.

Please consider for yourself how mediation deals with these obstacles. Have you dealt with these questions in your training and found a formula for how mediation deals with the resulting complexity ?

The complexity

When I ask in the training what is the most important word that characterizes mediation, agreement is emphasized. For me, the most important characteristic of mediation is how it deals with complexity. Especially when it comes to establishing agreement, the complexity becomes noticeable. They allowed prejudice and selections, the differing views of the parties not only allow, but also suggest.

Anyone who deals more closely with mediation will inevitably at some point come across the question of how the views can be changed so that a constructive solution emerges from it. He will recognize the depth of mediation that may be necessary and the multitude of influences that mediation must take into account if it wants to help the parties to gain knowledge .

You know the butterfly e ff ect , where the flap of a butterfly’s wings triggers a hurricane in the other hemisphere of the world . The chaos theory based on it says that the smallest influences can have devastating effects. It assumes that causality in complex systems is not based on a linear, monocausal sequence of events. Even a conflict and especially mediation are subject to many influences that chaotically change the process. That makes it difficult to describe the process and even more to predict it.

People tend to deny the complexity. When you face the complexity, try to reduce it. Sometimes black and white paintings emerge from this , with which the decision-making process can be reduced to supposedly simple either-or formulas. Simplifications that I have described as false myths are also used to describe mediation. For example, it is misleading to say that the mediator is responsible for the process , but the parties are responsible for the solution. If you look closely, you will see that responsibility is shared. Shared responsibility is necessary to manage the cognitive process.

Sorry to see , I’m a mediator if he wants to really understand this assertion and mediation, to deal with the complexity. I’ll go into how he does this with mediation later .

The contention continuum

Practice tries to cope with complexity by reducing it. The reduction in complexity begins with the alignment of the process. It affects the processing depth. In order to sound out the respective depth of processing, the so-called dispute continuum provides an effective illustration. The extent of the dispute can be determined using the dimensions of facts, emotions, positions, interests and, if necessary, a fifth dimension, time. The positioning of legal proceedings or therapy in this continuum shows that these proceedings are not designed to capture all dimensions of the dispute . Where is the mediation in this continuum to locate? If they the complexity mastered, must they all dimensions of the dispute continuum cover.

Reduction of complexity

Even more than the specification of the procedure, the method (in the language of integrated mediation it is the techniques) helps to reduce complexity. Lawyers, for example, use subsumption for this. The subsumption compares the real life situation with a standardized situation in order to derive the legal consequence from which the solution results. The solution does not result from the ideas of the parties but from those of the law.

Mediation can better engage with the ideas of the parties. But it should also reduce the complexity through the structure. Apart from the structure of the procedure, the collection of topics is intended to help structure the case. The question is not only whether this reduction is wanted, but also whether it is sufficient to cope with the complexity of the case. The latter would be the claim of integrated mediation, with which not only a more precise raffle can be mapped. If it is possible to cope with the complexity, the mediation creates a unique selling point that I can hardly find again in any other procedure . The technique that contributes to this is called dimensioning and will be presented later.

Schools of thought

Thinking also stands in the way of mastering the complexity . Like communication, thinking is linear. Linear thinking fo h r t thoughts directly into the problem. The phenomenon described by Einstein emerges that the thinking that leads into a problem cannot lead out of the problem. Watzlawick has also shown that with this type of thinking, the problem will always be part of the solution. So mediation has to think differently if it wants to overcome this obstacle.

The opposing parties are also a handicap . It could be the mediation as a social product Descr i ben, because it is not limited to one party concentrated but to several people involved in the conflict. Hostile parties tend to be controversial. Thinking is aligned with one another and not with one another. Mediation must therefore also offer ways that lead from controversial thinking into parallel thinking.


Another impairment of thinking results from the target setting and the related focus. In court proceedings, the focus is on the outcome, which in turn is traced back to the positions. In the arbitration, the focus is on the solution, which also refers to the positions. If mediation a ergebniso ff enes process should be the focus of the solution must be removed.


Thinking is made possible by reflection, which in turn requires abstraction. The ability to abstract is restricted in a conflict. Emotions get the upper hand. They stand in the way of rational thinking. The simple formula is: the more emotions, the less reason. When the limbic system takes control, irrational human reactions can occur. On the other hand, emotions have an important meaning. The mediation must therefore ensure that the ability to reflect is established despite the emotions of the motivation controlled by the limbic system. Mediation is a mind-controlled process. So it had to deal with how the mind can be used to find solutions.


The strategic requirements of the procedure and, last but not least, the conflict strategy of the parties reduce the complexity of the options. The conflict evolution of Schwarz summarized the strategic options for action in the conflict. The decisive factor is the realization that the change in strategy only takes place when the practiced or presented conflict strategy turns out to be unsuccessful. In expanding the strategy, the individual steps can be summarized in the basic forms of cooperation and confrontation. It can also be assumed that humans first try to cooperate . The confrontation shows that he does not consider it successful. Thus, the conflict strategy already becomes a so-called zero-sum game in which the winner only wins at the expense of the loser. The parties get into a competition that narrows the focus on the solution set. The enmity is thus not only promoted by the conflict, but also by the conflict resolution strategy. If mediation seeks an amicable solution, they must therefore strategic requirements clam ff s, which the parties to cooperate suggest.


Of course, the interaction engages the parties to the prejudices and selections for both the process as well as the case to be solved enough rooms clam ff t. If  mediation is understood as a process of understanding, it must therefore also deal with the limitations that arise from the acquisition of information (i.e. perception) and the transfer of information (i.e. communication). Every mediator knows that so-called emphatic listening is an important corrective for interactions. It is a technique that mediation uses. It should not be equated with mediation. Even if the technology is already having an enormous effect, it is not enough to align the thoughts of the parties in terms of mediation and to overcome the obstacles described above.


For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that the basic obstacles listed here cannot be conclusively named. The thinking of the parties is subject to further influences, which can be intrinsic as well as extrinsic. It should be noted at this point that it is similar to the Schmetterlingse ff ect are other, well, even the smallest influences that take on the conflict resolution influence. Mediator should also this in view have .

Chapter 2: Basics

With all of the obstacles mentioned above, the question has been raised of how mediation deals with them. I don’t want to owe the answer. You will find that trying to answer this question leads to different concepts of mediation. Therefore, I would like to answer this question from the perspective of integrated mediation. She has developed a concept based on cognitive mediation theory that is capable of doing this. Check please yourself whether the Harvard concept or the other theory fragments can deliver a consistent in. Have yourself answer. In any case, I claim that is not the case.

Integrated mediation focuses on the cognitive process and how mediation succeeds in freeing the parties’ thoughts from the corset described by the aforementioned obstacles. She finds the key to understanding mediation in cognitive access.

Paving the way

The fundamental obstacles that stand in the way of the thought (not only in conflict, by the way ) have already been mentioned. Overcoming it leads to the basics of cognitive mediation theory. These will be briefly presented below.

Thought work

The starting point is again the requirement that it is the parties who should find the solution. So they have to think in order to gain knowledge. But what does the mediator do?

The flippant hint that the mediator does not think but understands needs explanation. Because in order to be able to understand, he must also use his mind. So he thinks too. However, his thoughts are only about understanding. Why this is so, is related to the understanding of mediation, which by no means clear is t .


For integrated mediation, this requirement for mediation is quite clear. This results from the distinction to other procedures. It provides proof that mediation is different!

Integrated mediation has drawn up a system of procedures that delimits the procedures according to their character. Accordingly, the arbitration is a solution and mediation is a mediation of understanding. Understanding is in the foreground. In addition to the complexity, it may be identified as a further, important characteristic of mediation .

The mediator knows that understanding is made possible through the process of mediation. Therefore, he does not think of the solution, but of the process implementation. The process orientation is largely undisputed. However, if the process of realization has the purpose of conveying understanding, it becomes clear that the process of mediation is not limited to the realization of the phases. Understanding takes more than just a few phases. Mediation therefore expects the mediator to think about how the parties can come up with the ideas with which the knowledge leading to the solution is possible . Mediation shows him the way.

The presentation of the obstacles has already indicated the complexity of the process . In order to understand, the mediator must therefore also think about how to deal with the complexity .

A competence characteristic for the mediator can also be derived from this mandate : the more the mediator understands, the more he can understand! Understanding must not only relate to what the party says and means, but also to what knowledge is to be brought about and how so that the parties can find a common solution.

Meta level

We want to understand everything must have everything in view. In order to recognize what needs to be looked at and what contributes to understanding, reflection is required. The reflection requires an abstraction that has to be handled on the meta level. Only the meta level allows a neutral, independent, assessment-free view of what is happening. It is not readily available in a conflict. It is therefore a central task of mediation to make this level available again.

The systemic view of mediation suits her. This view can be traced back to systems theory. Among other things, it says that systems are able to observe one another. Mediation uses this competence by establishing a systemic separation between the mediator and the parties . The systemic separation leads to the distinction between the dispute system and the mediation system.

The separation of the systems allows the mediator to position himself outside the dispute system. In the dispute system, the parties face each other. This is where the conflict operations take place. The mediator personifies the mediation system. It faces the dispute system and is able to observe the dispute system from the outside.

The mediation system thus forms the meta-level to the dispute system. He is, if you will, the personified meta-level. It makes it possible to focus on the dispute system and its elements (i.e. the parties) from the outside . And not just that.

With the distinction between the dispute system and the reflexive mediation system, two very different levels of processing emerge, which must be strictly separated from each other. The lack of decision-making power is a principle that supports this distinction. In order to clarify the systemic separation , the integrated mediation has relativized the principle of the lack of decision-making authority and expanded it with the principle of indetermination. The principle of indetermination describes the requirements to be able to map a meta-level in the process construct .

Of course, it would be far too easy if mediation was limited to the two systems. Integrated mediation therefore also knows control and correspondence systems with which further meta levels are made available. At this point it went too far to present the complete system of mediation and the different processing levels that result from it. Suffice it to say that mediation, with a structure of structures, offers a first breakdown with which the complexity of the procedure and the case can be managed .

Worlds of thought

The obstacle of linear thinking overcomes the mediation by not thinking into the problem, but the problem goes around . The linear train of thought is consciously and deliberately interrupted with the phases. Arguments that support the positions are admitted in the second phase, but only contrasted and not fully discussed. The parties have an opportunity to describe the broken world as it formulates the terminology of integrated mediation. It’s just about showing what’s wrong. The train of thought is then broken off. This is one of the reasons why many beginners find it so difficult to transition from phase two to three . A new train of thought erö ff net assumed that does not address the problem, but that the problem had been solved or not even exist. In this thought step, which is assigned to the third phase, the thoughts are directed into an imaginary state, which the integrated mediation describes as the ideal world . Only when an image has been created that can be used to describe the ideal situation, when the thoughts are brought back to the real world in the next phase . The parties should now consider how they can actually bring about the ideal situation. Only these thoughts lead to the solution into it .

Mind alignment

Controversial thinking is also resolved in mediation. Basically, mediation tries to lead the parties into so-called parallel thinking.

The first step in this direction is to agree on goals. The second step is to break down the positions into topics. The third, decisive step takes place with the representation of the ideal world, where the parties get the feeling for the first time that their ideas are not so far apart. The process is supported by Windows 1 technology , which diverts thinking about the opponent to thinking about oneself. The fourth and last step in this direction takes place with the collection of options, where the parties jointly search for solutions whose criteria have already been defined and agreed beforehand.

Benefit orientation

The fact that mediation results and lösungso ff s is exempt the parties from their mental corset. It’s not like that at first a decision GETRO ff s is to then take care of the implementation and finally long after, to find out if and what benefits from the fact found at all. Mediation does not leave the benefits to chance. In order to emphasize the benefits (the general satisfaction targeted in the target agreement), she diverts the focus away from the positions and solutions. Thinking is directed towards utility. Because the benefit lies behind the solution in chronological order , the mediation works out the benefit expectation from the motives. They are determined in the third phase .

To illustrate this connection that uses Integrated Mediation preferred to notion ff of motives rather than of interests. The motifs not only reveal the meaning of what has been said, so that they are an important aspect of conveying understanding. They also provide the criteria for the solution. The normal decision-making process is therefore handled backwards in mediation .

Thought processes

The approaches mediation uses to overcome the cognitive barriers are neither accidental nor arbitrary. Rather, they are subject to a logic with which the thoughts can be brought together. This logic is known as mediation logic. It summarizes the phase logic, the level logic, the topic logic and the conflict logic . All these sub-processes are aligned with a common goal with the help of the mediation logic .

Phase logic

The phase logic is an essential condition for the realization of meditative thinking. It reproduces the train of thought. The phases correspond to the milestones in the knowledge process. They build on each other.

The integrated mediation is based on the five phase model, which can be used to fully map the train of thought. The train of thought and the milestones to be achieved in each case (knowledge gains) are as follows:

  1. Phase: Target meta-level restore, focus on benefits set ( Zievereinbarung ), rules of mediation (Wegvereinbarung) vote.
  2. Phase: Exact investigation of the dispute. Acceptance of the opposition (he is a subject in a question transferred) transition in the dialectic.
  3. Phase: elucidation of the meaning (elaboration of the different views), elaboration of the solution criteria.
  4. Phase: Options are fed into a solution channel.
  5. Phase: manifestation of the solution. Verification ider solution to sustainability and feasibility

Phase scheme

You can use the phase scheme of integrated mediation. It summarizes the most important features of each phase and puts them in a procedural context. The scheme shows that and how the phases separate and structure the train of thought. Even incompatible ways of thinking can be brought together in the sequential order. The logic passes over into the dialectic . Legal thinking is dissolved in psychological, associative thinking. With the help of the phases, mediation is able to include everything that is necessary to promote understanding. The phases create a tension that contributes significantly to the dynamics of mediation.

Thematic logic

The phases adapt to the basic train of thought of mediation. It is important to resolve the controversial thinking of the parties. Mediation does not find the solution in a dispute, but in community.

In contrast to a legal proceeding , the thoughts are not led from the common ground (the undisputed) into the dispute (the disputed), but vice versa. The dispute is recorded and the thoughts are led into the common views , which may need to be specifically worked out in the third phase .

Level logic

Mediation knows that the similarities can hardly be found at the solution level. At least not as long as the parties are caught up in controversial thinking . Mediation therefore looks for the level at which common ground can be established. In the orange example of the Harvard concept, interests are sufficient .

Possibly (if both arguing children want to drink orange juice) the interests are not enough to find a common basis on which the solution can be found. Then the mediator goes one level deeper, for example to the relationship level or even deeper to the need level or even deeper, until he has found a level that provides a common basis for the search for a solution. This level is established in the third phase. It gives the processing depth and therefore influences the choice of the mediation model.

Conflict logic

The handling of the conflicts also fits seamlessly into the mediation, if the conflicts are not differentiated according to types but rather dimensions.

The conflict dimensions result in a direct reference to one of the 3 human intelligence centers. They are linked to mediation through the topics. They automatically lead to the separation of person and problem, if a distinction is made between material conflicts, value conflicts and relationship conflicts.

Conflicts of matter are assigned to the rational intelligence, relationship conflicts to the emotional intelligence and value-based conflicts of identity. With this division , the processing level and the selection of the mediation model can also be determined.

Contention continuum

It has already been pointed out that the processing depth leading to conflict resolution influences the choice of the mediation model. The mediation model defines the processing focus, which can be aligned with the dimensions of the dispute continuum.

Integrated mediation does not just describe a concept of mediation. It also appears in a mediation model. The mediation model of integrated mediation basically takes all dimensions into account and is therefore the most comprehensive mediation model that also supports a change and an expansion of the approach. It includes, if you will, the evaluative, the facilitative and the transformative mediation, so that the mediation always provides the appropriate processing method for the conflict .

Chapter 4: Installation Instructions

How does this all come together?

What is certain is that it is not enough to know the basics and the process of mediation as described by the law. In order to exhaust the competence of mediation, it is not enough to know the logics with which the thoughts are raised and directed in the right direction. In order to uncover the connections and to develop the effect of the mediation, all components have to be brought together. The components required to create an assembly plan are :

  1. The construct describes the structure of the structures, i.e. the system. It expresses the different processing levels and their relationship to one another .
  2. The procedures describe the in the mediation settled and successive tuned operations, which is in the structure of mediation regain leave.
  3. The operands with which the process can be implemented are called functional units of mediation .

The operators help ensure that the operands are read out or changed. They make sure that the correct functional units integrated into the process will be.

Mediation radius

In order to be able to access the functional units, the elements and conditions with which the complexity of the train of thought is steered in the specified direction must be extracted. The assembly instructions get rid of the idea that mediation as a method corresponds to the procedure . If the mediation describes a train of thought, it can break out of the corset of the process. This is one of the central axioms of integrated mediation. It can be traced back to cognitive mediation and is in harmony with it . This expands the radius of mediation, which distinguishes between formal mediation in the sense of the Mediation Act, formal mediation in general and substantial, i.e. assembled mediation .

Container theory

Smaller building blocks can not only be used better and more flexibly. Their logical assignment is also easier. Assuming that each phase gives the mediator or the avoidant a work assignment oriented towards the stage goal, a corresponding number of methods can be distinguished. They are essentially assigned to the phases. These, in turn, are geared towards the process , to which only the function of a container is assigned in this logic . The container provides the framework before, in which the methods are classified. The techniques are finally the tools with which the methods can be realized.

In this way the techniques are assigned to the methods and the methods to the procedure . The assignment is sure that techniques and methods to a by method are aligned given target.

Functional units

The functional n units name the operators that are required to implement the construct (system) and the process (sequence) of mediation. You name everything that is necessary to realize the train of thought of mediation. There are a few. The integrated mediation has developed benchmarks which, together with the flow chart, ensure that all the adjusting screws are used correctly in terms of mediation.

When putting together the functional units, the smallest and most important unit catches the eye. It ‘s the information.


If it is possible to divide the mediation into its component parts and reassemble, is a basis for aid gescha ff s, with which the process can be controlled and monitored. N for examples which may be mentioned mediation map, the flow chart and the benchmarks. They increase the security and predictability of mediation and are therefore a performance feature in marketing.

Chapter 5: The Operator

You can use the orange example from the Harvard concept. It is often used as a metaphor for mediation. It describes a phenomenon and an aspect of mediation, but not the entire process. A metaphor that can be used to describe the process is provided by the example with the antics:

The grandchild is visiting grandma. Grandma wants to make the visit attractive. It proposes, therefore before, to play a game. Unfortunately, she doesn’t have a large supply of games. She finds an old puzzle in the basement. On the box is a train as a template, which is to be placed as a puzzle picture. It’s a 10,000 piece puzzle . Unfortunately the children put another puzzle with 30,000 pieces in the same box, for which there is no longer a template . Grandma and grandchild must first sort the stones in order to assign them to the respective puzzle and try to place the two pictures. In order to identify which image is to be placed, it is not a question of WHO the ent sets -scheidenden stone to the right place. Nobody would say, “Get the stone away. I saw that it belonged there first”. Both players are happy that the picture is recognizable and can be finished.


The puzzle piece symbolizes the information. As with the puzzle pieces, the information can be put together to form a picture. They too have labels with which the information can be identified and correctly assigned to the added puzzle picture. The information is identified via the meta information. The meta-information describes the dimension of the information via which the information can be entered into the puzzle.

Cognitive characteristics of the puzzle

The puzzle game metaphor not only shows the e ff ect of how the information can be put together. It also shows that it is sufficient to put the information together like puzzle pieces without the player having to know why the stones were cut and how. The main thing is that they are put in the correct position. The parties deal with the complexity without having to know the context .

The metaphor of the puzzle also proves the procedural strategy. It doesn’t depend on the winner, but on the profit. So it doesn’t matter who brings the crucial information and how. The main thing is that it comes into play and is correctly positioned there. That the solution, i.e. the picture, has to show a win-win result is not relevant to the game. However, it is relevant that the picture to be placed, and therefore the solution, corresponds to all players. The principle of voluntary allows it to them to reject an image that they do not like. Using this detour, it may be assumed that the players only agree to images that produce a win – win result .

The metaphor of the puzzle fits extent to mediation is abundantly clear that nothing ht only one image is to be placed, but several. Only when the puzzle picture of the mediation is completed can sufficient information be placed in the puzzle picture of the case.

The mediation puzzle

It all depends on the information being placed correctly. This process takes place in three steps:

  1. The information is received and examined for mediation relevance
  2. The information is assigned to the processing level (mediation system, dispute system, legal system , etc.) .
  3. The information is linked to the appropriate dimension for the processing level .

Example: The mother says in mediation that the father does not take care of the child, which is why he should be denied contact. The information is assigned to the dimensions argument and position at the mediation processing level. At the case level, it is assigned to the opinion dimension and, if applicable, the parent relationship or father-child relationship dimension .

It goes without saying that the dimensioning must be carried out separately for each party so that the information can be compared. At the same time, it reveals where information is missing.

The networking

The dimensions correspond to the anchor points of the mediation logic. One argument, for example, leads to a position that dissolves in the topic. A motive gives the criteria for the solution. The topic is linked to the conflict, which in turn is linked to the depth of processing and the dimensions of the dispute continuum, etc.

The links give the information a logical structure. Au ff Aellig is that networking within a working plane and planes carried across. If all connections are identified, the result is an unimaginably large information network.

Precise listening

Precise listening is an all-purpose tool that, like a Swiss Army Knife, is versatile. It is the variant of active listening that has been further developed for integrated mediation. Dimensioning is an integral part of the feedback and is incorporated into the technical flow diagram. The mediator announces the information dimension, for example by reporting back: You mean that dealing with the father should be restricted because the child will suffer from it. You are addressing a state of the child , from which you derive your position and want to prevent contact. … In his head, the mediator assigns the information to the location and the quality. It depends on what stage (or in other words, where he is in the mediation train of thought )   to decide how to continue the communication .

The realization

Every mediator knows the phenomenon. Suddenly the party knows what to do. The conflict is over. Why is that?

Sufficient information has been gathered in such a way that the party’s minds have a picture from which the solution emerges. You have overcome the complexity without even realizing it.

Chapter 6: Consequences

Do you also know what to do?

The possibility of updating mediation and understanding it as a way of thinking that leads to constructive solutions extends the range of application into everyday life. Understanding helps everywhere: in politics, in court, in the company, in the family and in everyday interaction. The mediation shows how it works. The advantages of integrated mediation, which cognitive mediation theory has made its own, are therefore obvious.


Here is an overview of the advantages:

  1. Can be used for any decision-making process
  2. Fits seamlessly into the mediation a
  3. Specifies the process and principles of mediation
  4. Allows a quality management
  5. Allows virtual mediations
  6. Names the variables of complexity
  7. Networks the variables

Mediation visionary

This introduction can only leave an impression. You can read more about cognitive mediation theory and why a vision of mediation can be developed from it and what that has to do with integrated mediation in the book that is available to members of the association as a PDF free of charge.

More than a concept

Cognitive mediation theory is closely linked to the history of integrated mediation. She represents her perspective on mediation.

Thank you for your attention .

Arthur Trossen