I have often wondered whether Leon Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance can helps us explain why each of the two parties who come to mediation blames the other party.

In a nutshell, Leon Festinger's theory suggests that we cannot hold two conflicting viewpoints (cognitions) in our mind at the same time. When that happens, we feel uncomfortable. And one way we cope with that disharmony (dissonance) within ourselves is by adding a third viewpoint (cognition).

For example, when we think:

1 – I know that smoking is hazardous to my health

2 – I am a chain smoker.

What do we do? We add a third thought:

3 – Who cares? Sooner or later, we all have to die anyway.

Outcome: We can keep smoking without feeling bad about it.

How does that work in mediation? Each party is thinking:

1 -- I am a good, fair, reasonable person. And good, fair, reasonable people are able to resolve disagreements on their own, by themselves.

2 – I am here in mediation because I failed to resolve by myself the disagreement with the other party.

What do they do? They add a third thought:

3 – The reason I am here is because the other party is bad, unfair, or unreasonable. It is his/her fault.

Outcome: I can be here in mediation and keep feeling good about myself.

If the above is pretty much what's going on in each party's mind, Leon Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory has helped us understand why each of the two parties blames the other party. They have to. It is natural.

What do you think?

Giuseppe Leone