Unintended Harm Really Does Hurt Less

February 12, 2009

       Dan Ariely\’s Predictably Irrational blog pointed me to a recent article in Economist.com called “Malice Aforethought.”  The article reviews a study in Psychological Science by Drs. Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner of Harvard University that essentially asked the question:

“If someone accidentally steps on your toe, it hurts.  But does it hurt more if you think he did it deliberately?”

According to The Economist, their answer is that it probably does.

       The article describes the tests administered by Drs. Gray and Wegner to 43 students, who assessed levels of discomfort associated with tasks that were in some cases stated to be intentionally inflicted by their study partner, and in other cases the result of random selection and contrary to the will of their study partner.  Discomfort was rated by the participants on a scale of one to seven. 

“…the students rated the strength of shocks they thought had been intentionally administered at 3.62 on average; those they thought unintentional averaged 3.00.  The researchers also found the apparently unintentional shocks hurt progressively less as the experiment went on, whereas those perceived as deliberate continued to hurt as much.”

        Whether this research can be extended to non-physical harm remains to be seen.  But I am willing to bet that it can. The lesson for parties in mediation is clear:  When you really didn\’t intend to inflict the “harm” being experienced by your adversary, let him know it.  This is related to, but different from the often touted value of an “apology.”  Apologies carry implications of fault, guilt and regret that may not be appropriate or possible at every stage in a mediation. Convincing the other side that you did not intend a result to occur is more limited and easier to do.

       The greatest benefit of communicating an absence of intent is its capacity to build a bridge of understanding that is often required for a successful mediation.  Without admitting fault or responsibility, one party can often say, “I understand how this makes you feel, and I just want you to know that it was never my intent for you to experience that result.”  This can be followed up by an explanation of what the offending party was trying to do or say, thus giving credibility to the denial of intent. Particularly in cases based upon or motivated by a perceived injustice or betrayal, this approach moves the mediation to a different level, where realistic and constructive solutions can be reached.

[Image: Car vs. motorcycle accident in Pisek, Czech Republic, February 1, 2008, by Chmee2]