What is Therapeutic Mediation?

Heitler (1998) provides an excellent definition of both traditional mediation and therapeutic mediation. Heitler’s definition of traditional mediation is, “a process by which a third party assists two antagonistic parties to discuss and resolve issues in dispute.” Her definition of therapeutic mediation is, “a twofold goal: emotional healing plus agreement on a plan of action.” To Heitler the big difference is that the process not only leads to a legal type of agreement, it leads to a relief of emotional distress and the restoration of a sense of well being for the parties involved. Based on these definitions, the approach to therapeutic mediation has an additive value over a traditional mediation. The presenting problem is therefore handled on more than one level on both the emotional or psychological level and the rational or legal level. As the definitions suggest, there are differences, but there are also similarities between the two.

Warters (2000) describes that the more traditional forms of positional mediation take the forms of bargaining, evaluative approach, or problem solving. The personal styles of mediation are more aligned with the therapeutic are facilitative and transformative styles. There are similarities, as well as differences, between traditional forms of mediation and therapeutic mediation. The major difference lay in the “personal” versus “positional” approach. He argues that the mediation style that is the polar opposite to the therapeutic approach is the bargaining approach. The bargaining approach tries to reach a settlement, assumes parties know their own positions fully, assumes conflict is from differences in interests, and focuses on give and take tradeoffs to reach consensus. Warters feels that in contrast, the therapeutic approach is to encourage communication, assume parties may not know what they fully want, that true issues may need to be uncovered, and assumes that the real source of the conflict is lack of communication. The biggest similarity between these two methods to help parties reach consensus, the biggest difference, as stated, is the “personal” instead of “positional” approach.