Improved conflict resolution in romantic couples in mediation compared to negotiation

Abstract

Despite the frequency and adverse effects of conflict, randomized controlled studies on interventions that could promote conflict resolution (e.g., among romantic couples) are scarce. One understudied intervention technique is mediation, which is a negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party. To test the impact of a mediator on couple conflict, we conducted a randomized controlled study involving 38 romantic couples who discussed a topic of recurrent disagreement either in the presence of a mediator or by means of a direct negotiation. The results show that romantic couples in the mediation condition, compared with those in direct negotiation, had a probability of reaching an agreement 1.39 times higher and reported higher satisfaction regarding the content and process of their discussions. In addition, the synchronicity of the couple's skin conductance, a measure of arousal, correlated with the couple's closeness and with the quality of their relationship. Our findings suggest that interventions based on mediation can have a beneficial impact on conflict resolution.

Full text

ARTICLE
Improved conflict resolution in romantic couples in
mediation compared to negotiation
François Bogacz 1,2,3 ✉, Thierry Pun1,2 & Olga M. Klimecki1,4,5,6 ✉
Despite the frequency and adverse effects of conflict, randomized controlled studies on
interventions that could promote conflict resolution (e.g., among romantic couples) are
scarce. One understudied intervention technique is mediation, which is a negotiation facili-
tated by a neutral third party. To test the impact of a mediator on couple conflict, we
conducted a randomized controlled study involving 38 romantic couples who discussed a
topic of recurrent disagreement either in the presence of a mediator or by means of a direct
negotiation. The results show that romantic couples in the mediation condition, compared
with those in direct negotiation, had a probability of reaching an agreement 1.39 times higher
and reported higher satisfaction regarding the content and process of their discussions. In
addition, the synchronicity of the couple’s skin conductance, a measure of arousal, correlated
with the couple’s closeness and with the quality of their relationship. Our findings suggest
that interventions based on mediation can have a beneficial impact on conflict resolution.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 OPEN
1Swiss Centre for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Chemin des Mines 9, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland. 2Computer Vision and Multimedia Laboratory,
University of Geneva, Battelle Campus, Building A-7, route de Drize, 1227 Carouge, Switzerland. 3Melbourne Business School, 200 Leicester St, Carlton, VIC
3053, Australia. 4Laboratory for the Study of Emotion Elicitation and Expression, Department of Psychology, University of Geneva, Boulevard du Pont d’Arve
40, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland. 5Laboratory for Behavioral Neurology and Imaging of Cognition, Department of Neuroscience, Medical School, University of
Geneva, rue Michel Servet 1, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland. 6Clinical Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology, Technische Universität
Dresden, 01187 Dresden, Germany. ✉email: f.bogacz@mbs.edu;olga.klimecki@gmail.com
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 1
1234567890():,;
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

As couple conflicts have a negative impact on health and
divorce rates (Haddad et al., 2016), it is important to
identify interventions that can help to resolve these con-
flicts. This randomized controlled study tested how mediation, a
form of third-party intervention, impacts on couple conflicts. To
this end, self-report data were complemented by psychophysio-
logical measures of the linkage in electrodermal activity between
couple members. In addition, the present study explored the
relation of personality traits such as mindfulness, emotional
competence, and conflict behaviours to conflict outcomes in
order to expand previous findings on these relations (Barnes
et al., 2007; Mueller and Curhan, 2006; Davis et al., 2004,
respectively).
When not properly managed, interpersonal conflicts can take a
severe toll on the disputants directly or indirectly involved, for
instance in the case of couple conflicts (Haddad et al., 2016). In
fact, divorce rates have risen in both industrialized and non-
industrial countries in the last century (Marriage and divorce
statistics, 2019), affecting the health and well-being of individuals
and causing strains on relationships not only within the couple,
but within families and social communities (Coontz, 2006).
Furthermore, research has shown that, even if recurring marital
conflicts did not lead to divorce, marital strain accelerated the
decline in health in a representative sample of adults (Umberson
et al., 2006) and that, for men and women with the lowest levels
of marital quality, exiting marriage through divorce or separation
brought a lower risk of depression than remaining married did
(Williams, 2003). In spite of the research on conflict dynamics
within romantic couples (“couple conflicts”) (Gottman and
Levenson, 1992; Driver and Gottman, 2004; Bloch et al., 2014;
Shaw, 2014), there is so far a lack of randomized controlled
studies on third-party interventions that may promote conflict
resolution. Negotiation, which can be defined as a ‘formal dis-
cussion between people who have different aims or intentions,
[…] during which they try to reach an agreement’(Collins
English Dictionary, 2020)oras‘the joint decision making
between interdependent individuals with divergent interests’
(Pruitt, 1998) is the default strategy adopted by parties involved
in most conflicts, including couples. However, negative emotions
often disturb the process of direct negotiations (Van Kleef et al.,
2004,2006; Van Kleef and Côté, 2007; Pietroni et al., 2008;
Lelieveld et al., 2012), in particular in couple conflicts (Retzinger
and Scheff, 2000).
Possible interventions consist of training people to help them
improve their emotional self-management skills (e.g., with con-
flict coaching, Brinkert, 2011; self-distancing, Kross and Ayduk,
2008; or reappraisal, Finkel et al., 2013). A particularly promising
technique that has been studied in the context of couple conflict is
emotional reappraisal training. A randomized controlled study on
the impact of emotional reappraisal training, for instance, showed
that regular 7-min reappraisal exercises about disagreements over
several months preserved self-reported marital quality (Finkel
et al., 2013).
In addition to training people in using certain self-management
techniques, the involvement of third parties, such as a marital
therapist or couple counsellor in cases of couple conflicts has
yielded positive effects on family interactions and behaviours
(Lebow et al., 2012). Indeed, it has been shown that couple
therapy positively impacted 70% of couples receiving treatment
(Lebow et al., 2012). In particular, cognitive-behavioural marital
therapy was shown to induce significant change in spouses’post-
therapy relationship-related cognitions and behaviours (Dunn
and Schwebel, 1995). However, research has also found that 30%
of couples who recovered thanks to therapy had relapsed after 2
years, and that 4 years after treatment, 38% of couples had
divorced (Williams, 2003). Gottman also estimated that ‘only
11–18% of couples maintained clinically meaningful initial gains
when treated with our best marital therapies’(Gottman, 1999,
p. 5). Furthermore, self-management training, conflict coaching,
marital therapy, and counselling approaches have so far not been
widely adopted by societies and communities. Research con-
ducted in the state of Oklahoma in the United States, for instance,
found that only 37% of divorced couples had sought counselling
before getting a divorce and only 19% of married couples had
sought counselling for their current marriage (Stanley et al.,
2001). Conflicts in couples are thus prone to relapse and escala-
tion, and parties often end up using legal proceedings to solve
them. An alternative to therapy or counselling that has not been
rigorously studied to date is mediation.
Mediation, which is ‘a negotiation facilitated by a neutral third-
party’(International Mediation Institute, 2020b), has emerged in
the last 30 years as an alternative to legal proceedings. The role of
the mediator can be ‘… to help those involved sort out their
issues and arrive at a consensus. That might involve helping
parties to finalize an agreement, resolve a dispute, develop
effective communications, build or improve relationships, or all
these things. Mediators do not take sides. Mediators are impartial’
(International Mediation Institute, 2020b). Mediation is thus a
fluid and “ad hoc”practice and mediators can adopt and combine
many styles during their interventions, such as facilitative, eva-
luative, or transformative styles (International Mediation Insti-
tute, 2020a). When using a facilitative mediation style, the
mediator uses specific processes and techniques to help parties
reach an agreement but does not make any formal recommen-
dation to them, in contrast to the evaluative style (International
Mediation Institute, 2020a). Transformative mediation has the
objective of going beyond resolving a conflict to transforming the
parties by empowering them and facilitating mutual recognition
of needs, interests, perspectives, values, and emotions (Bush and
Folger, 1984).
Previous research has shown that mediation costs generally
much less than litigation and is quicker and more effective. For
instance, one study of 343 cases in Canada showed that the
average savings of mediation compared with litigation was
around $3500 per case, with more than $10,000 in savings for
45% of cases (Hann et al., 2001). In the same study, only 3% of
3068 cases needed more than one session of a few hours to be
resolved (Hann et al., 2001). A report of the European Parliament
(European Parliament, 2011) also found that the average cost to
litigate in the European Union was €10,449, whereas the average
cost to mediate was €2497.
However, to date, when mediation is not compulsory (for
instance when using court-annexed schemes), its adoption is still
variable. Taking a country where mediation is rather mature and
well-researched such as Australia as an example, use of mediation
varies greatly depending on the type of case. On the one hand, the
2006 family law reform led to an increase in family dispute cases
referred to as the “Family Dispute Resolution”mediation services
of the Family Relationship Services Programme, from 14,500 to
22,500 yearly cases in the 4-year period after the reform (Sourdin,
2020). As there are no statistics about the total number of family
disputes in the country, this number can be compared with the
total number of divorces. With around 50,000 divorces per year,
this means that roughly one-third of cases are referred to a sort of
mediation. On the other hand, at the state level, for instance in
the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, only 3% of the
85,191 total cases lodged in 2017–2018 were listed for mediation
or ‘compulsory conference’; here the resolution rate was 55%
(Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Annual Report
2017–2018, 2018).
There may be several reasons for the relatively variable use of
mediation. The first might be that when the conflict at hand has
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
2HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

escalated (Glasl, 2013), each party sees the other as the enemy
against whom they can fight only with the help of a lawyer, in a
tribunal. The second reason might be that empirical data are
lacking on how mediation impacts the parties and helps them
resolve conflicts. One recent and extensive review of 47 studies
on the effectiveness of mediation techniques by a task force of
the American Bar Association (Wissler, 2017) could not include
a single randomized controlled study and highlighted (Wissler,
2017,p.12)that‘the complex, interactive, and iterative nature of
the mediation process makes it difficult to systematically control
how a mediator action is performed, isolate the effect of a
particular action from that of other actions, and control for
selection and other potentially confounding processes that
operate throughout mediation’. The review also concluded that
common terminology, definitions, and measures for mediator
actions and outcomes would provide more consistency in
research. Studies on the effects of mediation have indeed mostly
been carried out by comparison to legal proceedings (Brett and
Barsness, 1996;Baroughetal.,2013;Shaw,2014)withouta
proper control group (Kaiser and Gabler, 2014), using role play
instead of real conflicts (Jameson et al., 2009)orfocusingonthe
impact of the mediator’s techniques on the settlement rate by
studying or observing mediation cases (Wissler, 2017). A ran-
domized controlled study is thus needed to establish the causal
impacts of a mediator on conflicts. Couple conflicts, where high
emotions are often experienced, are an ideal domain to conduct
this research.
A consensus is emerging in the mediation community that one
of the key mediation techniques is helping parties manage their
negative emotions (Jones and Bodtker, 2001; Katz, 2007; Jameson
et al., 2009; Swaab and Brett, 2012; Wissler, 2017) since, as
mentioned earlier, negative emotions can be detrimental to the
outcomes of a negotiation. It is hard to find a unique definition of
the effectiveness of mediation and thus of the outcome variables,
but several studies (Jones and Bodtker, 1999; Jameson et al., 2009;
Finkel et al., 2013; Kaiser and Gabler, 2014; Shaw, 2014; Char-
koudian, 2016) point towards the following potential metrics that
could be measured at the end of a mediation session: the existence
or not of an agreement between parties about what was discussed,
the satisfaction of the parties with the session, their perceived
level of conflict, their level of positive affect and negative affect,
and their perceived interpersonal closeness.
From preliminary evidence of studies on couple conflicts
(Levenson and Gottman, 1983,1985; Driver and Gottman, 2004)
and mediation (Jones and Bodtker, 1999; Jameson et al., 2009;
Finkel et al., 2013; Kaiser and Gabler, 2014; Shaw, 2014), we
hypothesized that, compared with direct negotiation between
couple members, mediation should (i) reduce the level of conflict
at the end of the discussion as a sign that the couple has moved
towards a possible resolution, (ii) increase the satisfaction of the
parties regarding the contents of their discussion and the process
used in their discussion (Jones and Bodtker, 1999; Shaw, 2014),
(iii) increase the positive affect and decrease the negative affect of
the parties (Jameson et al., 2009; Shaw, 2014), and (iv) increase
interpersonal closeness, which serves as a proxy for couple
satisfaction (Finkel et al., 2013).
The impact of mediation on positive and negative affects is of
high importance. Recent reviews show that the relation between
emotions and conflict resolution is receiving increasing attention
in the context of intractable conflicts (Retzinger and Scheff, 2000;
Halperin and Gross, 2011; Halperin, 2013,2015; Halperin et al.,
2013), interpersonal and intergroup conflicts (Klimecki, 2019),
and organizational conflicts (Nair, 2008). However, few rando-
mized controlled studies have been performed on the impact of
interventions on emotions and conflict resolution, which is true
in particular for mediation.
As self-report (i.e., questionnaire) measures are prone to social
desirability (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960), they can be com-
plemented by biological and thus more implicit measures. One
way of quantifying biological measures of affective states, which
has been used in studies on interpersonal interactions (Levenson
and Gottman, 1983,1985; Levenson and Ruef, 1992; Chanel et al.,
2013) but not in studies on conflict resolution and mediation, is
affective computing. Affective computing refers to the study and
development of systems and devices that can recognize, interpret,
process, and simulate human affects. It is based on the recording
and processing of various signals (such as electrodermal activity,
cardiovascular activity, facial expressions, speech, or language)
that are indicative of affective states (for instance arousal). A
question currently debated in affective computing is whether the
linkage between the arousal states of two persons, as measured by
electrodermal activity synchrony only or by synchrony between
various physiological measures, is predictive of positive or nega-
tive outcomes in conflictual discussions. On the one hand, some
studies suggested that electrodermal activity synchrony between
participants who had no relationship prior to the experiment
(quantified by Pearson correlations) was predictive of con-
structive behaviours in a context where participants had to col-
laboratively design a slogan by brainstorming, debating, and then
negotiating ideas (Chanel et al., 2013). Furthermore, electro-
dermal activity synchrony during a discussion on a topic chosen
by friends (quantified by Pearson correlations between the change
in slopes) was correlated to emotional engagement behaviours as
observed from video recordings, for instance active listening or
attending to the other person’s emotions (Slovák et al., 2014).
Such physiological linkage could be an indicator of empathic
processes (Levenson and Ruef, 1992; Guastello et al., 2006). As
empathy has been shown to promote prosocial behaviour (Kli-
mecki, 2019), physiological linkage could be a sign of a positive
and constructive social interaction. Therefore, one could expect
physiological linkage to be linked to more successful discussions
and one may expect mediation to increase physiological linkage.
On the other hand, physiological linkage has also been related to
lower marital satisfaction. More specifically, physiological linkage
of romantic couples during a 15-min conflictual discussion (as
quantified by an index that combined skin conductance level,
heart rate, pulse transmission time to the finger, and measure-
ment of general movement) was negatively related to marital
satisfaction (Levenson and Gottman, 1983). Moreover, the rela-
tion between the physiological linkage index and marital satis-
faction was more pronounced in high-conflict situations as
opposed to low-conflict situations (Levenson and Gottman,
1983). Other research found that higher physiological linkage
during a conflictual discussion (as quantified by the physiological
linkage index mentioned earlier; Levenson and Gottman, 1983)
was related to lower self-reports of marital satisfaction in the 3
years following the experiment (Levenson and Gottman, 1985).
As emotional and therefore physiological linkage may also be
related to empathic distress, which is defined as being emotionally
overwhelmed by the other’s suffering (Hoffman, 2008) and which
has been associated with less prosocial behaviour in the past
(Klimecki, 2015), it might be that there are two different emo-
tional mechanisms of physiological linkage at play. Other
potential explanations for the seeming discrepant findings on
whether physiological linkage is related to better or worse inter-
personal relations may stem from (i) the different uses of phy-
siological linkage indices (Pearson correlations or Pearson
correlation between the change in the slopes), (ii) the difference
in settings (strangers engaged in a collaborative game vs. friends
or couples), and (iii) the differences in acquired variables (skin
conductance vs. skin conductance level plus heart rate, pulse
transmission time to the finger, and general movement). In
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

summary, since there is so far no consensus on the role of syn-
chrony between electrodermal activity signals in conflicts, more
research is needed to shed light on this topic.
In addition to physiological coupling, it has been suggested that
certain personality traits may predict the outcomes of conflict
discussion in romantic couples. One such trait is mindfulness,
which refers to ‘paying attention to the present moment in a non-
judgmental way’(Kabat-Zinn, 2009). Research has shown that
higher traits of mindfulness predicted lower levels of negative
affect after a conflictual discussion between romantic couple
members (Barnes et al., 2007). Another study has shown that
mindfulness significantly helped participants to release negative
emotions instead of dwelling on them (Brown et al., 2012). Par-
ticipation in an 8-week mindfulness training programme also
increased the support of conciliatory policies in intractable con-
flicts when compared with that in a waiting-list control group
(Alkoby et al., 2017). Moreover, it has been found that emotional
intelligence (EI), which is defined as a set of skills that contributes
to the understanding and regulation of one’s own and others’
emotions (Salovey and Mayer, 1990), positively predicted out-
come satisfaction in negotiations (Mueller and Curhan, 2006) and
that people who rated themselves high in EI also self-reported
that they used collaborative solutions more often (Jordan and
Troth, 2002). This result is complemented by the finding from
couple studies that perceiving one’s partner as having higher EI
and not avoiding discussing a relationship problem is linked to
higher relationship satisfaction (Smith et al., 2008). In addition,
couples in which both partners are low on EI tend to have high
conflict and low relationship quality (Brackett et al., 2005).
Finally, it has not yet been established whether self-reports on
preferred conflict behaviours, including constructive behaviours
(such as perspective-taking or reaching out) and destructive
behaviours (such as expressing anger or retaliating), which are
popular in organizational conflict prevention and leadership
development (Killman and Thomas, 1977; Capobianco et al.,
2008), can predict the outcomes of couple conflict.
In summary, to test the causal influence of a mediator on
couple conflict, we randomly allocated heterosexual romantic
couples to a mediated discussion or a non-mediated discussion in
the presence of a silent third party. To assess the impact of the
mediation on (i) conflict management, (ii) couple’s emotions, and
(iii) the relation between couple members, we assessed the fol-
lowing outcome variables: agreements reached, level of dis-
agreement at the end of the discussion, satisfaction with the
contents of the discussion, satisfaction with the process of the
discussion, interpersonal closeness, positive and negative emo-
tions, and physiological coupling between the couple members.
We also assessed the mediator’s satisfaction with the contents and
process and explored whether these variables were related to
participants’satisfaction. We hypothesized that (i) mediation
would have a positive impact on agreements reached, level of
disagreement at the end of the discussion, satisfaction with the
contents of the discussion, satisfaction with the process of the
discussion, interpersonal closeness, and positive and negative
emotions; (ii) mindfulness, EI, and the tendency to use con-
structive behaviours in conflictual discussions would have a
positive influence on the outcome variables listed above; and (iii)
the tendency to use destructive behaviours would have a negative
influence on the outcome variables listed above. We also hypo-
thesized that the higher the parties’satisfaction at the end of the
discussion, the higher the mediator’s satisfaction would be as a
sign of a positive dynamic of the conversation between the
mediator and the couple members. Considering that there is no
consensus on the role of synchrony between electrodermal
activity in conflicts, this study aimed at testing whether physio-
logical linkage as measured by skin conductance synchrony
would be positively or negatively related to outcomes of a conflict
discussion and how mediation would affect this measure.
Methods
Participants. Participants were recruited through the distribution
of flyers in the city (train station, markets, etc.) and on the various
university campuses, as well as through posters displayed on
campuses, advertising on Facebook and Instagram, and word of
mouth from friends. Participants were told that they were par-
ticipating in a study about communication within couples ‘to
examine the factors that influence discussions on topics of dis-
agreement among couples’. Among the participants who con-
tacted us, 74% did so in response to posters; 12% in response to
flyers; 9% in response to word of mouth from friends, family, or
colleagues; and 5% in response to advertising on social networks.
Nineteen heterosexual romantic couples (mean age =28.18 years)
participated in the control condition and 19 heterosexual
romantic couples (mean age =30.61 years) participated in the
mediation condition. This sample size was above the minimum
size of 25 dyads recommended by Kenny and colleagues for
dyadic studies (Kenny et al., 2006). Volunteers were included if
they had been in a romantic relationship for more than 1 year, if
they spoke French or English fluently, and if they were at least 18
years old. The average level of disagreement across the 15 possible
topics from the Dyadic Adjustment Scale was 3.75 for our par-
ticipants (from 0, meaning always disagree, to 5, meaning always
agree), with 3 meaning occasionally disagree and 4 meaning
frequently agree. The sum scores of the 32 items of the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale for our participants had a mean of 113.6 versus
a mean of 114.8 for 218 married couples and 70.7 for 94 divorced
couples in the original paper that presented the Dyadic Adjust-
ment Scale instrument (Spanier, 1976), suggesting that our
sample was representative of married couples. An independent t-
test revealed no difference between Dyadic Adjustment Scale
scores of participants in the mediation condition (mean =114.53)
and those of participants in the control group (mean =112.74)
(t=−0.43, p=0.67). Couples were randomly assigned to one of
the two conditions (mediation or control condition in the pre-
sence of a silent third party), and the two groups were matched
for age and length of relationship. As shown in Supplementary
Table 1, independent sample t-tests revealed that the participants
in both groups, in addition to age and the length of relationship,
did not differ on any of the pre-conflict intervention independent
variables (all t≤0.98 and all p≥0.33). These variables included
Dyadic Adjustment Scale, mindfulness, emotional competence,
and Conflict Dynamics Profile (CDP) scores (see “Measures”
section for details on the questionnaires). The mediators (seven in
total, four females and three males) were members of the same
professional mediation association (the Swiss Chamber of Com-
mercial Mediation, Section Romande) and were selected on the
basis of their common approach to mediation as a facilitative (as
opposed to evaluative) practice of conflict resolution (Riskin,
2005). Because of scheduling complexities, the mediators could
not be randomly assigned to their sessions but were allocated
according to temporal availability.
Measures. For ease of reading, the measures used in this study are
presented below in the order in which they were collected. All
phases are indicated in italic.
Trait measures collected prior to the conflict discussion: Prior to
the experiment (on average, 25 days beforehand), all volunteers
had to individually complete four online profiling questionnaires
in French or English administered with SurveyMonkey (San
Mateo, CA, USA). The objective was to (i) focus their visit to the
laboratory on the conflict discussion, (ii) uncouple trait measures
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
4HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

as much as possible from state measures, (iii) collect in advance
the topics of disagreement, and (iv) print a side-by-side
comparison of the scoring by both couple members on the
possible topics of discussion in order to help them choose the
topic for their discussion for which their level of recurring
disagreement was the highest. The four trait measures were as
follows:
(1) The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), which
measures the quality of the relationship and which was
used to identify the topic of the discussion during the
experiment. This scale uses 32 items grouped into four
subscales (Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic
Cohesion, and Affectional Expression) and the level of
disagreement on 15 recurring topics of discussion (from 1,
“always agree”,to6,“always disagree”).
(2) The profile of emotional competence (Brasseur et al., 2013),
which measures intrapersonal and interpersonal emotional
competence (with the five subscales Identification, Expres-
sion, Comprehension, Regulation, and Utilization) as a
proxy for EI. This measure uses 50 statements for which the
answer is indicated on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning
that the statement does not describe the person at all or that
they never respond like this, and 5 meaning that the
statement describes the person very well or that they
experience this particular response very often.
(3) The five-facet mindfulness questionnaire (Baer et al., 2006),
which measures the level of dispositional mindfulness. This
questionnaire uses 36 statements for which the answer is
indicated on a scale from 1 to, 5 with 1 meaning that the
statement is never or very rarely true for the person, and 5
meaning that the statement is very often or always true. The
scales are grouped into five types of behaviour: (i)
observing/noticing/attending to sensations/perceptions/
thoughts/feelings, (ii) describing/labelling with words, (iii)
acting with awareness/non-distraction, (iv) non-judging of
experience, and (v) non-reactivity to inner experience.
(4) The CDP (Capobianco et al., 2008), which measures
preferences for using four types of responses to conflicts:
active-constructive (e.g., perspective-taking), passive-
constructive (e.g., delayed responding), active-destructive
(e.g., expressing anger), and passive-destructive (e.g.,
avoiding conflicts). The CDP uses 63 statements about
the way the person usually responds before, during, and
after the occurrence of interpersonal conflicts in their life
and for which the answer can range from 1 to 5, with 1
meaning that the person never responds in that way and 5
meaning that the person almost always responds in
that way.
State measures collected in the lab prior to the discussion
included two questionnaires:
(1) The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS), a 20-
item questionnaire that measures the current levels of
positive and negative affect of the participant, listing
feelings and emotions that the person may feel in the
moment on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning that the
person feels the emotion very slightly or not at all, and 5
meaning that the person feels the emotion extremely
(Crawford and Henry, 2004).
(2) The inclusion of other in the self (IOS) scale, which
measures the degree of closeness to the other couple
member. It asks participants to circle a picture that best
describes their relationship among seven pictures made of
two circles named “Self”and “Other”, with the first picture
(no overlapping between the two circles) giving a score of 1
and the last picture (with the two circles almost completely
overlapping) giving a score of 7 (Aron et al., 1992).
During the intervention, to obtain an objective measure of
emotional arousal, we continuously recorded electrodermal
activity by means of two electrodes attached to the palm of
participants’non-dominant hand. Participants’heart rate was
continuously recorded by means of an optical sensor attached to
the index finger of each participant’s non-dominant hand.
Electrodermal activity and heart rate data were collected with
the MP36 Biopac System (Santa Barbara, CA, USA). Because of a
high degree of movement artefacts (from 30 to more than 100
per session for some participants), heart rate variability could not
be analysed accurately. All discussions were videotaped with Sony
HDR-CX455 Digital HD Video Camera Recorders (Tokyo,
Japan), with one camera per participant for the discussion
(including the mediator, when present).
After the intervention, participants again filled out the PANAS
and the IOS Scale, as well as a satisfaction questionnaire to
indicate (i) whether they had achieved an agreement on the topic
of their discussion (yes or no); (ii) the level of disagreement at the
end of their discussion on the topic that was discussed, using an
11-point scale (ranging from 0 to 10); (iii) their level of
satisfaction with the contents of their discussion; and (iv) their
level of satisfaction with the process used to conduct their
discussion. Both satisfaction with the contents and the process
were rated by using a continuous scale from 0, meaning “not at
all”, to 10, meaning “extremely”, which was converted to values
with one decimal point for analysis. More specifically, partici-
pants were asked: “To what extent are you satisfied with the
content of the discussion in which you participated?”and “To what
extent are you satisfied with the process that you used to resolve
your disagreement with your partner?”
Procedure. When participants arrived at the laboratory, they
filled out the PANAS and the IOS questionnaires. The partici-
pants were then invited to select a controversial topic for their
discussion based on the highest scores of the 15 topics of recur-
ring disagreement identified with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
questionnaire. The experimenter in the control condition or the
mediator in the mediation condition was available to assist par-
ticipants in choosing their controversial topic if the results of the
questionnaire were indecisive. In the control condition, minimal
instructions were given by the experimenter prior to the start of
the discussion and some general written guidelines were provided
to the disputants (see Supplementary Note S1). This information
guided the participants in conducting their controversial discus-
sions in a structured way without the couple asking for any
support from the experimenter. These participants were left free
to decide when they wanted to finish the session. Participants in
both conditions could take notes during their controversial dis-
cussions. After having distributed the instructions, the experi-
menter sat in a corner of the room and monitored the data
collection while remaining silent and minimizing eye contact with
the participants, who were instructed to sit facing each other at a
round table. In the mediation condition, the mediator was
instructed to sit equidistant from both participants around the
same round table and to facilitate a discussion of ~60 min, using a
process inspired from a facilitative mediation model known to the
mediators (see Supplementary Note S2). As indicated in Sup-
plementary Table 1, the duration of the interactions was balanced
across both conditions (with a mean duration of 50 min in the
mediation condition and 55 min in the control condition). At
the end of the discussion, participants were invited to fill out the
PANAS and IOS questionnaires again, as well as to answer the
satisfaction questionnaire. One couple in the control group who
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

got into a very emotional discussion did not fill out the PANAS
and satisfaction questionnaires at the end of the discussion, as we
interrupted their increasingly heated discussion in order to help
them calm down (they were referred to a mediation centre).
Furthermore, the IOS values of these couple members from
before the discussion were missing. The couple’s results were
retained in the analysis, except for the results for the IOS Scale,
the PANAS, and satisfaction with the discussion, where their data
were missing.
The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and the study protocol was approved by the ethics
committee of the Faculty of Psychology and Science Education at
the University of Geneva, Switzerland. All participants provided
written informed consent and received monetary compensation
of 20 CHF per hour for their participation, as well as a debriefing,
in which their individual profiles about their tendency to use
active-constructive, passive-constructive, active-destructive, and
passive-destructive conflict behaviours were shared with them.
The experimenter, a certified mediator himself, helped to reduce
any remaining levels of tension between the participants in the
control condition at the end of the experiment and was ready to
provide the contact information of a mediation centre for further
follow-up on the topic of disagreement, should this be needed
(which happened only once).
Statistical analysis. Questionnaire data were analysed with IBM
SPSS 25 software (Armonk, NY, USA). Pearson and Spearman
correlations were used to assess the relation between different
baseline questionnaires, as well as relations between baseline
questionnaires and outcome variables. Differences in the number
of self-reported agreements (binary variable) between the med-
iation and control group were analysed by using a chi-square test.
Regarding interval variables, the dependent variables measured
after each conflict discussion were (i) satisfaction with the con-
tents of the discussion, (ii) satisfaction with the process of the
discussion, (iii) level of disagreement, (iv) satisfaction of the
mediator with the contents of the discussion, and (v) satisfaction
of the mediator with the process of the discussion. In addition,
the following variables that were dependent on the interval level
were measured before and after the conflict discussion: (vi)
positive affect, (vii) negative affect, and (viii) interpersonal clo-
seness measured by the IOS. In line with current practices about
dyadic data analysis (Kenny et al., 2006; Ditzen et al., 2012), we
first analysed the intra-class correlation of outcome variables by
using the Pearson correlation between couple members. When
there was an independence of data between the couple members
(as indicated by a pvalue of ≥0.20 for the Pearson correlation
between the couple members), we analysed the data by using each
participant as a unit of analysis in an analysis of variance or a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). When there was
non-independence of data (as indicated by a pvalue of <0.20 for
the Pearson correlation), an actor-partner interdependence model
(APIM) was used to measure the possible impact of mutual
influence of couple members on outcome variables, while using
the condition as a co-variate. The analysis was done with
APIM_SEM (Stas et al., 2018).
To analyse the synchronicity of electrodermal activity data
between the members of each couple, we used two previously
developed methods, the first index based on the Pearson
correlation coefficient between the electrodermal activity time
series of dyadic participants (an index referred to as the Pearson
correlation) (Chanel et al., 2013) and the second index based on
the correlation between the change in the slope of the
electrodermal activity signals (referred to as correlation between
the change in slopes) (Slovák et al., 2014). Electrodermal activity
data were first analysed with Acqknowledge 4.1 (Goleta, CA,
USA) and then in MATLAB R2015b (Natick, MA, USA) and IBM
SPSS 25 (Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Correlations between questionnaires. To test whether mind-
fulness, emotional competence, active-constructive conflict
behaviours, passive-constructive conflict behaviours, passive-
destructive conflict behaviours, and active-destructive conflict
behaviours were independent between couple members, we
conducted Pearson correlations (Alferes and Kenny, 2009) that
showed that only active-destructive conflict behaviours were not
independent (p=0.12, all other p≥0.2).
To test the extent to which mindfulness, emotional compe-
tence, active-constructive conflict behaviours, passive-
constructive conflict behaviours, and active-destructive conflict
behaviours were interrelated, we conducted Pearson correlations,
since those variables were normally distributed. As shown in
Supplementary Table 2, mindfulness was positively correlated
with active-constructive conflict behaviours (r=0.23, p=0.005)
and with passive-constructive conflict behaviours (r=0.3,
p=0.001), indicating that more mindful participants had more
constructive conflict behaviours. All other correlations were not
significant (all other r≤0.19, all other p≥0.11). To test the extent
to which passive-destructive conflict behaviours and the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale score were interrelated and related to mind-
fulness and emotional competence, we used Spearman correla-
tions because those variables were not normally distributed. As
depicted in Supplementary Table 3, mindfulness was negatively
correlated with passive-destructive conflict behaviours (r
s
=
−0.32, p=0.005) and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale score was
positively correlated with the total emotional competence score
(r
s
=0.30, p=0.008). In other words, more mindful participants
had less passive-destructive conflict behaviours and more
emotionally competent participants were more satisfied with
their relationship. All other correlations were not significant (all
other r
s
≤0.015, all other p≥0.39).
To test whether gender had an impact on mindfulness,
emotional competence, dyadic adjustment, and active-construc-
tive, passive-constructive, active-destructive, and passive-
destructive conflict behaviours, we conducted independent t-tests
with gender as a factor and mindfulness, emotional competence,
dyadic adjustment, and active-constructive, passive-constructive,
active-destructive, and passive-destructive conflict behaviours as
dependent variables. These tests revealed that there were no
significant differences between gender on all these variables (all
p≥0.11).
To test the extent to which age and personality traits (Dyadic
Adjustment Scale score, mindfulness, emotional competence, and
active-constructive, passive-constructive, active-destructive, and
passive-destructive conflict behaviours) were correlated with the
outcome variables related to the conflict discussion (change in
positive affect, change in negative affect, satisfaction with the
contents of the discussion, satisfaction with the process of the
discussion, level of disagreement at the end of the discussion, and
IOS after the discussion), we conducted Spearman correlations
because all outcome variables were not normally distributed.
Regarding age, all Spearman correlations were not significant (all
r
s
≤0.09, all p≥0.45). Regarding personality traits, Spearman
correlations revealed that the preference to use active-
constructive conflict behaviours was positively related to
satisfaction with the contents of the discussion (r
s
=0.26,
p=0.005), satisfaction with the process of the discussion
(r
s
=0.27, p=0.018), and the IOS after the discussion (r
s
=0.25,
p=0.033). This result indicated that participants who reported
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
6HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

using more active-constructive conflict behaviours in general
were more satisfied with the content and process of the conflict
discussion and reported more closeness with their partner. There
was no relation between the preference to use passive-destructive
conflict behaviours and the change in negative affect. The
observed tendency (r=−0.25, p=0.03) was due to five outliers
that were more than 2 standard deviations above or below the
mean of the change in negative affect. Removing these outliers
revealed no significant correlation between passive–destructive
conflict behaviours and the change in negative affect (r
s
=−0.10,
p=0.38). The total Dyadic Adjustment Scale score, which
measured the quality of the relationship, was negatively correlated
with the level of disagreement at the end of the discussion (r
s
=
−0.26, p=0.026) and with the IOS after the discussion (r
s
=0.34,
p=0.003).
To test how age, length of relationship, and personality traits
were correlated with the IOS before the discussion (a discrete
variable), we conducted Spearman correlations. There was no
relation between age and the IOS before the discussion. The
observed tendency (r
s
=−0.25, p=0.027) was due to four
outliers that were more than 2 standard deviations below the
mean of the IOS after the discussion. Removing these outliers
revealed no significant correlation between age and the IOS
before the discussion (r
s
=−0.12, p=0.92). There was a
significant positive relation between the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
score and the IOS before the discussion (r
s
=0.34, p=0.004),
indicating that participants with higher adjustment scores
reported being closer. There was also a significant negative
relation between the active-constructive conflict behaviours and
the IOS before the discussion (r
s
=0.25, p=0.039), as well as a
significant negative relation between the active-constructive
conflict behaviours and the passive-destructive conflict beha-
viours (r
s
=−0.33, p=0.005). All other correlations were not
significant (all other r
s
≤0.09, all other p≥0.45). To test whether
gender had an impact on the outcome variables related to the
conflict discussion (change in positive affect, change in negative
affect, satisfaction with the contents of the discussion, satisfaction
with the process of the discussion, IOS after the discussion, and
level of disagreement at the end of the discussion), we conducted
independent t-tests that revealed no significant difference
between genders (all p≥0.13).
The impact of mediation on couple conflict. The main aim of
this experiment was to test the degree to which mediation can
have an impact on couple conflict as indexed by (i) agreements
obtained on the topic of discussion, (ii) satisfaction with the
contents of the discussion and satisfaction with the process of the
discussion, (iii) the level of disagreement at the end of the dis-
cussion, (iv) the change in positive affect and the change in
negative affect, and (v) the IOS after the discussion.
To assess whether couples in the mediation condition reported
more agreement on the topic of their discussion after the
discussion (binary outcome variable), we computed a chi-square
test. This analysis revealed that couples in the mediation
condition reported more agreements than did couples in the
control condition (χ2(1) =8.76,p=0.006). More specifically, 36
of 38 participants declared that they had reached an agreement in
the mediation condition, whereas 26 of 38 participants did so in
the control condition. Based on the odds ratio, the probability of
reaching an agreement was 1.39 times higher in the mediation
condition than in the control condition.
Regarding the outcome variables that were measured on an
interval level, the calculation of Pearson correlation coefficients
(Alferes and Kenny, 2009) revealed that the change in positive
affect and the change in negative affect (all p≥0.20) were
independent between couple members. However, the IOS before
and the IOS after the discussion were not independent between
couple members (p=0.010 and p=0.016, respectively).
We thus conducted a MANOVA with the dependent variables
change in positive affect and change in negative affect and the
between-group variable condition (mediation and control) to test
whether mediation had an impact on the affective state of the
participants. This analysis revealed a significant effect of
mediation on change in positive affect and change in negative
affect (F(2, 71) =3.47, p=0.036). As illustrated in Fig. 1,
independent t-tests revealed that, compared with the control
condition, mediation tended to increase positive affect
(t(71) =1.87, p=0.069) and to decrease negative affect
(t(71) =1.67, p=0.099).
To test whether interpersonal closeness was affected by
mediation versus the control condition, as well as by dyadic
adjustment scores and active-constructive conflict behaviours, we
used an APIM. With the APIM, we examined the effect of one
couple member’s IOS before the discussion on their own reports
of IOS after the discussion (i.e., the actor effect), as well as on the
partner’s reports on the IOS after the discussion (i.e., the partner
effect) (see Table 1for mean values of the IOS before and after the
discussion). The condition was included in the model as a
between-dyad covariate and treated as a binary variable. The
Dyadic Adjustment Scale and active-constructive conflict beha-
viours were included in the model as well as between-dyad
covariates. There was a significant actor effect both for women
(=0.81, p< 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.65, 0.98]) and
for men (=0.81, p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.61, 0.01]). However, the
model did not show any partner effect, condition effect, active-
constructive conflict behaviour effect, or Dyadic Adjustment Scale
effect (all p≥0.110). Removing four outliers that were more than
2 standard deviations above or below the mean of the IOS before
the discussion and the IOS after the discussion did not change the
results. As we had hypothesized that mediation would result in
more interpersonal closeness, we tested whether there was a
significant effect of condition on the IOS. We thus conducted
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Effect of experimental condition on affective states
Change in Positive Affect Change in Negative Affect
Mediation groupControl group
x
x
Fig. 1 Compared with the control condition, mediation tended to increase
positive affect and to decrease negative affect. Bars depict means and
1 standard error of the mean. xp< 0.1.
Table 1 Means and standard deviations of inclusion of other
in the self (IOS) before and after the conflict discussion for
the control and mediation conditions (from 1, very far apart,
to 7, very close).
Mean Control Mediation
IOS before 4.38 (SD =1.07) 4.39 (SD =1.02)
IOS after 4.39 (SD =1.20) 4.64 (SD =1.10)
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

pairwise t-tests that compared the IOS before and after the
discussion in the mediation and control conditions separately. As
shown in Table 1, this analysis revealed that the IOS increased
from before to after the conflict discussion for the mediation
condition (t(37) =−2.92, p=0.006) but did not change in the
control condition (t(35) =−0.94, p=0.35). Removing the out-
liers did not change these results.
Regarding satisfaction with the contents of the discussion,
satisfaction with the process of the discussion, and level of
disagreement at the end of the discussion, the calculation of
Pearson correlation coefficients (Alferes and Kenny, 2009)
revealed that these variables were not independent across couple
members (all p≤0.05). To test the impact of mediation on these
three outcome variables, we thus conducted APIM analyses by
using APIM_SEM (Stas et al., 2018). In these models, baseline
variables that correlated with the outcome variables after the
conflict discussion were used as predictor variables. Active-
constructive conflict behaviour was included as a predictor for
satisfaction with the contents of the discussion and satisfaction
with the process of the discussion, and the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale was included as a predictor for the level of disagreement at
the end of the discussion.
First, we tested the impact of mediation and active-constructive
conflict behaviours on satisfaction with the contents of the
discussion by using APIM (see Fig. 2). More specifically, this
model tested the effect of one couple member’s active-
constructive conflict behaviours on their own reports of
satisfaction with the contents of the discussion (i.e., the actor
effect), and on the partner’s satisfaction with the contents of the
discussion (i.e., the partner effect). Condition (mediation or
control) was included in the model as a between-dyad covariate
and treated as a binary variable. There was a significant actor
effect both for women (equal to 0.063, p=0.045, 95% CI [0,
0.13]) and for men (equal to 0.065, p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.03, 0.1]).
The overall actor effect was estimated to be 0.064 (p< 0.001, 95%
CI [0.03, 0.1]). There was a trend in a men-to-women partner
effect (equal to 0.05, p=0.078, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.11]) and in a
women-to-men partner effect (equal to −0.041, p=0.051, 95%
CI [−0.08, 0]). Regarding the effect of condition, women in the
mediation condition had on average a value on satisfaction with
the contents of the discussion that was 1.06 points higher than
that of women in the control condition and this difference was
statistically significant (p=0.02). Men in the mediation condition
had on average a value on satisfaction with the contents of the
discussion that was 1.08 points higher than that of men in the
control condition. This difference was also statistically significant
(p< 0.001).
To test the impact of mediation and active-constructive conflict
behaviours on satisfaction with the process of the discussion, we
used the APIM to examine the effect of one couple member’s
active-constructive conflict behaviour score on their own reports
of satisfaction with the process of the discussion (i.e., the actor
effect) and on the partner’s satisfaction with the process of the
discussion (i.e., the partner effect) (see Fig. 3). Condition
Condition
Satisfaction about
the Contents - Man
Satisfaction about
the Contents - Woman
Active-Constructive
Behaviors - Man
Active-Constructive
Behaviors - Woman
.06 *
.05
-.04
.07 ***
1.06 *
1.08 ***
-1.42
.21
-.41
.11
Fig. 2 Full APIM model: Mediation had a significant effect on satisfaction with the contents of the discussion for both genders. Higher reports of
participants on active-constructive conflict behaviours were related to higher reports of their own reports of satisfaction with the contents of the
discussion. Positive estimates are indicated with green arrows, negative estimates with red arrows. The stronger the effect, the thicker the arrow. The
double-headed arrows between “Active-Constructive Man”and “Active-Constructive Woman”,“Condition”and “Active-Constructive Man”, and
“Condition”and “Active-Constructive Woman”represent the covariance of these pairs of variables. The double-headed arrow between “Satisfaction-
Contents Woman”and “Satisfaction-Contents Man”is the residual non-independence in these outcome scores, which is represented by the covariance
between their corresponding two error terms. ***p< 0.001 and *p< 0.05.
Condition
Satisfaction about
the Process - Man
Satisfaction about
the Process - Woman
Active-Constructive
Behaviors - Man
Active-Constructive
Behaviors - Woman
.03
.05
-.02
.11 ***
1.38 *
1.11 *
-1.42
.21
-.41
.49
Fig. 3 Full APIM model: Mediation had a significant effect on satisfaction with the process of the discussion for both genders. Higher reports of men on
active-constructive conflict behaviours were related to higher reports in their own reports of satisfaction with the process of the discussion. Positive
estimates are indicated with green arrows, negative estimates with red arrows. The stronger the effect, the thicker the arrow. The double-headed arrows
between “Active-Constructive Man”and “Active-Constructive Woman”,“Condition”and “Active-Constructive Man”, and “Condition”and “Active-
Constructive Woman”represent the covariance of these pairs of variables. The double-headed arrow between “Satisfaction-Process Woman”and
“Satisfaction-Process Man”is the residual non-independence in these outcome scores, which is represented by the covariance between their
corresponding two error terms. ***p< 0.001 and *p< 0.05.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
8HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

(mediation or control) was included in the model as a between-
dyad covariate and treated as a binary variable. There was no
actor effect for women (p=0.5), but there was a significant
positive effect for men’s active-constructive conflict behaviours
on men’s satisfaction with the process of the discussion, with a
value of 0.106 (p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.15]). The overall actor
effect was equal to 0.068 and was statistically significant
(p=0.007, 95% CI [0.02, 0.12]). No partner effect was found
(all p≥0.26).
Regarding the effect of condition on satisfaction with the
contents of the discussion, women in the mediation condition
had on average a value on satisfaction with the contents of the
discussion that was 1.38 points higher than that of women in the
control condition and this difference was statistically significant
(p=0.031). Men in the mediation condition had on average a
value on satisfaction with the contents of the discussion that was
1.11 points higher than that of men in the control condition. This
difference was also statistically significant (p=0.004).
To test whether in the mediation condition the different
satisfaction outcome variables (satisfaction of the couple
members about the contents of the discussion, satisfaction of
the couple members about the process of the discussion,
satisfaction of the mediator about the contents of the discussion,
satisfaction of the mediator about the process of the discussion)
were interrelated, we conducted Spearman correlations because
all of these variables were not normally distributed. We found a
strong positive correlation between satisfaction of the couple
members with the contents of the discussion and satisfaction of
the couple members with the process of the discussion, (r
s
=0.74,
p< 0.001), as well as between satisfaction of the mediator with the
contents of the discussion and satisfaction of the mediator with
the process of the discussion (r
s
=0.65, p< 0.001). However, there
were no significant correlations between satisfaction of the couple
members with the contents or process of the discussion, on the
one hand, and satisfaction of the mediator with the contents or
process of the discussion on the other hand (all r
s
≤0.19 and p≥
0.26). We also conducted Spearman correlations to test whether
the mediators’satisfaction with the contents or process of the
discussion were related to any other outcome variable, i.e., change
in positive affect, change in negative affect, and the IOS after the
discussion. We found a positive relation between satisfaction of
the mediator with the contents or process of the discussion on the
one hand, and change in negative affect, on the other (r
s
=0.4,
p=0.013 and r
s
=0.35, p=0.033, respectively). This means that
mediators reported more satisfaction with the contents and
process in couples who reported a greater increase in negative
emotions. Removing the five outliers from the change in negative
affect did not change the results. This exploratory result should be
informed by future research, as it raises the question of the role
that negative emotions play in conflicts (i.e., is it good to openly
address and thus increase negative emotions, or should they be
reduced?).
To test the impact of mediation and the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale score on the level of disagreement at the end of the
discussion, we used the APIM to examine the effect of one couple
member’s Dyadic Adjustment Scale score on their own reports of
level of disagreement at the end of the discussion (i.e., the actor
effect) and on the partner’s level of disagreement at the end of the
discussion (i.e., the partner effect) (see Supplementary Fig. 2).
Condition (mediation or control) was included in the model as a
between-dyad covariate and treated as a binary variable. No actor
effect was found (all p≥0.258). We found a negative effect for
women’s Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores on men’s level of
disagreement at the end of the discussion, with a value of −0.057
(p=0.022, 95% CI [−0.11, −0.01]), which means that the better
the quality of the relationship reported by the women, the lower
the level of disagreement reported by the men at the end of the
discussion. We did not find any men-to-women partner effect.
The overall partner effect was equal to −0.040 and was
statistically significant (p=0.014, 95% CI [−0.07, −0.01]). No
effect of condition on the level of disagreement at the end of the
discussion was detected for women or men (all p≥0.22).
Synchronicity of skin conductance response. Previous studies
(Levenson and Gottman, 1983,1985) have shown a negative
correlation between the average score of two questionnaire-based
measures of the general level of marital satisfaction (Locke and
Wallace, 1959; Burgess et al., 1971) (i.e., unrelated to a conflict
discussion) and a physiological linkage index that combines skin
conductance level, heart rate, pulse transmission time to the
finger, and general somatic activity (an electromechanical trans-
ducer attached to the platform under each subject’s chair detected
its movements) measured during a 15-min discussion between
the couple members on a topic of recurring conflict (Levenson
and Gottman, 1983). In our study, we thus assessed whether
synchronicity of the electrodermal response (EDR, the index of
physiological linkage available in the current experiment) was
related to the Dyadic Adjustment Scale score, which measures the
quality of the relationship by using four subscales (Dyadic Con-
sensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Cohesion, and Affectional
Expression). Since the Pearson correlation of EDR and correlation
between the change in slopes of EDR were not normally dis-
tributed, we conducted Spearman correlations. In contrast to
previous work, a Spearman correlation of the data in the present
study revealed a positive relation between the correlation between
the change in slopes of EDR and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(r
s
=0.26, p=0.022). Similarly, a Spearman correlation revealed
a positive relation between the Pearson correlation of EDR and the
Dyadic Satisfaction subscale only (r
s
=0.27, p< 0.001, all other
p≥0.3). Moreover, we found a positive relation between the
Pearson correlation of EDR and the closeness of the couple
members, as measured by the IOS before the discussion
(r
s
=0.28, p=0.015) and a trend for a positive relation with the
IOS after the discussion (r
s
=0.22, p=0.053). Removing the
outliers from the IOS before and after the discussion did not
change the results. We did not find any correlation between the
correlation between the change in slopes of EDR and the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale or the IOS after the discussion (all r
s
≤0.15,
p≥0.18).
As mentioned earlier, other studies (Chanel et al., 2013; Slovák
et al., 2014) showed that electrodermal activity synchrony
(quantified by Pearson correlations) between participants who
had no relationship prior to the experiment was predictive of good
collaborative behaviours and that electrodermal activity synchrony
(quantified by Pearson correlations between the change in slopes)
during a discussion of choice between friends was positively
correlated to emotional engagement behaviours, as observed from
video recordings. However, another study showed that a
physiological linkage index was not correlated with the self-
rating of affect of participants during a video-recall session
(Levenson and Gottman, 1983). In our study, we found a tendency
for a negative relation between the Pearson correlation of EDR and
the change in positive affect (r
s
=−0.22, p=0.059), suggesting
that the higher the physiological linkage, the lower the increase in
positive affect, but no relation between the correlation between the
change in slopes of EDR of the electrodermal responses and the
change in positive affect (r
s
=0.05, p=0.66). Regarding the
collaborative behaviours, no correlation was found between
the correlation between the change in slopes of EDR or between
the Pearson correlation of EDR and the active-constructive,
passive-constructive, active-destructive, or passive-destructive
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

conflict behaviours scores (all r
s
≤0.10, all p≥0.25). We also
found no correlation between the correlation between the change
in slopes of the electrodermal responses or between the Pearson
correlation of EDR and the outcome variables change in negative
affect, satisfaction with the contents of the discussion, satisfaction
with the process of the discussion, and level of disagreement at the
end of the discussion (all r
s
≤0.19, all p≥0.1).
As the present data suggest that electrodermal synchronicity is
related to more satisfaction and closeness in romantic relation-
ships, we also tested whether mediation as opposed to the control
condition had an impact on electrodermal activity synchrony
between participants. We conducted a MANOVA with condition
(mediation or control) as a between-subject variable and the
Pearson correlation and correlation between the change in slopes
as dependent variables. There was no significant effect of
condition on physiological synchrony (V=0.05, F(2, 73) =1.98,
p=0.15).
Discussion
Mediation helps to reduce couple conflict. To test the causal
impact of mediation on conflicts in romantic couples, we con-
ducted a study in which 38 couples were randomly assigned to
discuss a topic of recurrent disagreement, either with or without
the assistance of a mediator and always in the presence of a silent
third party. The present results show that in a conflict discussion
in romantic couples, mediation, but not simple negotiation,
increased satisfaction with the contents and process of the dis-
cussion. Moreover, there were more agreements in mediated
couple conflicts than in non-mediated couple conflicts (36 par-
ticipants declared that they had reached an agreement in the
mediation condition, whereas 26 of 36 participants did so in the
control condition). Furthermore, compared with negotiation,
mediation tended to decrease negative affect and increase positive
affect. By showing for the first time the causal effects of mediation
on couple conflict, the present results extend previous research
and validate mediation as an important tool for resolving dis-
putes. More specifically, we tested the impact of mediation in a
real conflict rather than as a staged conflict (Jameson et al., 2009),
with a longer duration of the interactions than in previously
existing research (Levenson and Gottman, 1985; Driver and
Gottman, 2004; Slovák et al., 2014). We also randomly assigned
romantic couples to mediation, whereas previous studies used
non-random assignments (Jameson et al., 2009), and compared
mediation to direct negotiation, as opposed to comparing it to
litigation (Shaw, 2014) or arbitration (Brett and Barsness, 1996;
Barough et al., 2013).
Firstly, the most interesting result of our study concerns the
significant and positive impact of mediation on satisfaction with
the contents and process of the discussion. Combined with the
tendency of mediation to increase positive affect and decrease
negative affect, this result shows that the use of mediation
improves the quality of the discussion between couple members,
which makes mediation an appealing and emotionally rewarding
conflict resolution process for potential parties, regardless of the
outcome. It may be interesting to further study whether this
impact on satisfaction can create a virtuous circle: if a person is
more satisfied about what they discussed and how they discussed
it during a mediation session, will they be more eager to have
additional sessions or to use mediation again in another
situation? Secondly, the positive actor effect of active-
constructive conflict behaviours on satisfaction with the contents
and process of the discussion and the tendency of a positive
partner effect of active-constructive conflict behaviours on
satisfaction with the contents show that couple members who
are able to display these behaviours will have a discussion of
better quality and may influence each other positively. This effect
is reinforced by the fact that the tendency to use active-
destructive conflict behaviours such as expressing anger and
retaliating is not independent between couple members, which
suggests that couple members who adopt such behaviours
influence each other negatively. Given the beneficial impact of
active-constructive conflict behaviours and the negative impact of
active-destructive conflict behaviours, it may be worthwhile to
test whether these active-constructive conflict behaviours can be
taught in intervention studies.
Regarding the impact of mediation on the perception of
closeness between couple members as measured by the IOS, the
results of our study are not conclusive but may suggest that
mediation could improve interpersonal closeness. Further
research is needed to validate this hypothesis.
Regarding the last outcome variable, the level of disagreement
at the end of the discussion, we also found no effect of mediation.
Further studies are needed to better understand this absence of
effect in comparison with the other outcome variables.
Emotional competence is related to higher relationship quality
and mindfulness is related to more active-constructive and
passive-constructive conflict behaviours. In addition, the pre-
sent study revealed that the self-reported EI, measured by the
total Profile of Emotional Competence score (Brasseur et al.,
2013), was positively related to relationship quality as measured
by the total Dyadic Adjustment Scale score. This confirms pre-
vious research, which showed that participants with higher EI
scores had higher scores of close and affectionate relationships
(Schutte et al., 2001). However, we found that, contrary to pre-
vious results (Barnes et al., 2007; Wachs and Cordova, 2007;
Forster, 2017) the total Dyadic Adjustment Scale score was not
correlated with the total mindfulness score. This discrepancy
might be related to the use of a different measure of mindfulness,
namely the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Brown and Ryan,
2003), in previous studies (Barnes et al., 2007; Wachs and Cor-
dova, 2007; Forster, 2017). Further studies are needed to better
understand the relation between mindfulness and the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale score.
We also found that the higher the dispositional mindfulness,
the higher the preference to use active-constructive conflict
behaviours (perspective-taking, creating options, expressing
emotions) and passive-constructive conflict behaviours (reflective
thinking, delay responding, and adapting). This is consistent with
a previous study that showed that higher levels of self-compassion
are correlated with an attitude of compromise in conflict
situations (Yarnell and Neff, 2013). It will be interesting in future
studies to further investigate the relationships identified between
EI and the quality of the couple relationship on one the hand, and
mindfulness and conflict behaviours on the other.
Synchrony in electrodermal activity is related to closeness and
change in positive affect. For the two electrodermal activity
synchrony indices, we could not identify any impact of media-
tion. However, we could identify a positive relation between one
of our two physiological indices, the Pearson correlation of EDR,
and the IOS before the discussion. We also found a tendency for a
positive relation between the same Pearson correlation of EDR
and the IOS after the discussion. We did not find any relation
between our second index, the correlation between the change in
slopes of EDR and the IOS before or after the discussion. In
further research, it would be interesting to explore what might
influence this relation positively or negatively. We could also
identify a tendency for a negative relation between the Pearson
correlation of EDR and change in positive affect. A previous study
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
10 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

about the relation between the physiological linkage of couple
members and its affect in the context of a conflictual discussion
(Levenson and Gottman, 1983) showed that the physiological
linkage of couple members was not correlated to the continuous
self-rating of affect by participants during video recall. The self-
rating was done during the recall by moving a dial between 0,
meaning “very negative”, to 9, meaning “very positive”. However,
such self-rating of affect is not similar to the change between the
pre-test and post-test self-rating of affect that we used. Further
research should be conducted to better understand the relation-
ship between physiological linkage and the closeness of the couple
members on the one hand, and positive affect on the other. In
particular, it could be interesting to extend our methods and, as
done previously (Levenson and Gottman, 1983), study the rela-
tionship between continuous self-rating of video recall and phy-
siological indices.
We found that the correlation between the change in slopes of
EDR was positively related to the total score on the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale and that the Pearson correlation was also
positively related to the Dyadic Satisfaction subscale. These results
are inconsistent with data obtained in previous research (Levenson
and Gottman, 1983), which showed that the physiological linkage
of couple members was negatively related to marital satisfaction.
Our data support the view that physiological linkage is a sign of a
positive and constructive social interaction in general (Chanel
et al., 2013; Slovák et al., 2014), as physiological linkage was
related to more interpersonal closeness before the conflict and had
a tendency to also be related to more interpersonal closeness after
the conflict. There were no differences in electrodermal activity
synchrony between the mediated and non-mediated condition.
Furthermore, there were no overall effects of conflict on
electrodermal activity synchrony. The present data thus suggest
that electrodermal activity synchrony may not be the best
biological marker of arousal states in couple conflicts. Notably,
our study used electrodermal activity only to identify the level of
physiological linkage, whereas previous studies also included the
synchrony of the heartbeat or of facial expressions (Levenson and
Gottman, 1983; Slovák et al., 2014). In future studies, a worthwhile
endeavour may be to include not only heartbeat or facial
expressions in the calculation of physiological linkage indices,
but also brain responses to seeing one’s romantic partner (Rafi
et al., 2020). It may also be useful to apply other methods
presented in recent studies, such as non-linear models or temporal
interpersonal emotion systems (Guastello et al., 2006 and Butler,
2011, respectively). Examining the effect of empathy could be of
value, since several studies (Levenson and Ruef, 1992; Guastello
et al., 2006; Marci et al., 2007; Soto and Levenson, 2009) have
shown that physiological linkage is related to higher empathy.
Moreover, it may be interesting to study the influence of stress
levels of couple members by measuring cortisol levels (Ditzen
et al., 2009,2011,2012; Saxbe and Repetti, 2010; Laurent et al.,
2013). Notably, in our study, the average duration of the
discussions in both conditions was significantly longer than that
in previous research (Levenson and Gottman, 1983) (around
50 min compared with 15 min), which could explain the difference
in physiological linkage results between our results and those from
previous research (Levenson and Gottman, 1983). Furthermore,
our findings may be limited by artefacts because of the movements
of the participants and the fact that we calculated indices of
physiological linkage on a complete discussion, whereas it is
possible that some linkage may exist during highly empathic
phases of the discussion and not during others.
Mediation is an efficient tool for dispute resolution.By
showing the benefits of mediation on couple conflicts in a
randomized controlled trial, the present results suggest that the
use of mediation should be reinforced as a form of cost-efficient
dispute management. In other words, the present findings can
increase the incentive for policy makers, judges, legal systems, and
parties in conflict to support or engage in mediation. Future work
is needed to establish which forms of dispute resolution (e.g.,
couple therapy, counselling (Gottman, 1999), conflict coaching
(Brinkert, 2016), self-distancing training (Kross and Ayduk,
2008), third-party perspective training (Finkel et al., 2013), or
compassion training (Klimecki, 2019)) are most efficient in par-
ticular conflict settings (e.g., interpersonal or intergroup conflicts,
phases of low or high conflict; Klimecki, 2019).
Helping users make better informed decisions when choosing a
form of dispute resolution. Beyond showing the beneficial
impact of mediation on couple conflict, our results further suggest
that a protocol can be used to compare the effectiveness of var-
ious forms of dispute resolution by measuring the following five
variables: (i) agreements obtained on the topic of discussion, (ii)
satisfaction with the contents of the discussion and satisfaction
with the process of the discussion, (iii) level of disagreement at
the end of the discussion, (iv) change in positive affect and change
in negative affect, and (v) IOS after the discussion. Extending the
use of such a protocol could contribute to the emergence of sci-
entifically valid standards of practice that would help users make
more informed decisions when choosing the form of dispute
prevention or resolution intervention that is best suited to their
situation, e.g., the nature and degree of their conflict and their
personality traits. These forms of dispute prevention or inter-
vention could include, beyond simple negotiation or legal pro-
ceedings, mediation, as well as self-distancing training (Kross and
Ayduk, 2008), third-party perspective training (Finkel et al.,
2013), compassion training (Klimecki, 2019), therapy or coun-
selling (Gottman, 1999), or conflict coaching (Brinkert, 2016).
Limitations and ideas for future study. Although this study
shows the beneficial effect of mediation on couple conflict and
thus has important implications for conflict resolution, it also has
some limitations. For the control condition, we chose to have a
silent-third party in the room, in order to test as conservatively as
possible whether the mere presence of another person made a
difference or whether it was actually the intervention of the
mediator per se. In addition, our aim was to provide couples with
an environment where a trained mediator could intervene, should
the conflict get too heated. This happened in one case, where the
silent mediator had to stop the discussion and proceed with a
mediation. Furthermore, couples in the control condition were
provided with instructions that may have helped them to have a
more effective conversation. Although our control condition thus
does not represent couples’discussions as they most likely hap-
pen at home, our conditions allow to test the impact of a med-
iator in a very rigorous and conservative way that controls for the
presence of a third party and for the instructions given to
structure the session. The instructions in the control condition
were given to participants and were minimal in order to keep the
conversation as natural as possible (see Supplementary Note 1).
The instructions in the mediation condition were given to the
mediator (see Supplementary Note 2).
On average, the mediated discussions were probably not
sufficiently long for the mediation to be transformative (Folger
and Bush, 1996) and to have more impact on the level of
disagreement at the end of the discussion and on the IOS. In
practice, it is common to resolve couple conflicts in several
mediation sessions (Folger and Bush, 1996) and to openly discuss
emotions during these sessions to achieve a sustainable resolution
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 11
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

of the conflict at hand, which we did not specifically instruct our
participants to do in either of the two conditions (Folger and
Bush, 1996; Bodtker and Jameson, 2001; Jameson et al. 2009). In
future research, it will be interesting to study longer interventions
over multiple sessions and to examine in more detail the
psychological mechanisms of mediation. More specifically, future
studies that investigate the dynamic interplay between emotional
expressions, body language, and a mediator’s speech and the
involved parties could explore which interventions of a mediator
are most beneficial for promoting conflict resolution. Moreover, it
may be of interest to test the psychological mechanisms (such as
self-distancing, emotion regulation, perspective taking, changes in
social emotions) through which the beneficial impact of
mediation is achieved, as well as the impact of the different
styles of mediation (facilitative, evaluative, transformative), the
impact of longer mediations, and the situations in which different
types of conflict interventions work best (e.g., Klimecki, 2019).
One of the most important questions for future research will be to
test the impact of mediation in couples with very high levels of
conflict. Another promising avenue would be to study how
training that is focused on developing the ability to use active-
constructive and passive-constructive conflict behaviours could
influence the outcomes of conflict resolution sessions, as
measured with the outcome variables used in our research. We
did not find any correlation between satisfaction with the
contents and the process of the couple members, and satisfaction
with the contents and the process of the mediators; further study
is needed to understand this absence of correlation.
Mediation tended to increase positive affect and decrease
negative affect of the couple members. Further analysis of the
audio and video recordings of the discussions could investigate
how the mediators’behaviors influence the dynamics of the
discussion. Further longitudinal research could also show whether
this tendency to improve positive and negative affect is
sustainable and whether it positively conditions the couple
members to have less conflictual discussions in the hours or days
following the mediation session.
Further longitudinal research could also test how long the
impact of mediation on the existence of an agreement at the end
of the discussion (measured by “yes”or “no”) lasts and whether a
follow-up mediation session could further improve the perception
of an agreement.
Considering that there was an actor and partner effect of
active-constructive conflict behaviours on satisfaction with the
contents of the discussion, a valuable approach may be to test
whether people who have been trained, prior to a mediation
session, to use constructive behaviours when discussing difficult
topics, such as perspective-taking and expressing emotions,
achieve better outcomes than a control group does and how
those people mutually influence each other depending on the
behaviour that they display.
More research is needed to evaluate the impact of mediation
on psychological linkage and whether and how this linkage can
inform the parties in mediation, and the mediator, about the
progress of the discussion towards a positively viewed outcome.
Additional research is also needed to evaluate the impact of
different styles and forms of mediation interventions (e.g.,
facilitative as opposed to transformative), as well as the impact
of mediation on the five outcome variables at the different
phases of a conflict resolution session. Of particular interest will
be to further study the relation between the mediator’s
evaluations and the participants’evaluations, since, for
example, the satisfaction of the mediator and that of the
participants were not correlated. Furthermore, we found that
the higher the increase in negative affect of the parties, the higher
the satisfaction of the mediator, which is counterintuitive, but may
point to the importance of addressing negative emotions in
conflicts.
In addition to the collection of skin conductance data, the
discussions of the participants were videotaped. The emotional
expressions (face, speech, gestures) from these videos are
currently being analysed with automated software and elaborate
manual coding by using the specific affect coding system (Coan
and Gottman, 2007). This could be extended further by studying
how the availability of real-time predictive data about the
emotional arousal of the parties might help reach better
outcomes. Future studies with randomized assignments to
intervention groups and real conflicts should test how far the
beneficial effects of mediation and other forms of dispute
resolution can be extended to other conflict settings, such as
business conflicts, workplace conflicts, intergroup conflicts, and
intractable international conflicts by using the protocol of the
present study.
Conclusion
The present data suggest that, compared with negotiation, med-
iation is a powerful intervention strategy for conflict resolution in
romantic couples and has a positive impact on satisfaction with
the contents and process of the discussion and the probability of
reaching an agreement. Our data also show promising effects of
mediation on positive and negative affects. Although this study
focused on mediation in romantic couples, its results could also
be of interest for disputes in the workplace or business conflicts.
Data availability
The datasets analysed during the current study are available in the
Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SVXIPH. The
data sets generated and/or analysed in the current study are
available from the corresponding author (F.B.) on request.
Code availability
The code generated and/or analysed in the current study are
available from the corresponding author (F.B.) on request.
Received: 29 February 2020; Accepted: 15 September 2020;
References
Alferes VR, Kenny DA (2009) SPSS programs for the measurement of non-
independence in standard dyadic designs. Behav Res Methods 41(1):47–54.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.47
Alkoby A et al. (2017) Increased support for political compromise in the
Israeli–Palestinian conflict following an 8-week mindfulness workshop.
Mindfulness 8(5):1345–1353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0710-5
Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D (1992) Inclusion of Other in the Self scale and the
structure of interpersonal closeness. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:596
Baer RA et al. (2006) Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of
mindfulness. Assessment 13:27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504
Barnes S et al. (2007) The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction
and responses to relationship stress. J Marital Fam Ther 33(4):482–500.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00033.x
Barough AS, Shoubi MV, Preece CN (2013) Evaluating the effectiveness of med-
iation and arbitration processes in resolving disputes in the Malaysian con-
struction industry. Int J Civ Eng 2(1):21–28
Bloch L, Haase CM, Levenson RW (2014) Emotion regulation predicts marital
satisfaction : more than a wives’tale. Emotion 14(1):130–144. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0034272
Bodtker AM, Jameson JK (2001) Emotion in conflict formation and its transfor-
mation: application to organizational conflict management. Int J Confl
Manag 12(3):259–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022858
Brackett MA, Warner RM, Bosco JS (2005) Emotional intelligence and relationship
quality among couples. Pers Relatsh 12(2):197–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1350-4126.2005.00111.x
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
12 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Brasseur S et al. (2013) The profile of emotional competence (PEC): development
and validation of a self-reported measure that fits dimensions of emotional
competence theory. PLoS ONE 8(5):e62635. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0062635
Brett JM, Barsness ZL (1996) The effectiveness of mediation : an independent
analysis of cases handled by four major service providers. Negot J 152
(12):259–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02187632
Brinkert R (2011) Conflict coaching training for nurse managers: a case study of a
two-hospital health system. J Nurs Manag 19(1):80–91. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01133.x
Brinkert R (2016) State of knowledge: conflict coaching theory, application, and
research. ConflResolut Q 33(4):383–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21162
Brown KW, Goodman RJ, Inzlicht M (2012) Dispositional mindfulness and the
attenuation of neural responses to emotional stimuli. Soc Cogn Affect Neu-
rosci 8:93–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss004
Brown KW, Ryan RM (2003) The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its
role in psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 84(4):822–848. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Burgess EW, Locke HJ, Thomes MM (1971) The family. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York
Bush RAB, Folger JP (1984) The promise of mediation: the transformative
approach to conflict. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Butler EA (2011) Temporal interpersonal emotion systems: the ‘TIES’that form
relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 15(4):367–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1088868311411164
Capobianco S, Davis MH, Kraus LA (2008) Conflict dynamics profile technical
guide. Eckerd College, St Petersburg, Florida
Chanel G et al. (2013) Assessment of computer-supported collaborative processes
using interpersonal physiological and eye-movement coupling. In 2013 Hum
Assoc Conf Affect Comput Intell Interact. IEEE: Geneva, Switzerland
116–122. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2013.26
Charkoudian L (2016) What works in district court day of trial mediation: effec-
tiveness of various mediation strategies on short-and long-term outcomes.
Administrative Office of the Courts, Maryland Judiciary, Annapolis
Coan JA, Gottman JM (2007) The specific affect (SPAFF) coding system. Hand-
book of emotional elicitation assessment. Oxford University Press
Collins English Dictionary (2020) Definition of ‘negotiation’. Collins English Dic-
tionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/negotiation. Acces-
sed 13 May 2020
Coontz S (2006) The origins of modern divorce. Fam Process 46:7–16. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781118659991
Crawford JR, Henry JD (2004) The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS):
construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large
non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 43(Part 3):245–265. https://doi.org/
10.1348/0144665031752934
Crowne DP, Marlowe D (1960) A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. J Consult Psychol 24(4):349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0047358
Davis MH, Capobianco S, Kraus LA (2004) Measuring conflict-related behaviors:
reliability and validity evidence regarding the Conflict Dynamics Profile. Educ
Psychol Meas 64(4):707–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404263878
Ditzen B et al. (2009) Intranasal oxytocin increases positive communication and
reduces cortisol levels during couple conflict. Biol Psychiatry 65(9):728–731.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.10.011
Ditzen B et al. (2011) Assisting couples to develop healthy relationships: effects of
couples relationship education on cortisol. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36
(5):597–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.07.019
Ditzen B et al. (2012) Sex-specific effects of intranasal oxytocin on autonomic
nervous system and emotional responses to couple conflict. Soc Cogn Affect
Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss083
Driver JL, Gottman JM (2004) Daily marital interactions and positive affect during
marital conflict among newlywed couples. Fam Process 43(3):301–315
Dunn RL, Schwebel AI (1995) Meta-analytic review of marital therapy outcome
research. J Fam Psychol 9(1):58–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.9.1.58
European Parliament (2011) Quantifying the cost of not using mediation-a data
analysis. European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium
Finkel EJ et al. (2013) A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves
marital quality over time. Psychol Sci 24(8):1595–1601. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0956797612474938
Folger JP, Bush RAB (1996) Transformative mediation and third-party interven-
tion: ten hallmarks of a transformative approach to practice. Mediat Q 13
(4):263–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900130403
Forster PM (2017) Mindfulness and the quality of romantic relationships: is it all
about well-being? Open J Soc Sci 5(5):59–63. https://doi.org/10.4236/
jss.2017.55005
Glasl F (2013) The process of conflict escalation and role of third-parties. In:
Bomers GBJ, Peterson RB (eds) ConflManag Ind Relations. Springer Science
& Business Media, pp. 119–140
Gottman JM (1999) The marriage clinic: a scientifically based marital therapy.
Norton Professional Books, New York
Gottman JM, Levenson RW (1992) Marital processes predictive of later dissolution:
behavior, physiology, and health. J Pers Soc Psychol 63(2):221–233. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221
Guastello SJ, Pincus D, Gunderson PR (2006) Electrodermal arousal between
participants in a conversation: nonlinear dynamics and linkage effects.
Nonlinear Dyn Psychol Life Sci 10(3):365–99
Haddad L, Phillips KD, Bone MJ (2016) High-conflict divorce: a review of the
literature. Am J Fam Law 29(4):243–258
Halperin E et al. (2013) Can emotion regulation change political attitudes in
intractable conflicts? From the laboratory to the field. Psychol Sci. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956797612452572.
Halperin E (2013) Emotion, emotion regulation, and conflict resolution. Emot Rev
6:68–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913491844
Halperin E (2015) Emotions in conflict: inhibitors and facilitators of peace making.
Routledge, Oxford
Halperin E, Gross JJ (2011) Emotion regulation in violent conflict: reappraisal,
hope, and support for humanitarian aid to the opponent in wartime. Cogn
Emot 25(7):1228–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.536081
Hann RG et al. (2001) Evaluation of the Ontario mandatory mediation program
final report—the first 23 months. Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, Ontario, http://
www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/1000/10294962.pdf
Hoffman ML (2008) Empathy and prosocial behavior. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones
JM, Feldman. In: Barrett L (eds) Handbook of Emotions. The Guilford Press,
New York, pp. 440–455
International Mediation Institute (2020a) Styles of mediation. https://www.
imimediation.org/resources/background/styles-of-mediation/. Accessed 13
May 2020
International Mediation Institute (2020b) What is mediation? https://www.
imimediation.org/resources/background/what-is-mediation/. Accessed 13
May 2020
Jameson JK et al. (2009) Exploring the role of emotion in conflict transformation.
ConflResolut Q 27(2):167–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.254
Jones TS, Bodtker A (1999) Agreement, maintenance, satisfaction and relitigation
in mediated and non-mediated custody cases: a research note. J Divorce
Remarriage 32(1/2):17. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v32n01_02
Jones TS, Bodtker A (2001) Mediating with heart in mind: addressing emotion in
mediation practice. Negot J 17(3):217–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1013283710190
Jordan PJ, Troth AC (2002) Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution:
implications for human resource development. Adv Dev Hum Resour 4
(1):62–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302004001005
Kabat-Zinn J (2009) Wherever you go, there you are: mindfulness meditation in
everyday life. Hachette Books, New York, 10.1016/0005-7967(95)90133-7
Kaiser P, Gabler AM (2014) Prozessqualität und langzeit effekte in der mediation.
Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement 6:180–184
Katz E (2007) A family therapy perspective on mediation. Fam Process 46
(1):93–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00194.x
Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL (2006) Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press,
New York
Killman RH, Thomas KW (1977) Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument.
Xicom: Sterling Forest, New York
Van Kleef G, De Dreu C, Manstead A (2006) Supplication and appeasement in
conflict and negotiation: the interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry,
guilt, and regret. J Pers Soc Psychol 91(1):124–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.91.1.124
Van Kleef G, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR (2004) The interpersonal effects of
emotions in negotiations: a motivated information processing approach. J
Pers Soc Psychol 87(4):510–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.510
Van Kleef GA, Côté S (2007) Expressing anger in conflict: when it helps and when
it hurts. J Appl Psychol 92(6):1557–1569. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.6.1557
Klimecki OM (2015) The plasticity of social emotions. Soc Neurosci 10:466–473.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1087427
Klimecki OM (2019) The role of empathy and compassion in conflict resolution.
Emot Rev 11(4):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919838609
Kross E, Ayduk O (2008) Facilitating adaptive emotional analysis: distinguishing
distanced-analysis of depressive experiences from immersed-analysis and
distraction. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34(7):924. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167208315938
Laurent H et al. (2013) Sex-specific effects of mindfulness on romantic partners’
cortisol responses to conflict and relations with psychological adjustment.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 38(12):2905–2913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psyneuen.2013.07.018
Lebow JL et al. (2012) Research on the treatment of couple distress. J Marital Fam
Ther 38(1):145–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00249.x
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8 13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Lelieveld G-J et al. (2012) Why anger and disappointment affect other’s bargaining
behavior differently: the moderating role of power and the mediating role of
reciprocal and complementary emotions. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 38
(9):1209–1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212446938
Levenson RW, Gottman JM (1983) Marital interaction: physiological linkage and
affective exchange. J Pers Soc Psychol 45(3):587–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.45.3.587
Levenson RW, Gottman JM (1985) Physiological and affective predictors of change
in relationship satisfaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 49:85–94. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.85
Levenson RW, Ruef AM (1992) Empathy: a physiological substrate. J Pers Soc
Psychol 63(2):234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.234
Locke HJ, Wallace KM (1959) Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: their
reliability and validity. Marriage Fam Living 21(3):251–255. https://doi.org/
10.2307/348022
Marci CD et al. (2007) Physiologic correlates of perceived therapist empathy and
social-emotional process during psychotherapy. J Nerv Ment Dis 195
(2):103–111. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000253731.71025.fc
Marriage and divorce statistics (2019) Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php/Marriage_and_divorce_statistics. Accessed 17
May 2020
Mueller JS, Curhan JR (2006) Emotional intelligence and counterpart mood
induction in a negotiation. Int J ConflManag 17(2):110–128. https://doi.org/
10.1108/10444060610736602
Nair N (2008) Towards understanding the role of emotions in conflict: a review
and future directions. Int J ConflManag 19(4):359–381. https://doi.org/
10.1108/10444060810909301
Pietroni D et al. (2008) Emotions as strategic information: effects of other’s
emotional expressions on fixed-pie perception, demands, and integrative
behavior in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 44(6):1444–1454. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.007
Pruitt DG (1998) Social conflict. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (eds) Hand-
book of social psychology, 4th edn. McGraw Hill, New York, pp. 470–503
RafiH et al. (2020) Impact of couple conflict and mediation on how romantic
partners are seen. Cortex 130:302–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cortex.2020.04.036
Retzinger S, Scheff T (2000) Emotion, alienation and narratives: resolving
intractable conflict. Mediat Q 18:71–85
Riskin LI (2005) Replacing the mediator orientation grids, again: the new new grid
system. Altern High Cost Litig 23(8):127–132
Salovey P, Mayer JD (1990) Emotional intelligence and its relationship to other
intelligences. Imagin Cogn Pers 9(3):185–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.50.2.421
Saxbe D, Repetti RL (2010) For better or worse? Coregulation of couples’cortisol
levels and mood states. J Pers Soc Psychol 98(1):92–103. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0016959
Schutte NS et al. (2001) Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. J Soc
Psychol 141(4):523–536
Shaw LA (2014) Divorce mediation outcome research: a meta-analysis. Confl
Resolut Q 27(4):447–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq
Slovák P et al. (2014) Exploring skin conductance synchronisation in everyday
interactions. In Proc 8th Nord Conf Human-Computer Interact Fun, Fast,
Found. ACM 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2639206
Smith L, Heaven PCL, Ciarrochi J (2008) Trait emotional intelligence, conflict
communication patterns, and relationship satisfaction. Pers Individ Dif 44
(6):1314–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.024
Soto JA, Levenson RW (2009) Emotion recognition across cultures: the influence of
ethnicity on empathic accuracy and physiological linkage. Emotion 9
(6):874–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017399
Sourdin T (2020) Mediation. In: Alternative dispute resolution, 6th edn. Thomson-
Reuters, Sydney, pp. 77–120
Spanier GB (1976) Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the
quality of marriage and similar dyads. J Marriage Fam 38(1):15–28. https://
doi.org/10.2307/350547
Stanley SM et al. (2001) Marriage in Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, Oklahoma
Stas L et al. (2018) Giving dyadic data analysis away: a user-friendly app for
actor–partner interdependence models. Pers Relatsh 25(1):103–119. https://
doi.org/10.1111/pere.12230
Swaab R, Brett JM (2012) Managing emotions in employment disputes. INSEAD,
Kellogg School of Management, Fontainebleau, France
Umberson D et al. (2006) You make me sick: marital quality and health over the
life course. J Health Soc Behav 47(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002214650604700101
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Annual Report 2017–2018 (2018).
Wachs K, Cordova JV (2007) Mindful relating: exploring mindfulness and emotion
repertoires in intimate relationships. J Marital Fam Ther 33(4):464–481.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00032.x
Williams K (2003) Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporary exam-
ination of gender, marriage, and psychological well-being. J Health Soc Behav
44(4):470–487. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519794
Wissler RL (2017) Resolution report of the task force on research on mediator
techniques. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/
content/dam/aba/administrative/dispute_resolution/
med_techniques_tf_report.authcheckdam.pdf.
Yarnell LM, Neff KD (2013) Self-compassion, interpersonal conflict resolutions,
and well-being. Self Identity 12(2):146–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15298868.2011.649545
Acknowledgements
We thank Aleksander Sobolewski and his team from the Psychophysiology Facility at
Campus Biotech as well as Remi Neveu from the Brain and Behaviour Laboratory for
setting up the lab rooms, Theodoros Kostoulas and Guillaume Chanel for their men-
toring, Halima Rafifor conducting some of the experiments, the Eckerd College (St.
Petersburg, Florida, USA) for the availability of the free licenses of the Conflict Dynamics
Profile and all the mediators who participated pro bono to the experiments (by alpha-
betical order): Viktoria Aversano, Christophe Imhoos, Jeremy Lack, Alexis Lafranchi,
Isabelle Laugier, Fernanda Salina, and Birgit Sambeth Glasner. We also thank Jeremy
Lack for his help in setting up the panel of mediators and commenting on a previous
version of the present paper.
Author contributions
F.B., O.M.K., and T.P. conceived the experiment, F.B. conducted the experiment, F.B.
analysed the results under the supervision of O.M.K., F.B. and O.M.K. wrote the
manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-
020-00622-8.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to F.B.; or O.M.K.
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2020
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
14 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 7:131 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00622-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com