This article presents the results of a research study into mentalizing in family mediation. The study employed a mixed‐method approach, which included quantitative and qualitative empirical analysis of mediation transcripts and postmediation surveys. The research identified that, when the mediators adopted a mentalizing stance to facilitate the parties to engage their mentalizing capacities and, in particular, to mentalize for the child, the mediation process became more constructive and meaningful. The article makes recommendations for incorporating a mentalizing‐based approach into the research and education of mediation and building an evidence‐based practice for the field. Empirical evidence into the interventions used in family mediation Introducing a mentalizing‐based approach to practice Creating an environment for constructive family dispute resolution Methods to keep the best interests of the child in mind in mediation

Using hypothetical scenarios, we provided participants with potential opening statements to a conflict discussion that varied on I/you language and communicated perspective. Participants rated the likelihood that the recipient of the statement would react in a defensive manner. Using I-language and communicating perspective were both found to reduce perceptions of hostility. Statements that communicated both self- and other-perspective using I-language (e.g. ‘I understand why you might feel that way, but I feel this way, so I think the situation is unfair’) were rated as the best strategy to open a conflict discussion. Simple acts of initial language use can reduce the chances that conflict discussion will descend into a downward spiral of hostility.

No abstract

No abstract

Evaluating a pioneering dispute resolution program that blended a child protection safety framework with a legal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) model called for an innovative approach. The evaluation method chosen involved blending an Appreciative Inquiry, which focused on the cultural change aspect of the program, with traditional evaluation research methods that enabled assessment of system effectiveness. This mixed approach, called a Constructive Inquiry, enabled the stakeholder partners to achieve the best of many worlds. The Constructive Inquiry provided the partners with an appreciative assessment of their pioneering collaborations, an objective measurement of the effectiveness of their program, and a clearer understanding of the experiences and practice of their professional participants. In addition, this approach provided everyone involved with a richer and deeper understanding of the experience of cultural change and the future pathways that they all needed to tread to consolidate that change. In the future, Constructive Inquiry might offer a useful model for the evaluation of projects with similar parameters.