In the dynamics of interpersonal conflicts, parties often engage in highly emotional arguments about recent incidents, gradually losing sight of the root causes of the conflict and their own fundamental interests related to the issue at hand. This impedes the development of a lasting and mutually satisfying solution for all parties involved. To address this, objectives within mediation processes are to transfer participants' narratives from accusatory tones to factual reports, to elaborate own emotional responses and underlying interests. This process often necessitates multiple mediation sessions.
We will present the results of our experimental study, in which we explored whether lead questions in an online survey can assist in formulating a thoughtful conflict report, serving as a foundation for subsequent negotiation sessions. The lead questions focus on sequentially objectifying perspectives and on elaborating on the main interests and needs of participants to pave the way for a potential solution. We examine the hypothesis that compared to a control group, following lead questions, conflict reports may shift from heightened emotional and blaming content to greater reason, enhance parties' understanding of their own emotional responses and aims, while the evaluation of the conflict counterpart may not significantly improve through lead questions alone. Our concern is whether this approach could streamline and contribute to a more standardized mediation process.