Psychotherapy And Mediation: Similarities And Differences

It is known that mediation is not therapy, although both have aspects in common. In the following lines we will see precisely what they are the similarities and differences between group psychotherapy and mediation and the way in which these two disciplines help us face everyday problems.

The similarities between mediation and psychotherapy

To have a better understanding of the aspects that differentiate both disciplines, it is necessary to consider their common aspects. Thus, taking the treatment of family conflict as a reference, there would be two levels of intervention: family therapy and family mediation. In each of them, the role of the professional (psychotherapist and mediator) is to facilitate communication. Each of these contexts develops its particular intervention process.

At first glance, both when we intervene through family therapy and when we intervene through family mediation, we are working with part or all of the members of the family group, with which a priori it also seems to share the same objective: promote the well-being of its members. Each of these interventions is carried out within a framework of confidentiality and uses a set of techniques and tools to achieve its objectives.

Adjusting the view a little more, the therapeutic approach (family therapy or psychotherapy) addresses two fundamental issues: the treatment of emotional disorders. It works with a primary natural group, the family, and in this area of ​​intervention, the family is seen as a “whole-system.” According to this, its objective would be to restore health and create a new way of conceptualizing the relationship with the environment.

For its part, The mediational approach addresses the voluntary conflict management procedure, in which the parties request the intervention of a mediator, who must be professional, impartial, objective and neutral. He works with groups of people without the ability to freely make decisions about how to relate to the rest of the group, and intervenes with all or some members of the family, depending on the type of conflict.

The differences

What aspects make the difference between therapy and mediation? Let’s see them.

1. Different objectives

The specific objective of therapy is to improve health, promote psychological well-being and contribute to the improvement of relationships. Mediation seeks to improve communication, favoring the resolution of differences, generating solutions to them, and reaching an agreement between the parties in conflict. And at the same time, without being considered among its objectives, mediation has a “therapeutic effect”, from the moment in which emotional expression and management is facilitated.

In the mediation process, the mediator intervenes by managing emotions, so that they do not act to interfere with communication, thus favoring the search for alternatives and solutions that can culminate in an agreement agreed upon by the parties in conflict. From the moment in the mediation process we promote emotional relief, we are facilitating a “therapeutic effect” on people. But this is not the ultimate objective of this type of intervention.

On the other hand, mediation is a structured process, a priori focused on a task: find a solution to a series of disputed aspects, reach an agreement in the form of a written document. This document can achieve a “legal” or “quasi-legal” character, settling and agreeing on legal and emotional agreements.

In mediation we work with people, with their relationship, with their problem. This leads to considering an open and fluid intervention structure, in which flexibility is the supporting axis of the process, thereby facilitating working on emotions and feelings, their ventilation, and identification, will allow the definition of the problem and a more adequate understanding of the psychological conflict. .

2. The information you work with

Another differentiating aspect between both interventions is the amount of information to be collected. In therapy, it is essential to collect information on background and current data about the subject and/or the relationship (clinical or family history). In mediation, only information related to the conflict is collected. Excess information is considered to affect impartiality and objectivity of the mediation professional.

3. The importance of impartiality

The role of the psychologist-mediator is based on carrying out his or her know-how, achieving balance between conflicting parties and for this, it is crucial that they perceive you as objective, neutral and impartial, leading the mediation process, facilitating communication between them and favoring communication channels.

The role of psychologist-therapist is based on the analysis of behavior, offering guidelines and alternatives, seeking to restore health and psychological well-being. He usually doesn’t need to take so many precautions to not appear biased toward one of the “sides.”

Family mediation is an opportunity to face conflicts within and within the family, in which the parties voluntarily search for solutions to their conflict, resolving it through dialogue and communication; and assuming responsibility for resolving their differences by agreeing on an agreement that they undertake to comply with.

The mediating task facilitates a helping relationship that encourages the expression of emotions and feelings. In addition, it helps clarify the needs of the parties in conflict, helping them distance themselves from the problem and focusing them on the solution. Mediation offers them the opportunity to experience and foster the healthy components of the relationship.

Mediating psychologists

The figure of the psychologist-mediator is configured with training that allows him to act in both areas marking in each case the need to intervene in one context or another according to the need of the case.

Thus, it will manage the referral to therapy taking into account the interest of the parties or the objectives that they try to achieve in the process. It will focus on the “rules of the game” to be followed in the intervention, refraining from inducing any result not contemplated in the feelings or will of the parties.