Recently, we had the privilege of hosting Professor Elizabeth Stokoe for a webinar on her research into how intake staff at UK mediation centres communicate with callers seeking information. As a psychologist specializing in conversation analysis, Professor Stokoe examines real interactions rather than those happening in artificial experimental settings. Her work provides valuable insights for practitioners, helping to refine and improve mediation practices.
One of the key topics she explored was how mediators demonstrate impartiality in their conversations with parties. She highlighted the distinction between alignment and affiliation—two concepts that significantly impact how mediators engage with clients while maintaining neutrality.
Understanding alignment and affiliation
Alignment and affiliation are technical terms used in linguistics and conversation analysis.
The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics describes alignment as the structural level of cooperation. In other words, when the listener is aligned with the speaker, they are providing structural support for the conversation by encouraging the speaker to continue telling their story or explaining the problem they are facing. The listener indicates that they are willing to continue to be the “troubles-recipient” in the conversation.
In contrast, affiliation involves a more affective level of cooperation, in which the listener goes further than just encouraging the communication to continue. In affiliation the listener agrees with the speaker’s stance, is empathetic, and cooperates with the speakers desired action.
The difference between an aligning and an affiliating response can occur through the type of words we use (and whether we speak at all or remain silent), through tone of voice, and through body language.
Some languages even have different words that distinguish between an aligning or affiliating response. For example, the two Finnish response tokens joo and niin, which can both be translated as ‘yes’, both align, but only one of them, niin, affiliates. In other words, joo can translate to “yes, continue” and niin can translate to “yes, I agree”.
Alignment
Alignment occurs when a mediator supports the structure of a client’s story without expressing a stance on its content. This is often achieved through minimal encouragers, such as:
-
“Mmm”
-
“Uh-huh”
-
“Right”
-
“Yeah”
These responses signal listening and encourage the speaker to continue, without indicating agreement. Alignment allows mediators to remain impartial, but excessive reliance on neutral responses may sometimes come across as distant or lacking empathy.
Affiliation
When people engage in everyday conversations with friends and family, they often respond with affiliation—showing strong empathy, agreement, or sympathy. These responses might include statements like:
-
“You must be really tired!” (empathy)
-
“Poor you!” (sympathy)
-
“That is so unfair, he shouldn’t have done that to you!” (agreement and support)
However, for mediators, using this kind of language can potentially compromise the mediator’s impartiality.
Striking the right balance: warm alignment
Mediators who inconsistently switch between alignment and affiliation may create confusion, leading to complaints of bias. This issue is particularly evident in cases where mediators adopt a more affiliative tone in pre-mediation meetings to encourage participation but then shift to strict neutrality in joint sessions. The contrast can be jarring for parties.
Professor Stokoe’s research suggests that the ideal approach is a warmer alignment—acknowledging the impact of a party’s experience without explicitly affiliating with their position. This helps mediators build rapport while maintaining impartiality.
Perceptions of bias based on assumed affiliation
Interestingly, parties may perceive bias based on their assumptions rather than the mediator’s actual behaviour. For example, a mother involved in a mediation process may expect a female mediator to be more affiliated with her. If the mediator instead adopts an impartial stance through alignment, the mother might interpret this as the mediator being biased against her. This reflects a “if you’re not with me, you must be against me” mentality, where affiliation is equated with support for a party’s desired outcome.
Key Takeaways
Use alignment to acknowledge and support storytelling without signalling agreement.
Be mindful of how affiliation can create the perception of bias, even when unintended.
Aim for warmer alignment—showing understanding without taking a stance.
Maintain consistency in tone and approach throughout the mediation process (including in one-on-one and joint meetings) to prevent confusion.
Be aware of unconscious biases and assumptions that parties may bring into the mediation room in relation to your affiliations.
By refining how we communicate with clients, we can enhance trust in the mediation process while safeguarding impartiality. Professor Stokoe’s research offers a roadmap for mediators seeking to navigate these nuances with skill and professionalism.
You can access Professor Stokoe’s webinar recording here: https://conflictmanagementacademy.com/wod-explaining-and-being-impartial-registration/
Elizabeth Stokoe (2013) Overcoming Barriers to Mediation in Intake Calls to Services: Research-Based Strategies for Mediators. Negotiation Journal, 289-314.
Rein Sikveland and Elizabeth Stokoe (2016) Dealing with resistance in initial intake and inquiry calls to mediation: the power of “willing”. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 33(3):235-254.
Jakob Steensig (2019) Conversation Analysis and Affiliation and Alignment, in the Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.