David Hoffman on the Emotional Dimensions of Mediation Impasse-Breaking

Mediations can often reach points of impasse. Parties may have exchanged offers and considered settlements, yet even after the “logic circuits” have been engaged, the dispute may remain stuck. At a ACR-GNY Roundtable Breakfast last month, available on YouTube here, veteran mediator David Hoffman reminded participants that emotions are often critical to effective mediation and can help mediators understand how to get through an impasse.

Hoffman, founding member of the ADR firm Boston Law Collaborative and the Harvard Law School’s John H. Watson, Jr. Lecturer on Law, began his talk with an explanation of the Buddhist concept of “beginner’s mind,” explaining:

We all have judgy parts of our mind that get in the way of learning about new things. And those judgy parts are good. There are no bad parts, but we don’t want them to be overactive. So I’m going to invite us all to invite the judgy parts of our minds to take a step back and create some spaciousness for some learning parts.

With that invitation to approach the discussion with openness, Hoffman turned to the story of the 18th camel. In this parable, three brothers are unsure of how to properly divide their estate, 17 camels, until a mediator comes in and offers her own camel into the mix, solving the division problem.

Hoffman used this story to frame the rest of his talk for an online video audience of more than 250 people: How can we find the 18th camel in our work as mediators?

Hoffman’s new article, “Deal Points, and When To Address Them,” will appear on the cover of CPR’s Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation in the July/August 2026 issue, which will be sent out to subscribers next week and available for CPR Institute members here. It is adapted from Hoffman’s latest book The Art of Impasse-Breaking in Mediation: A Handbook for Mediators, Lawyers, and Other Conflict Resolution Resolvers, published by ABA Book Publishing.

Hoffman asked ACR-GNY participants how much of their initial mediation training focused on psychological or emotional factors. The answers varied widely, from none to about 10%, to as much as 75%. The range underscored a central theme of the talk: many mediators are trained to treat emotions as not a central part of navigating impasses, or even, in some cases, as interfering with the process.

 Hoffman emphasized that looking for the psychological dimensions of impasse does not mean diagnosing parties or pathologizing their emotional reactions. The task is not to look at the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Instead, the mediator can use intuition, curiosity, and non-pathologizing tools to understand what a party’s resistance may be protecting or expressing.

* * *

 System 1 and System 2:

Weighing Emotion and Logic 

Hoffman drew on Daniel Kahneman’s System 1/System 2 framework—from the book “Thinking,  Fast and Slow”—to explain why parties may remain stuck even when the legal or economic analysis seems clear. System 1 is intuitive and automatic, while System 2 is slower and more logical.

As a mediator, one way to help parties move from instant reaction toward a more deliberate decision-making mindset is to ask them to create a “T-chart” listing the pros and cons of accepting a settlement. This can help parties evaluate the proposal with their broader goals in mind, rather than relying on an instinctive response.

 Core Concerns:

What is Driving the Emotion?

Hoffman also discussed “core concerns” that may drive emotional reactions in conflict. A party may reject a settlement not because the terms are unreasonable, but because the process threatens their autonomy, affiliation, or another underlying concern.

For mediators, identifying this concern can help determine what kind of intervention is needed. In addition, Hoffman highlights the role of the “inner mediator,” which exists in every individual, to reconcile conflicts.

Difficult Conversations:

Facts, Impact, and Identity

Hoffman’s discussion of difficult conversations offered another practical framework. He identified three dimensions that may need to be separated: what happened, the emotional impact of what happened, and the identity issues implicated by the conflict.

That distinction matters because parties often speak as though they are arguing only about facts or money. But the deeper resistance may involve shame, embarrassment, loyalty, competence, integrity, or self-respect, which is important to destigmatize as a mediator.

Internal Family Systems:

Understanding ‘Parts’

Hoffman also introduced the Internal Family Systems model as a way to think about the “parts” that people bring into conflict. The model describes internal parts such as “exiles,” which may carry old wounds; “managers,” which try to maintain control and prevent vulnerability; and “firefighters,” which react quickly when painful feelings are triggered.

A more effective state for parties to reach is “Self-Energy,” in which they can access their inner mediator to make a self-led decision. A mediator should not feel that their only job is to advocate for settlement: letting clients make self-led decisions by accessing their inner mediator is an effective way to resolve an impasse.

 Bargaining at Two Tables

Hoffman placed these tools within a broader bargaining framework. Many mediators are comfortable at the table of expected value, where the focus is on case evaluation, mediator proposals, and range bargaining for settlements. Another table is interest-based bargaining, where parties explore more creative agreements. Hoffman suggested, however, that mediators should also recognize a third table: the table of emotional exchange and connection. At this third table, the relevant interventions may include helping a party feel heard.

[END]