Using Insights About Perception and Judgment from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Instrument as an Aid to Mediation

Sep 17, 2026

Examines mediation effectiveness through the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator by treating the “people problem” as a solvable element within disputes. Argues that mediators can improve outcomes when they understand how parties differ in perceiving information and judging what actions to take. Develops Jungian-linked typological insights for core MBTI preferences, including perception, judgment, extraversion/introversion, and judging/perceiving orientations. Applies these preferences to mediator impartiality, mediator checklists, and choosing dispute resolution options.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages72

Reading Time3 h 1 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction: Solving the “People Problem” to Resolve Disputes

An Overview of Jungian Insights for Both Mediators and Disputants

Using Typological Insights in More Advanced Ways: Understanding Preferences About Preferences

Conclusion

Using Insights About Perception and Judgment from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Instrument as an Aid to Mediation R. Lisle Baker† Introduction: Solving the “People Problem” to Resolve Disputes .................................................... 116 I. An Overview of Jungian Insights for Both Mediators and Disputants ........................... 122 A. Preferences for Gaining Information (Perception) and Making Decisions About It (Judgment) ...................................... 122 B. Mediating Differing Preferences for Gaining Information: The “Perceiving” Mental Functions—Sensing or Intuition (S or N in MBTI Results) ................................... 123 C. Mediating Differing Preferences for Making Decisions: The “Judging” Mental Functions—Thinking or Feeling (T or F in MBTI Results) .... 133 D. Mediating Differing Preferences for Focusing Energy Inside or Outside One’s Self: † Copyright 2004, R. Lisle Baker, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School; A.B. Williams College, 1964; L.L.B. Harvard Law School, 1968; member of the Massachusetts Bar. The author is also a member of the panel of Mediators of Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution and a member of the Association for Conflict Resolution. He has been qualified to administer the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator􀀁 instrument, described in more detail infra, note 4. The author wants to acknowledge the assistance of a number of able Suffolk University Law School research assistantsin the preparation of this article, including Erin Brennan, Chris Carriera, Heather Leavitt-Soni, Cale Miller, Michael Stevenson, and Priscilla Suntoso. The author also wants to express his appreciation to the following reviewers who suggested specific improvements in draft versions of this article, though the responsibility for any errors remains the author’s: Prof. Leary Davis, Mediator Ann Gosline, Prof. Dwight Golann, Judge John Kennedy, Prof. Carol Liebman, Jerry Macdaid (who also helped with software for analyzing the data), Prof. Donald Peters, Dean Robert Smith, Paula Spizziri, Dr. Larry Richard, and Dr. Ronald Warners. 115 116 Harvard Negotiation Law Review [Vol. 9:115 Extraversion or Introversion (E or I in MBTI Results) .......................................... 143 E. Mediating Differing Preferences for Using the Judging or Perceiving Function in Coping with the External World (J or P in MBTI Results) ..... 148 F. A Mediator’s Checklist ........................... 153 G. Implication of Typological Preferences for Mediator Impartiality ............................ 154 H. Putting the Four Pairs of MBTI Results Together: The Sixteen Types of Those Involved in Dispute Resolution ............................ 155 II. Using Typological Insights in More Advanced Ways: Understanding Preferences About Preferences .......................................... 162 A. Mediating Differing Preferences for the Perceiving or Judging Mental Functions: The Dominant Function .............................. 163 B. Using Less Favored Cognitive Functions—Those Other Than the Dominant Function ....... 169 C. Implications of Typological Insights for the Choice of Dispute Resolution Options by Attorneys and Clients ............................ 176 Conclusion .................................................. 178 INTRODUCTION: SOLVING THE “PEOPLE PROBLEM” TO RESOLVE DISPUTES The influential work Getting to Yes argues that “you need to separate the people from the problem” to resolve disputes.1 But what if the people are part of the problem to be solved?2 This article argues that mediators can be more effective if they understand how people differ in how they perceive information and judge what to do about it.3 These differences are illuminated by examining the responses of 1. ROGER FISHER ET. AL., GETTING TO YES 17 (2d ed. 1991) . 2. “The personality of the other party may itself become a problem to be solved.” Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Toward Another View

FAQs

What is the core argument about the “people problem” in mediation?

The article contends that mediators become more effective when they understand how parties differ in perceiving information and judging what to do with it, rather than treating people only as obstacles.

How does the article connect MBTI with mediation practice?

It uses responses from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a way to illuminate cognitive preferences relevant to dispute resolution and mediator interaction with parties.

Which MBTI-related areas does the article plan to cover for mediators?

It outlines Jungian-linked MBTI preferences for perception (S/N) and judgment (T/F), plus extraversion/introversion (E/I) and judging vs. perceiving (J/P), along with implications for impartiality and dispute-resolution options.

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Jordan Avery