An experiment in Australia found that when mediators used motivational interviewing during the mediation, the parties were twice as likely to reach a full agreement. However, this technique does not reduce psychological distress, child adjustment problems or co-parental conflict. Motivational interviewing
(MI) is a counseling technique designed to induce clients to change their behavior by exploring and resolving their ambivalence toward change. It has been found to be effective in a variety of contexts, including reducing aggression in intact couples.
This study, undertaken by Megan Morris as part of her PhD thesis (Motivational Interviewing and Family Mediation: Outcomes for Separated Families
, 2016 (see Chapter 4)), is the first to examine the use of MI in family mediation. To determine the impact of MI on mediation outcomes, Morris randomly assigned 177 separated families to either the treatment group (n=94), in which the mediator used MI, or the control group (n=83), in which the mediator did not. The mediations were conducted over the phone and recorded and coded by multiple trained coders as to the integrity of the MI treatment. In all, 108 sessions were recorded, including 68 intake sessions and 40 joint sessions by 15 mediators. Eight of the mediators were randomly assigned to be trained in MI before the study; the other seven were offered training after the study was completed. Those trained prior to the study incorporated MI into their mediations during the study, while the other group continued to use their usual mediation techniques.
Recordings of intake interviews and joint sessions indicated that mediators trained in MI techniques ranked much higher on the MI Treatment Integrity Scale than those who were not, demonstrating that there was a difference in the services provided to the treatment and control groups. Parents in the treatment group were twice as likely to reach full agreement as those in the control group (33% v 16%) and less likely to reach no agreement (33% v 42%). There were no other statistically significant differences in satisfaction with the mediation, psychological distress or child adjustment.
Although the research was well-designed, it suffered from technical and logistical issues, including problems with recording equipment that significantly reduced the number of recorded sessions and families who were accidentally provided the wrong service for at least one of their sessions. Further, there was a high attrition rate for the study: of those who agreed to participate, only 26% completed the post-mediation satisfaction surveys and psychological assessment instruments. This may have affected the research findings. In particular, the high attrition rate may have masked differences in outcomes that existed between the two groups, leading to a finding that there were no differences in the long-term outcomes (i.e., psychological distress and co-parental conflict).