Rebuttal to the Article: “ENDING THE EPIDEMIC OF ACCIDENTAL
PERSONALITY DISORDER DISCRIMINATION BY WELL-MEANING MEDIATORS”[1]
© 2025 by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq.[2]
ABSTRACT/INTRODUCTION
In 2024, the University of Missouri School of Law Dispute Resolution Journal published the above-entitled article (hereafter “the Article”; see link below). The Article is deeply flawed and misleading. Mediators and clients should be relieved to know that there is no such epidemic and there is no such discrimination, and the Article does not cite a single example of such an occurrence. Instead, this rebuttal explains that the Article is an extreme case of overgeneralization from negative experiences with some mental health clinicians inappropriately projected onto the whole field of mediation, which is completely different in purpose and methods. It is explained how the Article gives the illusion of truth based on dramatic and emotional phrases to support their claims when there is no actual evidence of mediator discrimination. Also addressed is the Article’s overgeneralization from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder to personality disorders, which are primarily interpersonal disorders and present in over 10% of the adult population worldwide, with a significant impact in family, workplace, business, and legal disputes. In contrast to the Article, this rebuttal provides some helpful information for understanding personality disorders, about half of whom engage in high conflict behavior that increasingly is confusing and distressing to mediators. This rebuttal points out how the Article criticizes all efforts to adapt mediation methods to be more successful with such clients, oddly alleging that any different approaches, no matter how positive and effective, are forms of discrimination. The Article also addresses the separate issue of stigmatization of those with personality disorders, without acknowledging the realities of the interpersonal behavior of about half of those with such disorders and instead giving isolated examples of unnecessarily negative remarks that have nothing to do with mediation. While the authors appear well-intentioned, the Article provides no practical dispute resolution advice and instead simply criticizes mediators and mediator trainers for making reasonable accommodations to help their clients by misinterpreting these efforts as an epidemic of discrimination.
NO SUCH EPIDEMIC
There is no epidemic of personality disorder discrimination by mediators and the Article does not cite any references, research, or specific examples of anyone who was discriminated against to support this claim. A simple Lexis search for “mediator discrimination” and “discrimination by mediators” and other related terms produces no cases out of millions of cases in the Lexis legal database nationwide.[3] Likewise, a search of the medical and mental health database of articles hosted by the National Institutes of Health comes up with no articles using these same search terms out of their database of “37 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books.”[4]
Unrelated Footnotes: The first sentence of the Article states: “People who have or appear to have mental disorders encounter rampant bias and stigma, including from mediators.”[5] Yet the first footnote in support of that sentence is a book that never mentions “mediators” nor “personality disorders.” Instead, it discusses discrimination by mental health professionals toward people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.[6]
The second footnote follows the second sentence which states: “First, we review how mediators’ negative attitudes toward parties with personality disorders are not a surprise, considering the high degree of provider stigma persons labeled as having personality disorders face even from their own clinicians, who often denigrate them as dangerous, unchangeable, and warranting social exclusion.”[7] The Article referenced in support of this sentence also never refers to mediators.[8] Once again, the footnote article is about mental health clinicians and psychological scientists, yet the Article speculates that mediators have negative attitudes because clinicians do, while providing no evidence of this.
Footnotes 3 – 17 are focused on concerns about mental health clinicians stigmatizing or discriminating against people with mental illness, but none of them makes the case that mediators are engaged in such activities.[9] Then footnotes 18 – 21 focus on ethical standards that mediators should not discriminate or treat anyone in a prejudicial manner, without providing a single example that this has actually occurred.[10] Footnote 22 is meant to support the following statement: “Despite the ethical and legal standards prohibiting mediators from acting in a biased way based on parties’ mental health, the practical reality is that discrimination toward mental illnesses abounds in mediation.”[11] Yet footnote 22 refers to an article about how mediators can avoid getting sued, with no mention of personality disorders or even mental illness.[12] Footnote 23 is another reference to a study of mental health consumers and college students diagnosed with a mental illness, and does not refer to mediators at all.[13]
In short, the Article provides no support for its dramatic claim that there is an epidemic of discrimination by mediators and major legal and mental health databases do not cite a single example of this.
ODD DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION
The Adults with Disabilities Act (ADA) gives a long definition of discrimination, beginning with: “No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”[14] (Emphasis added) One would hope that the Article would provide some pointers for mediators on which approaches to use and which approaches not to use to avoid inadvertent discrimination against clients in how they handle their cases. Unfortunately, it does not. The word “discrimination” is used 81 times throughout the Article, yet it is never specifically defined nor used as a legal term. “For the purposes of this section, we are describing any type of disparate treatment as discrimination but this may not be illegal discrimination as defined by particular federal, state, and local laws.”[15] (Emphasis added) Such a broad application appears to render the term meaningless, as it would include any positive and successful methods that are designed to be more effective for those with difficult behavior.
Positive Accommodations Not Allowed? “Disparate treatment” would eliminate providing braille for blind people and sign language for deaf people. If mediators use helpful accommodations for people with personality disorders or traits, they would be considered as “discriminating” under this definition. For example, if a mediator suspects that a client may have a personality disorder or traits, then is extra patient with the client or helps them gently focus away from upset emotions and onto making a proposal, that would be considered “discrimination” under their definition.
Who is Discriminated Against in a Mediation? Mediations involve two parties at a minimum[16], often involve lawyers, and sometimes include several other parties and family members. When a mediator uses a structure and skills designed to manage potentially high conflict behavior, who is discriminated against under their definition? The very structure and process of mediation treats everyone the same because everyone is needed to “reach a mutually agreeable solution.”[17]
Disparate from What? Condemning “disparate treatment” also raises the question of disparate from what? Mediation is essentially a toolbox profession that fits techniques to the dispute at hand.
There is no universally agreed-upon method of mediation, but rather a variety of structures and techniques. The Harvard Program on Negotiation lists “7 Types of Mediation,” including Facilitative Mediation, Court-Mandated Mediation, Evaluative Mediation, Transformative Mediation, Med-Arb, Arb-Med, and E-mediation[18]. In addition, there is Narrative Mediation[19] and New Ways for Mediation®[20], and so forth. Mediators are constantly shifting gears during a mediation and applying their skills in ways that will help their clients, often based on the behavior that arises during the mediation. How can mediators possibly judge which methods are disparate methods? With such an impossible definition, all helpful mediators could be forever found guilty of such “discrimination.”
EXTREME CASE OF OVERGENERALIZATION
Given that the Article has is no evidence of an epidemic nor a useful definition of discrimination, why was the Article written?
Overgeneralization from clinicians to mediators. The authors appear to have significant knowledge and concern about mental health clinicians, which they appear to want to generalize to mediators, but the two professions are very different. Clinicians are trained and licensed to diagnose and treat clients for months or years with individualized plans to improve their individual lives.[21] Mediators do not “treat” their clients. They are not licensed to diagnose their clients, have little if any knowledge of personality disorders, and usually meet only one to three times with their clients to resolve a specific dispute of the “parties.”[22]
Overgeneralization from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder to personality disorders. Likewise, from the articles and books they cite, the authors appear to have significant knowledge and concern about discrimination against and stigmatization of people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, which they appear to generalize to personality disorders, but these types of disorders are quite different. “Serious mental illness is a mental, behavioral or emotional disorder (excluding developmental and substance use disorders) resulting in serious functional impairment, which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities. Examples of serious mental illness include major depressive disorder, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.”[23] On the other hand, “personality disorders are defined in the current psychiatric diagnostic system as pervasive, inflexible, and stable patterns of thinking, feeling, behaving, and interacting with others.”[24] In other words, personality disorders are primarily interpersonal disorders and may or may not involve serious functional impairment, so that they often are unrecognized. Yet personality disorders are present in over ten percent of the adult population[25] and are “associated with several adverse consequences in the general population, including marital difficulties, occupational dysfunction, and criminal behaviors.”[26] Since schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are a small percent of the adult population (less than 1% and approximately 3% respectively)[27] and usually more obvious, they have had a much deeper history of discrimination and stigma.
Overgeneralization of observing mediation behavior with diagnosing personality disorders: Mediators deal with the behavior of the parties in mediation in order to assist them in resolving their dispute. They usually do not know nor need to know whether a person has a personality disorder in the brief period of time they work on a case. Yet throughout the Article, the authors make serious allegations that mediators discriminate against people with personality disorders whenever they just think about clients in terms like “difficult,” “toxic,” or “high conflict.”[28] While more people with personality disorders do engage in difficult and high conflict behaviors, at least half do not display these behaviors based on this author’s forty-five years of experience working with people with personality disorders. When mediators see high conflict behavior, they just want to know how to deal with it to help them resolve their disputes.[29]
Overgeneralizing any knowledge of personality disorders with discrimination: Throughout the Article, the authors overgeneralize that when mediators are taught anything about personality disorders or high conflict behavior it means they will treat them badly. “People are taught they should denigrate, exclude, or dehumanize a group of people based on this group’s perceived characteristics, which means that people with traits associated with personality disorders are stigmatized and discriminated against, regardless of whether the discriminators know why it is happening.”[30] Once again, this is an extreme overgeneralization from what some people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may have experienced from some clinicians, with no evidence provided that this is at all what mediators are taught about personality disorders. Mediators are routinely given overview workshops on alcoholism, dementia, autism, multicultural biases, federal tax laws, business valuations, and other complex topics that may arise without disparaging those involved. With the growing presence of personality disorders in society and legal disputes, and their often-difficult interpersonal behavior, it will benefit mediators (and their clients) for them to have a basic understanding of these disorders and how to help them.
BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS
This author, Bill Eddy, is mentioned 41 times in the Article in disparaging terms by misrepresenting his educational efforts about personality disorders, high conflict behavior, and methods for assisting potentially difficult clients.[31] The following is a brief overview of what mediators are actually taught about personality disorders by this author and other trainers for the High Conflict Institute.
Increasing prevalence in legal disputes. The Lexis research tool reveals the following presence of the term “personality disorder” in appellate court cases as follows:
1990 to 2000 = 5,548 cases
2000 to 2010 = 10,000+ cases
2010 to 2020 = 20,000+ cases[32]
Because of this significant presence in legal disputes, it would be malpractice for lawyers and other legal professionals, such as mediators, to remain purposefully uninformed about personality disorders. There is a wealth of knowledge available, yet until this author and the High Conflict Institute began educating legal professionals on a regular basis about this disorder in 2008, most legal professionals knew little or nothing about it.[33]
Mental health definition of personality disorders. The worldwide manual for mental health professionals, known as the DSM-5-TR, is summarized as providing the following criteria:
A. Enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior; deviates from person’s culture. Manifested in 2 or more of:
-
-
- Cognition (ways of perceiving self, others, events)
- Affectivity (intensity, inappropriate emotional response)
- Interpersonal functioning
- Impulse control
-
B. Inflexible and pervasive in range of personal & social settings.
C. Leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social functioning.
D. Pattern is stable and of long duration.
E & F. Not caused by another mental disorder, drugs or medicines, or medical problem.[34]
Diagnosing a personality disorder, as with any mental disorder, takes time, training, and experience. Because this is hard to do, it is not uncommon for mental health professionals in legal disputes to disagree and appear on opposite sides of court cases stating that a personality disorder exists or does not exist in any specific case.
In High Conflict Institute trainings, mediators are taught to avoid attempting to “diagnose” someone with a mental disorder, but rather to understand that this may underlie high conflict behavior in some cases. This understanding can help the person to have empathy for the client(s) because personality disorders are usually developed before adulthood from factors the person has no control over: genetic tendencies, early childhood experiences (such as traumas, insecure attachments), and from environmental influences.
Cluster B Personality Disorders. There are ten personality disorders in the DSM-5-TR, grouped into Clusters A, B, and C. Cluster B includes Narcissistic, Borderline, Antisocial, and Histrionic, which the DSM-5-TR describes as appearing “dramatic, emotional, and erratic.”[35]
A meta-analysis of 127 studies indicates that Cluster B personality disorders “all showed moderate-to-large and significant associations with domineeringness, vindictiveness, and intrusiveness.”[36] Furthermore, they found “a commonality across the personality disorders in a tendency toward distrust and suspicion of others and an inability to care about the needs of others.”[37]
A meta-analysis of 163 studies found the following: “With respect to the relation between PDs and aggression, a systematic review examining the relationship between PDs and violent behavior found ASPD and BPD diagnoses to be predictive of violence. [However] not everyone who carries an ASPD or BPD diagnosis is necessarily violent.”[38]
Mediators, as well as all other legal professionals, need to have a basic knowledge of these personality disorders as background information in their cases in order to understand what might be happening in many of their cases—not to diagnose their clients, but to have more empathy for them and those close to them, to understand potential safety concerns, and to adapt their methods to more effectively deal with their potential high conflict behavior in resolving their disputes.
MANAGING HIGH CONFLICT PERSONALITIES
High conflict behavior in mediation has been observed in legal disputes since at least 1988 in family law. “Rather than characterize these high-conflict families as failures of mediation, we propose new methods and models of mediation to work with them.”[39] Beginning in the 1990s and as written in 2006, this author proposed that rather than thinking of “high conflict families,” professionals should think in terms of high conflict individuals or “high conflict personalities,” so that they could be more effective and borrow from the wealth of knowledge of what works with those with personality disorders or traits (not to discriminate against them).[40]
High conflict personality describes a pattern of conflict behavior and is not a diagnosis. This author defined this pattern of conflict behaviors as: “1. Preoccupation with blaming others (their targets of blame). 2. All-or-nothing thinking and solutions. 3. Unmanaged or intense emotions. 4. Extreme behavior or threats.”[41] It is estimated that approximately half of those with personality disorders have a high conflict personality, based on this author’s forty-five years’ experience and the DSM-5-TR reported prevalence of Cluster B personality disorders as 4.5% of the adult population and all personality disorders as 10.5%.[42] However, some of those with a Cluster B diagnosis do not necessarily have a high conflict personality because they are not preoccupied with blaming others but are primarily hard on themselves.
Therefore, there is an overlap for some clients who have both high conflict behavior and a personality disorder, but when a mediator recognizes a pattern of high conflict behavior during their mediation, it does not mean they are assessing or diagnosing a person. They are dealing with obvious behavior. When the authors make claims such as the following, they are simply wrong: “People who are being taught to use these four indicators to guess if someone is “high conflict” have no reason to suspect they are actually assessing the party using clinical indicators, and that the term “high conflict” is a proxy label for someone with a personality disorder.”[43] Again, this is an extreme overgeneralization. Diagnosis accompanies developing an individual treatment plan.[44] No mediator has been described as doing that in the Article or anywhere. It does not take a diagnosis to recognize that extreme blaming, yelling, walking out of a mediation, self-defeating inflexibility, and other high conflict behaviors are problematic and need a different approach to be helpful.
Developing Mediation Methods: Based on this author’s experience, the New Ways for Mediation method (“new ways” means new skills) was developed over the past twenty years and eventually used with most of this author’s mediation clients, whether they had high conflict tendencies or not. EAR Statements™ show empathy, attention and respect and quickly calm down upset parties. The Making Proposals method in three steps helps all parties focus quickly on the future and real solutions. The tighter structure helps clients feel safer from unmanaged outbursts. Concepts like Keep the Conflict Small and the Four Fuhgeddaboudits have proven very helpful. These are some of the “different” methods the authors would call discrimination.[45]
Yet this author has received awards for his mediation innovations and lifetime achievements. In 2021, the American Bar Association published a chapter written by this author on “Dealing with Difficult Parties” in a book by numerous experts titled Mediation Ethics: A Practitioners Guide. In 2024, Oxford University Press published a chapter written by this author on “Working with Clients with High-Conflict Personalities” in another book by numerous experts titled Family Dispute Resolution: Process and Practice. There is clearly a need for this information.
The fact that these methods originally grew out of knowledge of personality disorders does not mean that a mediator is assessing, profiling, labelling, “proxy-labeling,” or diagnosing anyone to use them. Mediators can use these with anyone and often do.[46]
High Conflict Institute (HCI) Trainings: Since 2008, the author and his HCI colleagues have trained thousands of mediators, lawyers, judges, therapists, human resource professionals, and other professionals in over 35 states and 15 countries. HCI does the opposite of discriminating against mental illness and personality disorders. HCI gives professionals the basic knowledge and tools to help such clients reach successful mediation outcomes, when they were previously unsuccessful or did not even take their cases. Because of HCI trainings, these professionals have a greater understanding of personality disorders that may be involved in high conflict behavior, so that they are not caught by surprise by their possible blaming behavior, all-or-nothing thinking and/or emotional dysregulation during a mediation session. This way they can avoid taking their behavior personally and over-reacting or becoming judgmental.
HCI trainers explain that they should not try to “diagnose” personality disorders. Instead, they are taught that such possible clients didn’t choose or cause these disorders, that they should be treated with empathy and respect, that they generally can be helped to resolve their disputes using the methods HCI teaches, and that some can change and even outgrow their disorders. After these trainings, many professionals have told HCI that they have much less fear of working with clients with possible personality disorders and much more confidence that they can take and handle their cases.[47]
THE ILLUSION OF TRUTH EFFECT
Even though there is no evidence supporting the claims of the Article, it may still feel true to an uninformed reader. This is because of the illusion of truth effect. Repetition can affect our beliefs about what is true or not. “Our minds are prey to the illusion of truth effect because our instinct is to use short-cuts in judging how plausible something is…. Once we know about the effect we can guard against it. Part of this is double-checking why we believe what we do – if something sounds plausible is it because it is really true, or have we just been told that repeatedly?”[48]
The Article contains numerous dramatic and emotional statements which are repeated throughout.
Discrimination: This word is used 81 times, yet there is no evidence of discrimination by mediators against clients with personality disorders provided, nor a single example drawn from the legal and mental health databases. Instead, the Article rests entirely on numerous dramatic and emotional terms that are very powerful and repeated—but not true:
“rampant bias and stigma, including from mediators;”
“mediators discriminate against parties based on their guesses and assumptions;” “mediators’ negative attitudes toward parties with personality disorders are not a surprise;”
“how pervasive personality disorder discrimination has become in the dispute resolution world;”
“the use of proxy labels which obfuscate the reality that the parties are being profiled;”
“nice-seeming paternalism of the practitioners that mask the discrimination underlying the tactics;”
“People are taught they should denigrate, exclude, or dehumanize a group of people based on this group’s perceived characteristics;”
“the systemic biases that lead people to believe that separating people with mental health problems for different treatment is okay;” (nowhere is evidence presented of anyone being separated from anyone);
“This discrimination is even more insidious because it appears rational on its face.”
“ad-hoc profiling of people who show symptoms of these mental health problems.”
“Here again is the example of that layer of nice paternalism atop the discrimination.”
“it makes sense that people are unclear that they are perpetuating mental illness stigmas and perpetrating illegal discrimination”
Dramatic and emotional comments to inflame the reader unrelated to mediation:
“a website about “emotional predators” likened people with personality disorders to “turds.”
“a social worker’s supervisor had told people the social worker could not make good choices because she was so anxious were seen as a sufficient basis to make the case that the supervisor thought they were disabled.”
“A book about avoiding dating people with mental disorders…”
“The [self-help] book itself begins by making you scared of people with these disorders…”
“Their work found laws restricting voting, holding elective office, serving for jury duty, parenting, and remaining married as well as examples of discrimination in non-legal areas such as the media or private medical research.”
“Most family lawyers encourage couples to mediate or resolve their issues without going to court. But this won’t work in a narcissistic relationship.”
The Article attempts to emotionally lump social workers, family lawyers, dating books, voting laws, jury duty, and other unrelated comments into its fact-less argument that there is an epidemic of mediators discriminating against people with personality disorders. If their article had been about clinicians opinions or the general public’s opinions about personality disorders, and how to successfully deal with their often-difficult behavior, it might have been informative. But that is not what the Article is about. It’s claims about an epidemic of mediator discrimination are false.
Conclusion
There is no epidemic of mediator discrimination against people with personality disorders. The definition of discrimination used by the authors includes any different or disparate method used by mediators, no matter how positive and successful, which renders their definition meaningless and unhelpful to mediators or anyone. The Adults with Disabilities Act addresses discrimination against individuals because of a disability, not efforts to assist those with a disability including a mental disability. Therefore, mediators who adapt their methods to assist those who may appear to have a personality disorder are not violating the ADA and no such cases exist in the Lexis legal database.
Personality disorders are increasingly present in legal disputes and, since many legal disputes are voluntarily referred to or mandated to try mediation, they appear to be increasing in mediation. Personality disorders are, by definition, enduring patterns of difficult interpersonal behavior. Rather than acknowledging this fact, the Article very aggressively attacks professionals for even saying that people with these disorders are difficult or that they engage in high conflict behavior at times. Rather than providing practical suggestions for how to manage their difficulties in mediation, the Article attacks mediators and mediator trainers for any adaptation of their methods to be more effective. Oddly, they claim that such positive efforts are discriminatory and stigmatizing and to use different methods must mean that the mediator has assessed, profiled, labelled, proxy-labelled, or diagnosed someone.
The Article totally misrepresents the teachings of mediator trainers (including this author) as teaching dehumanization of those with personality disorders, which is the opposite of what is taught. By combining true quotations from this author and others with false conclusions, the authors give the illusion of truth to the Article while providing no evidence whatsoever of these claims. It has become more common for publishers, recently including business schools, to retract academic papers that are based on flawed research. As law schools have many similarities with business schools, including publishing academic papers, it would appear appropriate for this author to pursue a retraction or de-publication of the Article. However, this author has chosen to approach this as providing a teachable moment. For more information about this author’s teachings on this subject, please see his article: The New Elephant in the Room: Why All Professionals Need to Learn About Personality Disorders, 24 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 300 (2024) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol24/iss1/8.
Footnotes:
[1] Dan Berstein, Hannah Diamond, and Philip T. Yanos, ENDING THE EPIDEMIC OF ACCIDENTAL PERSONALITY DISORDER DISCRIMINATION BY WELL-MEANING MEDIATORS, 2024 J. Disp. Resol. Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2024/iss1/5 (Hereafter cited as: “the Article”)
[2] Bill Eddy is a lawyer, therapist and mediator. He is the co-founder and Director of Innovation for the High Conflict Institute based in Scottsdale, Arizona. The High Conflict Institute provides live and pre-recorded trainings, consultations, books, and articles about high conflict personalities and cases for a wide range of professionals: See www.HighConflictInstitute.com. Mr. Eddy is the author of twenty books and manuals about high conflict personalities and methods for working with them, including High Conflict People in Legal Disputes and 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life.
[3] Lexis Advance Research nationwide database search of cases by this author on February 2, 2025, in all categories and all jurisdictions, with the result “No documents found in cases.” The same result occurred for these additional search terms: “legal remedies for discrimination by mediator,” “discrimination claims against mediators,” “discrimination allegations against mediators,” “discrimination complaints against mediators,” “mediator discrimination investigations,”
[4] www.PubMed.gov website for the National Library of Medicine of the National Center of Biotechnology Information of the National Institutes of Health. A use of the same search terms on February 2, 2025 provides this result: “Quoted phrase not found in phrase index.”
[5] The Article, 3.
[6] See PHILIP T. YANOS, WRITTEN OFF: MENTAL HEALTH STIGMA AND THE LOSS OF HUMAN POTENTIAL (2018). A word search of this book for “mediator” and “personality disorder” revealed “No results were found.” However, “schizophrenia” occurs 170 times, “bipolar” occurs 31 times, and “clinician” occurs 12 times.
[7] The Article, 3.
[8] Sarah R. Masland et al., Destigmatizing Borderline Personality Disorder: A Call to Action for Psychological Science, 18 PERSP. ON PSYCH. SCI. 445, 447 (2022).
[9] The Article, 3-5.
[10] Id. at 6.
[11] Ibid.
[12] See Michael Moffitt, Ten Ways to Get Sued: A Guide for Mediators, 8. HARV. NEGOT. L. REV. 82 (2003).
[13] Lauren Gonzales et. al., Microaggressions Experienced by Persons with Mental Illnesses: An Exploratory Study, 38 PSYCHIATRIC REHAB. J. 234, 236–39 (2015).
[14] 42 United States Code (USC) SEC. 12112, Discrimination.
[15] The Article, 21.
[16] Black’s Law Dictionary 1070-71 (9th ed. 2009). Mediation is “a method of nonbinding dispute resolution involving a neutral third party who tries to help the disputing parties reach a mutually agreeable solution.” (Emphasis added) Retrieved on February 6, 2025 from: https://www.google.com/search?q=black%27s+law+dictionary+definition+of+mediation&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgEEEUYOxjCAzIJCAAQRRg7GMIDMgkIARBFGDsYwgMyCQgCEEUYOxjCAzIJCAMQRRg7GMIDMgkIBBBFGDsYwgMyCQgFEEUYOxjCAzIJCAYQRRg7GMIDMgkIBxBFGDsYwgPSAQk1NzkxajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
[17] Ibid.
[18] Program on Negotiation website, Harvard Law School. Retrieved on February 6, 2025 from: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/mediation/types-mediation-choose-type-best-suited-conflict/#:~:text=In%20facilitative%20mediation%20or%20traditional,exploring%20each%20other’s%20deeper%20interests.
[19] John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass, 2000.
[20] Bill Eddy and Michael Lomax, Mediating High Conflict Disputes. Unhooked Books, 2021.
[21] American Psychiatric Association website, which states: “Mental health treatment is based upon an individualized plan developed collaboratively with a mental health clinician and an individual (and family members if the individual desires). It may include psychotherapy (talk therapy), medication or other treatments.” (Emphasis added). Retrieved on February 6, 2025 from: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness#:~:text=Mental%20health%20treatment%20is%20based,)%2C%20medication%20or%20other%20treatments.
[22] Black’s Law Dictionary, 1070-71.
[23] Website for the American Psychiatric Association, www.psychiatry.org, retrieved on February 6, 2025 from: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness#:~:text=Mental%20health%20treatment%20is%20based,)%2C%20medication%20or%20other%20treatments.
[24] Sylia Wilson, Catherine B. Stroud, and C. Emily Durbin, “Interpersonal Dysfunction in Personality Disorders: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Psychology Bulletin, July 2017; 143(7): 677-734. doi: 10.1037/bul0000101.
[25] American Psychiatric Association (APA): Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2022. (Hereafter: DSM-5-TR)
[26] Bridget Grant, Deborah S. Hasin, Frederick S. Stinson, Deborah A. Dawson, S. Patricia Chou, W. June Ruan, and Roger P. Pickering. 2004. “Prevalence, correlates, and disability of personality disorders in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 65 (7):948–58.
[27] DSM-5-TR, 116, 146 and 155.
[28] The Article, 8.
[29] This author was trained in personality disorders in 1980 as a clinical social worker at the Child Guidance Clinic of the Children’s Hospital of San Diego, California and worked for twelve years as a therapist. In addition, this author trained mediators in San Diego through the National Conflict Resolution Center from 1984 – 2008, and worldwide through the High Conflict Institute from 2008 to the present.
[30] The Article, 9.
[31] The Article, 8-40.
[32] Lexis Advance Research Timeline statistics retrieved on August 3, 2020 from: https://advance.lexis.com/search – a subscription data base service for lawyers.)
[33] Bill Eddy, High Conflict People in Legal Disputes. Unhooked Books, 2006.
[34] DSM-5-TR, 734-35.
[35] DSM-5-TR, 734.
[36] Wilson, Interpersonal Dysfunction at 691.
[37] Id. at 720.
[38] Collison, Katherine L. and Donald R. Lynam, “Personality Disorders as Predictors of Intimate Partner Violence: A Meta-analysis,” Clinical Psychology Review 88 (2021): 1–2.
[39] Janet R. Johnston and Linda E. G. Campbell, Impasses of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of Family Conflict. Free Press, 1988. “The target population for the intensive intervention programs that are reported in detail here consists of 80 high-conflict families with 100 children.” (Foreword, page “x”)
[40] Eddy, High Conflict People.
[41] Eddy and Lomax, Mediating, 13.
[42] DSM-5-TR, 734.
[43] The Article, 9.
[44] American Psychiatric Association website, supra footnote 20.
[45] Eddy and Lomax, Mediating.
[46] Eddy and Lomax, Mediating.
[47] Bill Eddy, The New Elephant in the Room: Why All Professionals Need to Learn About Personality Disorders, 24 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 300 (2024) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol24/iss1/8.
[48] Aumyo Hassan and Sarah J. Barber, “The Effects of Repetition Frequency on the Illusory Truth Effect,” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 6, art. 38 (2021): 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00301-5.
This article is also available as a PDF upon request at info@highconflictinstitute.com
BILL EDDY, LCSW, Esq. is a family lawyer, therapist, mediator, and the Director of Innovation with the High Conflict Institute based in San Diego, California. He trains professionals worldwide about high conflict personalities and situations, presenting in over 35 states and 13 countries. He is the lead author of the book Mediating High Conflict Disputes, and the author of twenty other books and manuals, including 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life; and Our New World of Adult Bullies. He writes a blog for PsychologyToday.com with over 6 million views. He is on the Advisory Board of the Divorce Coalition and co-host of the podcast, It’s All Your Fault! with Megan Hunter, MBA. His website is www.HighConflictInstitute.com.
