We are all wired to compete, especially in conflict. However, sometimes, it’s about taking a completely different approach. When it comes to mediation, game theory offers a key insight; it’s not always about checkmate.

Cooperation doesn’t have to mean surrender, it’s often the smartest strategy in the room. Winning doesn’t require defeating the other person, it requires understanding the power of cooperation.

When people enter mediation, emotions are high, trust is low, and decisions carry lasting consequences. I can be talking to someone who is scared, angry or frustrated and I can see how they feel pressured to “win” or protect themselves from loss. The thought process consists of questions like  “What do I deserve and what will I gain? or  “If I compromise, what’s the risk? Will I be taken advantage of? How much can I trust this person?” It’s especially relevant when discussing financial arrangements, as you may want to know what the other person is proposing before putting everything on the table yourself.

But this moment presents a deeper choice: Should I compete to protect my interests and to gain control, or should I cooperate to find mutual ground and resolution? We have all faced this moment in our lives.

Game theory, a field that explores decision-making in conflict, offers powerful insights into how this choice affects outcomes. Is the goal to win, to be understood, to solve a problem, or to preserve the relationship? (Game theory is a huge topic and having studied it in depth, I will only touch on it here for the purpose of how it links to human thinking in mediation).

The Game Behind the Talk

At first glance, mediation and game theory might seem like they are in totally different worlds; one with a mediator helping people find a path forward, and the other in a maths classroom!  However, they actually have a lot in common.

At its core, mediation mirrors the classic game theory thought of the Prisoner’s Dilemma:

• If both parties cooperate → both will benefit.
• If one competes while the other cooperates → there is a short-term gain for one only.
• If both compete → both face mutual loss.

Over time, repeated competition usually leads to stalemates, resentment, and increased legal and emotional costs. (If you are aware of the dilemma and know it well, you will know that it is not exactly the same, as in mediation you have the advantage of being able to communicate with each other).

So when should you co-operate and when should you compete?

It might not always be the right time to co-operate. If emotions are raw and your state of mind is not in a place where you can fully process the decisions you are making, maybe pause and revisit discussions once the situation feels calmer. If the other person has more power and is not open to dialogue, it could be that some boundaries or conditions need to be set initially before negotiations start.

What does COMPETING look like:

This is where short term wins might be priority. In mediation, “competing” might look like:

• Demanding full custody
• Withholding financial transparency
• Threatening court action

If one side is feeling cornered or betrayed, they are likely to retaliate which can lead to long delays in reaching a resolution, possibly court action which mean higher costs, and more importantly, damage to children and co-parenting relationships. Reaching an agreement may consist of bluffing and trying to get the opponent into a vulnerable position, or trying to predict the opponents behaviour in some way.

What does COOPERATION look like:

This can feel risky but will often have better outcomes in the long-run. In mediation, “cooperation” might look like:

• Sharing information, being open about your concerns and worries.
• Listening to each other and exploring each other’s needs
• Prioritising long-term stability over immediate wins

Cooperation requires vulnerability, especially in high-conflict situations. But in game theory terms, it rewards fairness. It can lead to creative agreements that courts may not be able to consider, flexible parenting plans, shared financial structures, and decisions that reflect the family’s unique needs.

One move at a time

When people in conflict depend on each other, it greatly affects the outcome. One person’s actions lead to reactions from the other. In mediation, stability matters. Where both sides are unlikely to break an agreement (this links to a core concept in game theory called the Nash Equilibrium).

People behave thinking about their own self interests. The desire is to maximise rewards while minimising costs, whilst at the same time respecting the rules of fairness. The rewards need to be proportionate to the contributions they have made in the relationship. We don’t like feeling we have put more into something than what we get out. You may be asking yourself,  “What is my value in this relationship?” or “What do they bring to the table?”

Overall, it’s the combination of choices that will determine the outcome

The Mediator’s Role (Changing the Game)

As a mediator, my role is to help both parties to reframe the problem and identify the needs of each side. It could be by rebuilding trust incrementally through reassurances or encouraging strategies that move both parties toward a better outcome in the long-term.

In conflict situations, even though working together will give you the best result, fear and mistrust will often push people to act differently. This is where a mediator can make a difference. By opening up communication and building trust, a mediator can change the “game” people are playing, from one where it’s everyone for themselves, to one where cooperation makes more sense.

There is a stronger link between mediation and game theory than we think about. One brings the strategy, the other brings the empathy. Effective conflict resolution shows that cooperation has the highest value and has best outcomes for all involved. The worst outcome is when both sides compete.

The smartest move? Play the long game.