Negotiation and a Virtual Reality Simulation for Immersive Learning

Posted on 19/02/2026 by Dr Kathy Douglas

Alvedi Sabani and Kathy Douglas

Negotiation has always been a practical skill best learned by doing. For decades, negotiation education across law, business, and the social sciences has relied on roleplays and debriefing as its signature pedagogy. These activities remain powerful because they immerse learners in conflict scenarios, expose them to different perspectives, and create space for reflection, a point long recognised in negotiation scholarship on learning through experience and transfer of skills.

But the context in which negotiation is practised is changing.

Today, many negotiations happen online, through digital platforms, hybrid meetings, or technology-mediated environments. At the same time, universities are grappling with larger cohorts, hybrid delivery, and growing expectations that learning experiences be authentic, inclusive, and scalable. Against this backdrop, we have been exploring a simple question: can immersive technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR) meaningfully extend negotiation pedagogy without replacing its core strengths?

This blog reflects on our experience using a VR negotiation simulation in higher education, and what it might offer educators working in dispute resolution, mediation, and negotiation more broadly.

Why revisit negotiation pedagogy now?

Negotiation education has long been anchored in experiential learning. Whether in law schools, business programs, or professional development courses, learners typically practise through roleplays followed by structured debriefing. This approach is effective because negotiation is not just about tactics or frameworks; it is about judgement, emotional intelligence, communication, and adaptability, which are capabilities that develop through cycles of action and reflection, as articulated in David Kolb’s experiential learning theory.

However, traditional roleplays also have limitations:

They are labour-intensive to run well
Quality depends heavily on participant engagement
Experiences vary widely between groups
Opportunities for repetition and skill mastery are limited
Accessibility and equity can be uneven

At the same time, negotiation itself is evolving. Online dispute resolution (ODR), legal technology, and AI-mediated communication are increasingly part of professional practice. Students need opportunities to practise negotiation in environments that resemble how difficult conversations now occur in real workplaces.

This combination of pedagogical pressure and professional change prompted us to explore immersive learning as a complement to traditional approaches.

What does VR add to negotiation learning?

Virtual Reality is often associated with novelty, but its real value in negotiation education lies elsewhere. When designed carefully, VR can support three things that are difficult to achieve at scale with traditional roleplays: presence, consistency, and repetition.

In a VR negotiation simulation, learners step into a scenario where they are physically and emotionally “present” in the conversation. They sit across the table from a virtual counterpart who responds to their words, tone, and decisions. Facial expressions, pauses, and emotional cues all matter. Research on immersive learning suggests that this sense of presence and emotional engagement can be particularly valuable for developing interpersonal and professional skills

Equally important is consistency. Every learner encounters the same scenario, the same counterpart, and the same decision points. This allows educators to design learning and assessment around a shared experience, while still allowing individual agency in how the conversation unfolds.

Finally, VR enables repetition. Learners can replay the same negotiation, try different approaches, and immediately see how alternative choices change outcomes. This aligns closely with how complex skills are developed in practice: through cycles of action, feedback, and reflection.

The negotiation scenario

In our case, the VR simulation places learners in the role of a technology consultant meeting with a senior executive who is sceptical about a proposed organisational change. The executive is concerned about employee resistance, workload, and unintended consequences. The learner’s task is not to “win” the negotiation, but to work collaboratively toward a solution that addresses shared interests.

This framing is deliberate. The simulation is grounded in integrative negotiation, where the aim is to create value rather than claim it. Throughout the conversation, learners make choices about how to respond: whether to acknowledge concerns, ask clarifying questions, provide evidence, or push too quickly for agreement. Each choice influences the direction of the conversation and the executive’s reactions.

What makes this powerful is that learners experience the emotional consequences of their decisions. A dismissive response leads to defensiveness. A well-timed question builds trust. A failure to listen can derail the conversation entirely. These dynamics are difficult to convey through lectures alone, but they become immediately visible in an immersive setting.

Reflection remains central

One concern often raised about technology-enhanced learning is that it risks prioritising experience over understanding. We would argue the opposite: without reflection, VR is just a simulation; with reflection, it becomes learning.

Figure 2: Conversation Recap with Evaluation Points for Learners

In our design, the VR experience is always paired with structured reflection. After completing the simulation, learners receive detailed feedback, including a transcript of their conversation and indicators of strengths and areas for growth. They are then asked to analyse their performance, connect it to negotiation theory, and articulate how they would approach the conversation differently in the future.

This reflective component does several important things:

It slows down the experience and turns action into insight
It connects practice back to theory
It legitimises “failure” as a learning opportunity
It encourages learners to think critically about their own habits and assumptions

In many cases, students who struggled in the simulation produced the most thoughtful reflections. The technology does not replace judgement; it exposes it.

What did students experience?

Learner responses to the VR negotiation have been strikingly consistent. Many describe feeling nervous before starting, as they would before a real workplace conversation. Others note that the executive’s reactions felt “uncomfortably real”. These emotional responses are precisely what make the experience valuable.

Students frequently highlight three benefits:

Confidence building – practising difficult conversations in a safe environment reduces anxiety about real-world negotiations
Insight into their own behaviour – seeing how small choices affect outcomes is eye-opening
Opportunity to improve – replaying the scenario allows experimentation without real-world consequences

Importantly, accessibility has also been a design priority. The simulation can be completed using a VR headset or on a standard computer, ensuring that no learner is excluded due to equipment or physical constraints.

Lessons for ADR and negotiation educators

Our experience suggests that VR is not a replacement for traditional negotiation pedagogy, but a complement. Roleplays, clinics, and live simulations remain essential, particularly for developing interpersonal sensitivity and peer learning. However, immersive simulations can extend what is possible, especially where scale, consistency, or access are challenges.

Several lessons stand out:

Pedagogy must lead technology. VR works best when grounded in clear learning objectives and theory.
Reflection is non-negotiable. Immersion without reflection limits learning.
Blended approaches are powerful. Combining VR with roleplays, discussion, and debriefing enriches all elements.
Staff capability matters. Educators need support to design, facilitate, and interpret immersive learning effectively.

Looking ahead

As negotiation increasingly takes place in digital and hybrid environments, it makes sense that negotiation education evolves alongside it. Immersive learning offers a way to rehearse difficult conversations, develop emotional intelligence, and build professional confidence in settings that feel authentic to contemporary practice.

For ADR educators, the challenge is not whether to adopt new technologies, but how to integrate them thoughtfully, in ways that preserve the reflective, human-centred core of the field.

Virtual Reality is not a silver bullet. But when used carefully, it can open new possibilities for learning how to negotiate well, ethically, and with empathy, skills that matter now more than ever.

Authors Biography

Dr. Alvedi Sabani is a Senior Lecturer and Program Manager of the Bachelor of Commerce at the College of Business and Law (CoBL), RMIT University, and the EdTech Project Lead. His research interests are broad and interdisciplinary, spanning artificial intelligence, blockchain, cloud computing, digital transformation, electronic government, gamification, innovative pedagogy, and inclusive technology adoption. As a co-founder of the RMIT GamifiED Hub, Dr. Sabani has been instrumental in driving scholarly innovation in learning and teaching through gamification. This initiative has produced cutting-edge resources that enhance the student learning experience, aligning closely with RMIT’s strategic emphasis on Active, Authentic, and Applied learning.

Professor Kathy Douglas leads the College of Business and Law learning, teaching and quality portfolio including governance, student satisfaction, program development and innovation in pedagogy. She is an experienced Executive leader who has focused on developing transformative educational experiences and impactful research. She was a member of academic board for several years and in 2020 chaired the Higher Education Committee. Previously, Kathy was the Dean of the Graduate School of Business and Law at RMIT (2018-2022). She led a high performing school focused on industry engaged learning and research. Kathy was awarded the Vice Chancellor’s leadership award for Imagination in 2020 for her innovative practices. Kathy has a passion for impactful leadership that benefits students, staff and the communities that RMIT engages with, including industry. In 2025 she was awarded the Francis Ormond Award for Innovation at RMIT.

The “Behavioural Turn” in Mediation: Rethinking Autonomy, Choice and Ethics

Posted on 12/02/2026 by Lisa Toohey

This post summarises and reflects on ideas first developed in the co-authored article, “The ‘Behavioral Turn’ in Dispute Resolution: Implications for Mediation Theory and Practice”, originally published in the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 41(2) (2025).

Across many disciplines, behavioural insights have transformed how we understand human decision-making. Psychology, behavioural economics, and social neuroscience increasingly reveal the extent to which human choices are shaped by cognitive biases, stress, fatigue, emotional load, social norms, and the framing of options. In a field such as mediation, which has long placed party autonomy and self-determination at its heart, these insights have (and will continue to) be transformed by these behavioural insights.

What is the “Behavioural Turn”?

The “behavioural turn” refers to a shift towards scientific explanations of human behaviour that highlight how decisions are influenced by context, environment, and cognitive processes rather than by unfettered individual choice. Much of this is familiar to mediators, reflecting many of their existing practices and enriching rather than disrupting existing practice.

Concepts such as confirmation bias, priming, loss aversion, and the endowment effect describe patterns practitioners see daily in the negotiation room. Neuroscience gives additional insights, showing how stress and heightened emotion increase reliance on mental shortcuts, making it harder to engage in the type of rational, future-orientated decisions that resolve disputes.

These theories help explain why tools such as reframing, structured processes, and careful management of tone and environment have been such effective skills for mediators to help guide participants towards management of conflict.

Beyond the Toolkit: Theoretical Implications

Behavioural insights do also have implications for mediation theory – challenging some of mediation’s foundational assumptions, particularly voluntariness, neutrality and autonomy. (See also the fantastic post on this blog by Jon Crowe and Rachael Field).

New behavioural knowledge challenges the idea that mediation can be a purely voluntary process in which the mediator is a neutral facilitator. Behavioural determinism also raises the question of whether mediators can ever truly “stand back” and avoid influencing outcomes. Mediators have multiple tools at their disposal to nudge or encourage the parties’ choices through subtle cues, phrasing, or tapping into or triggering particular cognitive biases.

“The ‘behavio[u]ral turn’ prevents us from naively accepting the convenient fictions of mediator neutrality and participant autonomy within conflict resolution activities.”

Rather than undermining mediation, this shift calls for a reassessment of its ethical foundations. We suggest a “compatibilist” understanding of autonomy. This recognises that people act with a sense of agency even when choices are shaped by antecedent factors, and we believe this offers a more realistic and conceptually honest approach. It also acknowledges that mediators inevitably influence the process, and foregrounds that this influence carries ethical responsibilities.

The Ethical Challenge: What should mediators do?

There is plenty of scope to use behavioural insights in a positive way: reducing cognitive load, supporting informed decisions, minimising the impact of bias, or helping parties regulate strong emotions. But they can also be misused. Poorly designed processes or overly directive behaviours can prime parties towards settlement in ways that privilege efficiency over genuine engagement or fair outcomes.

This highlights the need for a strengthened ethical framework. Approaches grounded in contextual and relational ethics offer a way forward and are developed in the work of Field and Crowe as well as Zhao and Hardy and Rundle. These frameworks see self-determination not as atomistic independence, but as relational participation supported by the mediator’s awareness, reflection, and transparent engagement with ethical considerations.

Conclusion

The behavioural turn may ultimately shift how we see the mediator, moving away from the dated idea of a “neutral helper” to a skilled conflict specialist who guides, coaches, and supports parties in understanding their own responses to conflict. This reframing aligns with long-standing critiques of neutrality and may offer a more coherent account of the mediator’s real work.

At the same time, new behavioural insights remind us to be vigilant. Without a robust ethical foundation, behavioural tools risk becoming mere techniques of persuasion. We should instead be using them to gain a richer, more honest account of how humans make decisions, and using them to support parties in mediation in an ethical way.

As we say in our article:

“Behavio[u]ral insights hold particular appeal for people whose daily work is the business of managing conflict… yet they also present an interesting dilemma for the mediator’s professional identity as an agent of self-determination.”

Behavioural insights do not diminish the value of mediation. Rather, they invite deeper reflection on its philosophical underpinnings and ethical commitments. The challenge ahead is to articulate frameworks that acknowledge influence without slipping into a mechanistic view of human conflict (one where conflict experts can simply push human ’buttons’ or nudge towards outcomes).

What we need is to embrace a more nuanced understanding of autonomy and redefine the core theories of mediation to reflect new scientific insights.

This conversation, already underway within mediation communities of practice and scholarship alike, is one of the most important that we as dispute resolvers can have.

Full text of the article in the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution is in the PDF below.

Toohey Behavioural Turn.pdf Download

Self-Sacrifice in Mediation: Exploring the Work of Costly Moves

Posted on 05/02/2026 by Milan A Nitopi

By Elenne Ford

When people find themselves locked in conflict, the usual advice is to stand firm and assert their position, interests and rights. Self-assertion dominates our cultural playbook. The titles of popular conflict resolution books give the flavour succinctly: Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In;¹ I Wanted Fries with That: How to Ask for What You Want and Get What You Need;² Your Perfect Right: Assertiveness and Equality in Your Life and Relationships.³ Yet in many situations, insisting on one’s way only deepens wounds, escalates hostility, and pushes relationships into deadlock.

Alongside this dominant self-assertion pathway, mediation practice sometimes relies on a different cluster of actions and behaviours. Rather than demanding rights or ‘repayment’ for wrongs, parties make concessions, offer conciliatory gestures, apologise, or forgive—sometimes as strategic compromises, but at other times in ways that involve voluntarily bearing a meaningful personal cost.

These voluntary and costly moves, when they involve the relinquishing of something deeply valued or rightfully held, are not standard objects of analytic focus within negotiation theory. Rarely have they been grouped together and analysed as a distinct category with their own logic and relational impact. While concessions are a routine feature of mediation, here the term self-sacrifice is used to refer to a narrower class of actions involving the voluntary relinquishing of something meaningfully valued or rightfully held at a cost to the self without expectation of reciprocal gain.

Understood as forms of self-sacrifice when they involve such cost, these actions require giving up something meaningfully connected to the self for the sake of another or the relationship in response to conflict. While seldom named as self-sacrifice or analysed as such in mainstream conflict-resolution theory, self-sacrificial actions quietly operate in everyday life—and, I suggest, within mediation practice—where they may help restore trust, soften hostility, and open pathways toward reconciliation that may otherwise remain inaccessible.

Mediation theory has largely noticed the moves—concessions, apologies, forgiveness, and other costly actions—but has paid less attention to the deeper work some of those moves can perform—the voluntary absorption of cost, the relinquishing of rightful claims, and the re-ordering of relations between parties.

Self-Assertion vs. Self-Sacrifice

Self-assertion is widely understood as a personal right—the act of standing up for one’s interests or opinions. In moderation, it can be healthy and necessary. But when used indiscriminately, especially in high-stakes disputes, it often backfires, triggering retaliation, escalating emotions, and entrenching divisions.⁴

By contrast, self-sacrifice is commonly defined as the giving up of one’s interests, or wellbeing to help others or advance a cause.⁵ It might sound extreme, yet even modest sacrifices—conceding a point that matters deeply, offering an apology, or forgiving an offence—when voluntary and appropriate to the relational context can alter the dynamics and relational fabric of a conflict.⁶ In contrast to the prominence of self-assertion, however, self-sacrifice rarely appears as an articulated option in a mediator’s conflict resolution toolkit.

Accordingly, my research asks: What is the relationship between self-sacrifice of parties in the mediation of seemingly intractable interpersonal conflict and potential pathways for resolution of such conflict?

Sorokin’s Five Dimensions of Creative Altruism

To explore this question, I draw on the work of sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (1889–1968), who described five dimensions of ‘creative altruism’:⁷ intensity, purity, adequacy, duration, and extensity. Among these, intensity—how costly an action is to the self—relates most directly to self-sacrifice. It captures acts that impose real loss or risk on the giver, such as apology, forgiveness, surrendering rightful claims.

Rather than abstract virtues, such costly gestures may form part of the often-invisible infrastructure through which reconciliation becomes possible in mediation.

Transactional and Relational Mechanisms

Self-sacrifice may operate through two broad mechanisms:

1. Transactional Mechanism

Conflict often produces a relational deficit—a sense that something is owed. This debt can be ‘collected’ through self-assertion or ‘absorbed’ through self-sacrifice.⁸ To forgive, apologise, or concede is to bear the cost oneself, thereby discharging the debt.⁹

2. Relational Mechanisms

Beyond the act itself, self-sacrifice can set relational dynamics in motion. These may include trust activation, triggered reciprocity, empathy arousal, re-interpretation of the other, and a cooperative orientation—each of which can reshape how parties engage with one another.¹⁰

Together, these mechanisms may help explain why costly gestures sometimes succeed where negotiation stalemates persist.

Why Cost Matters

Across disciplines, scholars suggest that costliness matters. An apology is often perceived as more credible when it carries risk or vulnerability; a conciliatory gesture more persuasive when it involves sacrifice. As conflict scholar Christopher Mitchell¹¹ observed ‘The greater the sacrifice involved, the more likely it will be evaluated as a credible change.’

Costliness, however, is not determined solely by the scale of an action. Even small sacrifices may carry significant personal or relational cost to the person making them. Offering patience when irritated, extending kindness when resentful, or taking the first step toward reconciliation all involve relinquishing pride, comfort, or control. Such acts can initiate meaningful relational shifts.

Ambiguity and Risk

Self-sacrifice is not without danger. It may be ignored, resisted or exploited, and can harm the giver if it reinforces unhealthy dynamics. Sorokin’s adequacy dimension captures this ambiguity by asking whether an act of sacrifice actually produces constructive outcomes.

Conclusion

Intractable conflict often appears irresolvable because parties are locked in cycles of self-assertion. Yet interdisciplinary research suggests another possibility worth examining: self-sacrifice as a distinct but under-theorised pathway. By absorbing costs rather than demanding repayment, parties may alter the dynamics and relational balance of conflict.

In mediation, this does not mean encouraging people to become doormats. Rather, it raises the possibility that costly, appropriate, voluntary acts—risky, and often counter-cultural—may function as meaningful interventions. Because self-sacrifice remains underexplored in conflict resolution scholarship, it warrants closer attention. My research seeks to analyse whether and how such actions shape pathways towards resolution, through fieldwork with mediators and parties to conflict.

Author Biography

Elenne Ford is a dispute resolution consultant with a long-standing background in law and mediation. Elenne brings a sustained commitment to transforming conflict into pathways for connection and growth. Elenne’s professional experience spans several decades as a barrister and mediator, complemented by ongoing study in counselling and peacemaking. Elenne is currently undertaking a PhD at the University of Queensland, examining intractable interpersonal conflict and the role of self-sacrifice in mediation, with a particular focus on how relational repair may be enabled through voluntary, redemptive self-giving. Grounded in a relational understanding of human wellbeing, Elenne’s research and practice centre on fostering constructive, relationally attuned responses to conflict.

References

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without
giving in (3rd , updated and revised ed.). Penguin. ↩︎
Fish, A. (2020). I Wanted Fries with That: How to Ask for What You Want and Get What
You Need. ↩︎
Alberti, R., & Emmons, M. (2017). Your Perfect Right: Assertiveness and Equality in Your
Life and Relationships. ↩︎
Pruitt, D. G., & Nowak, A. (2014). Attractor landscapes and reaction functions in escalation and de-escalation. The International journal of conflict management, 25(4), p388. Hargie, O. (2021). Skilled Interpersonal Communication : Research, Theory and Practice. Taylor & Francis Group p339,340. ↩︎
Axinn, S. (2010). Sacrifice and Value: A Kantian Interpretation (1 ed.). Lexington Books/Fortress Academic. P3,5. Bahr, H. M., & Bahr, K. S. (2001). Families and Self-Sacrifice: Alternative Models and Meanings for Family Theory. Social Forces, 79(4), 1232; Rosati, C. S. (2009). Self-Interest and Self-Sacrifice. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, p324; ↩︎
Molander, P. (1985). The Optimal Level of Generosity in a Selfish, Uncertain Environment. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29(4), 612,613,617. Cloke, K. (2001). Mediating Dangerously: the frontiers of conflict resolution. Wiley/Jossey-Bass p90. Barkat, J. S. (2019). Reaching for ripeness: promoting negotiation through unilateral conciliatory action. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(2), 184 ↩︎
Sorokin, P. A., & Post, S. G. (2002). The Ways and Power of Love : types, factors, and techniques of moral transformation:pbk (Timeless classic paperback ed.). Templeton Foundation Press. ↩︎
Keller, T. (2022). Forgive: Why Should I and How Can I? (1 ed.). Penguin Publishing Group p59 ↩︎
Keller, T. (2022). Forgive: Why Should I and How Can I? (1 ed.). Penguin Publishing Group p209,210 ↩︎
Coleman, P., & Deutsch, M. (2015). Morton Deutsch: a pioneer in developing peace psychology. Springer (Vol 30) pp. 24, 50,51); Van Lange, P. A. M., & Righetti, F. (2009). Willingness to Sacrifice. In H. T. Reis, &, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 1690; Barkat, J. S. (2019). Reaching for ripeness: promoting negotiation through unilateral conciliatory action. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(2), p. 181,184; Schumann, K., & Dragotta, A. (2021). Empathy as a predictor of high‐quality interpersonal apologies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(6), p906 ↩︎
Mitchell, C. R. (2000). Gestures of Conciliation : factors contributing to successful olive branches. Macmillan. p157 ↩︎