In either event, and especially if their animosity stems from insecurity and fear, they may regard the initiative as a form of coercion and feel threatened thereby. The mediator's appointment by a powerful external actor can give rise to further complications. In many instances of conflict, independent observers might regard the behaviour of one or more of the disputants as unreasonable if not irrational. They might even view the issues in dispute and the differences between the parties as relatively trivial. If the parties shared these views, however, there would be no need for mediation.
Mediators have to take seriously the significance which the parties attach to their positions.
The disputants are typically motivated by unmet needs which are fundamental and by real or imagined threats to their security. The threats may relate to physical safety, cultural identity, financial security or some other concern. Interpreting conflict in this way helps to explain why disputants assume a hard-line stance and why trust in the mediator's impartiality is a critical factor. Basic human needs are not limited to material imperatives like food and shelter. Individuals and groups crave respect, acknowledgement and affirmation.