The interactional organization of mediation minimizes arguing by separating accusations and denials, and providing for selective responses to accusations and the mitigation of accusations and denials. Argumentative exchanges that occurred were brief (typically no more than two to three exchanges of pairs of oppositional utterances), and were often sanctioned by mediators when they occurred (Garcia 1991). While Greatbatch and Dingwall (1997) found that in British divorce mediation sessions mediators allowed disputants to speak directly to each other for extended exchanges, even when arguing occurred, they also found evidence of mediators sanctioning disputants for arguing (Greatbatch and Dingwall 1994).1 These findings suggest that mediators make judgment calls as to when arguing between disputants should be allowed.