Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Toward a Better Understanding of the Mindsets of Negotiators

Development and Construct Validation of the Scale for the Integrative Mindset (SIM)

Published Online:November 13, 2019https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000548

Abstract

Abstract. This article introduces and discusses the 15-item Scale for the Integrative Mindset (SIM) of negotiators, that is of people involved in joint decision-making processes. The scale is based on the integrative mindset (Ade, Schuster, Harinck, & Trötschel, 2018), which describes a set of three inclinations of parties approaching negotiations: a collaborative, a curious, and a creative one. Using a first sample (N = 1,030) of online survey participants, we provide evidence for a high psychometric quality of the SIM as suggested by high reliabilities and good fit indices. We also compare the SIM with scales that measure well-known and possibly related psychological constructs and show the SIM’s distinction to them. Using a second sample (N = 417), we show how the SIM differs from a Scale on Inappropriate Negotiation Strategies (SINS) that has been used in previous negotiation research. The findings of the present studies are discussed with respect to potential applications of the SIM in experimental research.

References

  • Ade, V., Schuster, C., Harinck, F., & Trötschel, R. (2018). Mindset-Oriented Negotiation Training (MONT): Teaching more than skills and knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 907. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00907 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S., & Musch, J. (2013). Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 527–535. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of positive psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 430–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308329961 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Donnellan, M. B., Kenny, D. A., Trzesniewski, K. H., Lucas, R. E., & Conger, R. D. (2012). Using trait–state models to evaluate the longitudinal consistency of global self-esteem from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.07.005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mindsets. In T. E. HigginsR. M. SorrentinoEds., Handbook of motivation and cognition–foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (2012). Mindset theory of action phases. In P. Van LangeA. W. KruglanskiE. T. HigginsEds., Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 526–545). London, UK: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariances structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundation and extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Knowles, E. S. (1988). Item context effects on personality scales: Measuring changes the measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.312 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Negotiation genius. New York, NY: Bantam. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Phillips, K. A., Gunderson, J. G., Hirschfeld, R. M., & Smith, L. E. (1990). A review of the depressive personality. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.147.7.830 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Prinz, W. (1984). Modes of linkage between perception and action. In W. PrinzA.-F. SandersEds., Cognition and motor processes (pp. 185–193). Berlin, Germany: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Reips, U.-D. (2002). Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.49.4.243 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Robinson, R. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200009)21:6<649::AID-JOB45>3.0.CO;2-%23 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26, 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sharma, S., Bottom, W. P., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2013). On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: A meta-analysis. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 293–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613505857 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Trötschel, R., Hüffmeier, J., Loschelder, D. D., Schwartz, K., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps to walk toward agreements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 771–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023801 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557–585. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar