Predictive validity of constructive thinking in negotiating effectiveness

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español (España))
Published: Jan 12, 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2014.n1.v6.740
Keywords:
Effective negotiating constructive thoughts

Main Article Content

José Carlos Rodríguez Trueba
Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canarias
Heriberto Rodríguez Mateo
Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canarias
Isabel Luján Henríquez
Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canarias

Abstract

The objective of the present study is to analyze the predictive value of a measuring instrument of Constructive Thinking (CTI), in relation to Negotiating Effectiveness, measured by CEN II. From a conceptual approach, the concept of negotiating effectiveness is operationalized through a quantitative score, and the concept of Constructive Thinking is also delimited. Empirical research was carried out through a sample of 304 subjects, divided into different groups according to the degree and type of negotiating experience. The results confirm, among other things, that people who score higher on Global Constructive Thinking, are those with greater negotiating effectiveness as score through CEN II.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Rodríguez Trueba, J. C., Rodríguez Mateo, H., & Luján Henríquez, I. (2014). Predictive validity of constructive thinking in negotiating effectiveness. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology. Revista INFAD De Psicología., 6(1), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2014.n1.v6.740
Issue
Vol. 6 No. 1 (2014): PSYCHOLOGY AND MODERN WORLD
Section
Articles
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
 
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format under the following terms:

 

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

 
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
 
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
 
The authors are responsible to obtain the appropriate permissions to reproduce material (text, images or graphics) from other publications and to quote their origin correctly.
 

References

Bazerman, M. H. & Neale, M.A. (1993) La negociación racional. Barcelona. Paidós.

Bercovitch, J. (1984) “Problems and Approaches in the study of Bargaining and Negotiation”. Political Science, 36, 2.

Damasio (1994) Descartes Error: Emotión, Reason, and the Human Brain. Putman: Nueva York

Epstein, S. (1998): Constructive Thinking: The Key to emotional inteligence. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Kahneman (2012): Pensar rápido, pensar despacio. Barcelona: Debate.

Mastenbroek, W.F. (1987) Conflict management and organization development. New York. Wiley.

Mastenbroek, W.F. (1991) “Development and negotiating skills”. Kremenyuk, V. A. International Negotiation: analysis, approaches, is sues. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Pruitt, D. G. (1983) “Strategic Choice in negotiation”. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 2.

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Serrano, Rodríguez y Cunha (1996) Evaluación de la Eficacia Negociadora: El CEN II.

Serrano, G. (1986). La negociación colectiva: dimensiones psicosociales. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 3, 7-19.

Serrano, G. y Rodríguez, D. (1993). Negociación en las Organizaciones. EUDEMA Universidad.

Serrano. (1996) ¿Qué dice la investigación científica sobre la negociación? Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las organizaciones, 12, 2-3, 127-147.

Serrano, G. y Méndez, M. (1999). Las Intervenciones de los mediadores. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 52, 2-3, 235-253

Serrano, G., Mirón, L. y Rodríguez, D. (2001) Factores determinantes de la mediación en conflictos familiares. XXVIII Congreso de la Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología. Santiago de Chile.

Serrano, G. (2003). Nuevos desarrollos en psicología de la mediación. Congreso de Mediación Familiar. Valladolid.

Serrano, G.; López, C.; Rodríguez, D.; Mirón, L. (2006). Características de los mediadores y éxito de la mediación. Anuario de psicología jurídica, 16, 75-88.

Serrano, G. (2008). Eficacia y Mediación Familiar. Boletín Oficial de Psicología, 92, 51-63.

Serrano, G.; Monteiro, P; Rodríguez, Dámaso (2012). Estilo de gestión del conflicto, factores de personalidad y eficacia en la negociación. Revista de Psicología Social, 27, 1, .97-110.

Slovic, P.; Finucane, M.; Peters, E.; Mcgregor, D. (2002) , The affect heuristic, en Gilovich, T.;Griffin, D. y Kahneman, D. eds, Heuristics and Biases, Cambrige University Press, Nueva York, 2002, pp 397-420.