Conflict personalization poses a challenge as it negatively affects both organizational performance and individual well-being. Given these negative consequences, this study explored a number of promising factors that could enable employees to refrain from such conflict personalization. The current study examined a conditional mediation model in which Growth mindset, through its relationship with Problem-solving conflict management, weakens the relationship between Interpersonal conflict and Conflict personalization. The cross-sectional study involved 130 Dutch participants, ranging in age from 18 to 72 years, who completed an online questionnaire. The central hypothesis, represented by the conditional mediation model, was tested using multiple regression analysis. Data provided partial support for the central hypothesis, particularly indicating that a stronger growth mindset serves as a protective factor against conflict personalization within interpersonal conflict, albeit not through problem-solving conflict management. Based on these findings, the development and testing of interventions targeting the enhancement of employees' growth mindsets to prevent or reduce conflict personalization becomes recommendable. Future research should explore additional protective factors against conflict personalization and address limitations, including by means of experimentation.
Perceived slights in close relationships can evoke a range of revenge responses. However, less is known about the motivational processes underlying such revenge decisions. Across two vignette studies, we examined how dispositional motives, namely narcissistic need for power (NNP) and victim justice sensitivity (JSV), as well as situational revenge goals shape revenge preferences. In Study 1 (N = 375), individuals higher in NNP and JSV were generally more likely to endorse revenge, with the two dispositions showing distinct associations with specific revenge decisions. Study 2 (N = 550) extended these findings by additionally examining six situational revenge goals. Both dispositions were associated with meaningful variation in revenge goals, which were in turn differentially related to revenge preferences. Specifically, goals of justice restoration and dominance assertion were consistently associated with stronger revenge desires. Together, these findings suggest that revenge following interpersonal offenses may serve different psychological functions: Individuals may seek revenge to restore threatened power and status or to address perceived injustice. Thus, the same offense may be experienced as either a threat to social standing or a violation of fairness, with dispositional characteristics shaping which motivational pathway becomes more salient.
This study investigates how professional experience moderates the relationship between moral beliefs and legal expectations (normative judgment on whether legal consequences should be imposed) regarding lies in B2B contract negotiations. Integrating Lewicki's cost-benefit framework and Luhmann's systems theory with Rest's Four-Component Model of morality, we conducted a vignette study (N = 1.076) with German judges, lawyers, negotiators, and students. Our results show that moral beliefs and legal expectations are associated but not identical. We identify an asymmetry: evaluating a lie as morally acceptable almost eliminates the expectation of legal consequences, whereas evaluating it as immoral increases legal expectations. This relationship changes across professional and inexperienced groups. By linking professional practice to Rest's model, this study advances negotiation research by offering insight into how practitioners navigate the complexities and costs of lying. This refinement suggests that normative evaluations must consider professional socialization as a primary element that sharpens moral and legal judgments in business contexts.
This study investigates whether and how bilingualism intersects with gender to affect preferences for conflict management styles (CMS). Specifically, we compared gender differences across active and passive CMS in monolingual and bilingual individuals. Drawing on managerial and psycholinguistic research, we hypothesized that bilingualism would moderate gender differences in CMS. A pilot study (N = 64) and a main study (N = 371) were conducted with adult samples of U.S. born-and-raised monolinguals and bilinguals. In the main study, participants completed a refined 22-item instrument measuring CMS aggregated into active (i.e., dominating, integrating, compromising) and passive (i.e., avoiding, obliging) CMS. Multivariate analysis confirmed self-identified gender as a robust predictor of CMS differences. While further univariate analyses showed no effects for active styles, they revealed a significant interaction between gender and bilingualism for passive styles (p = .025). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that while monolingual women reported higher passive CMS scores than monolingual men (p < .001), this gender gap was absent among bilingual participants (p = .970). We interpret these findings through enhanced cognitive control afforded by managing two languages, which might equip bilinguals to better manage socialized passive defaults. Ultimately, these findings identify bilingualism as a subtle but meaningful boundary condition for CMS, highlighting linguistic identity as a resource for fostering more adaptive and less stereotyped conflict resolution in modern society.
Emotional intelligence (EI) has gained increasing attention in negotiation research, yet findings on its impact remain fragmented and inconclusive. This study provides a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to clarify the role of EI in negotiations. Drawing on 105 empirical studies published up to 2025, we synthesize theoretical frameworks, study designs, and outcome types across diverse negotiation contexts. We develop an integrative conceptual model highlighting five EI components: self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, social skills, and emotional reasoning, and their differential effects on negotiation outcomes. Our meta-analysis of 37 empirical studies providing 155 effect sizes reveals a small but robust positive relationship between EI and by measurement approach, self-report measures of EI (k = 32) demonstrated a positive association with negotiation outcomes (r = 0.208, 95% CI [0.162, 0.253]), as did ability-based measures (k = 4, r = 0.232, 95% CI [0.101, 0.354]). The two streams did not differ significantly (p = .732), though the ability-based estimate rests on only four studies and carries substantial uncertainty. Across both streams, EI showed a stronger effect on relational outcomes (r = 0.262) than on economic outcomes (r = 0.140), a difference that was statistically significant (p = .006). Dyadic settings further amplified the positive effects of EI, while multiparty negotiations showed weaker associations. We identify substantial heterogeneity across studies and demonstrate that structural and methodological factors shape the EInegotiation link. The findings challenge the assumption of universally positive EI effects and offer implications for negotiation training, measurement approaches, and future research on boundary conditions of EI in negotiations.
