Creation of Coping-Profiles of Managers for Obtaining Methods of Coping in Socially Significant Situations during Negotiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional activity of managers, entrepreneurs and other persons who often enter into negotiations implies high density of difficulties and problem situations. This study explored whether social and psychological peculiarities of personality preferred negotiating styles and response to ambiguity may be determinants of productive coping behaviour. The authors surveyed 105 managers of medium and large-sized business aged from 23 to 59. The average age of the respondents is 35.37 years. The study measured an adaptive level of coping strategies by E. Heim's Coping Questionnaire, peculiarities of personality by 5PFQ P. Costa and R. McCrae, preferred negotiating styles and response to ambiguity. Results suggested that adaptive coping strategies more frequently used by less anxious, emotionally healthy managers who in dealing with colleagues and subordinates show respect, willingness to understand and accept the other's point of view, comparative to non-adaptive or relatively adaptive coping strategies using managers with high anxiety, emotional instability and less developed communication skills. It was found the correlation between preferences of the negotiation styles and personality characteristics of respondents. Managers who use adaptive behavioural coping techniques in socially significant and stressful situations are characterized by a higher degree of respect for the people around them (p<0.001), greater emotional relaxation (p<0.001). These social and psychological characteristics may be considered as the determinants of a person's use of adaptive coping ways under challenging situations and more or less serve as a guarantee for their successful overcoming.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".