Expressive Writing as an Intervention for Anxiety’s Negative Effects on Women Negotiators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to study the effects of anxiety resulting from negative stereotypes on women’s negotiation performance (Kray, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2001); furthermore, I test whether or not expressive writing may act as an intervention and moderate the relationship. I hypothesize that dispositionally anxious negotiators will perform worse in a stereotype-threatened environment relative to those with low anxiety. Secondly, I hypothesize that among high-anxious negotiators, those who complete an expressive writing task will report lower levels of anxiety and will be less anxious compared to their dispositionally anxious peers in the control condition. This decrease in anxiety is expected to lead to better negotiation outcomes. To test these hypotheses, I am engaging 100 mixed-sex dyads in a negotiation task and assessing a number of objective and subjective negotiation outcomes. Before the task, I am subtly reminding all participants in the dyads, whose female participants I have pre-screened for either high or low habitual negotiation anxiety, about the negative stereotypes that exist for women in negotiation. At random, half of the dyads will complete an expressive writing task just before negotiating while the other half will complete a control task. I will assess differences of anxiety and negotiation outcome measures between the groups. Implications for theory, research, and practice will be discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".