ABSTRACT
Coping is a dynamic response to stressors that employees encounter in their work and nonwork roles. Scholars have argued that it is not just whether employees cope with work-nonwork stressors-but how they cope-that matters. Indeed, prior research assumes that adaptive coping strategies-planning, prioritizing, positive reframing, seeking emotional and instrumental support-are universally beneficial, suggesting that sustaining high levels of these strategies is ideal. By returning to the roots of coping theory, we adopt a person-centered, dynamic approach using latent profile analysis and latent transition analysis across three multiwave studies (N = 1,370) to consider whether employees combine coping strategies and how remaining in or shifting between such combinations also matters. In a pilot study (N = 361), we explored profiles and their transitions during a time frame punctuated with macrolevel transitions that amplified employees' work-nonwork stressors (i.e., COVID-19), which revealed three profiles at Time 1 (comprehensive copers, emotion-focused copers, and individualistic copers) and a fourth profile at Time 2 (surviving copers). In Study 1 (N = 648), across all three time points, we replicated three profiles and found evidence for constrained copers instead of emotion-focused copers. In Study 2 (N = 361), across both time points, we replicated all four profiles from Study 1 and tested hypotheses regarding the profiles, their transition patterns, and implications of such patterns for work, well-being, and social functioning outcomes. Altogether, our work suggests that maintaining high-coping depth or increasing depth is generally beneficial, whereas maintaining or increasing coping breadth is generally harmful. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
ABSTRACT
We build on the small but growing literature documenting personality influences on negotiation by examining how the joint disposition of both negotiators with respect to the interpersonal traits of agreeableness and extraversion influences important negotiation processes and outcomes. Building on similarity-attraction theory, we articulate and demonstrate how being similarly high or similarly low on agreeableness and extraversion leads dyad members to express more positive emotional displays during negotiation. Moreover, because of increased positive emotional displays, we show that dyads with such compositions also tend to reach agreements faster, perceive less relationship conflict, and have more positive impressions of their negotiation partner. Interestingly, these results hold regardless of whether negotiating dyads are similar in normatively positive (i.e., similarly agreeable and similarly extraverted) or normatively negative (i.e., similarly disagreeable and similarly introverted) ways. Overall, these findings demonstrate the importance of considering the dyad's personality configuration when attempting to understand the affective experience as well as the downstream outcomes of a negotiation. (PsycINFO Database Record
