Job satisfaction, depression severity and quality of life ratings of perioperative nurses in robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery.

The rapid introduction of technological developments into healthcare systems adds another layer of complexity to the already demanding jobs of nurses, particularly for those working in perioperative care. In the present study, our primary aim is job satisfaction, whereas the secondary outcomes are psychological well-being and quality of life (QoL) ratings of perioperative nurses who take part in robotic-assisted and pure laparoscopic surgery. A total of 101 perioperative nurses in six different centers were included in the study. Fifty-one of the nurses were working in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery and 50 of them were working in pure laparoscopic surgery. All participants responded to Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (MJSQ), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and SF-36 QoL Measurement Survey. The two groups did not differ in their total MJSQ, BDI and SF-36 QoL scores (pMJSQ:0.066, pBDI:0.329, pSF-36-QoL:0.136). In addition, there were no differences between the two groups in their intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction sub-scores (pintrinsic: 0.473, pextrinsic:0.121). Overall, 18.9% of the nurses reported having moderate to extreme depressive symptoms and most of them (87.1%) had low to moderate levels of job satisfaction. Finally, QoL ratings was generally at moderate levels. Perioperative nurses who work in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery do not differ from those working in pure laparoscopic surgery in terms of their job satisfaction, psychological well-being, and QoL ratings. In addition, across groups' psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and QoL ratings were not particularly high, suggesting that more attention needs to be paid to improving the work conditions of perioperative nurses.

Face threat sensitivity in distributive negotiations: Effects on negotiator self-esteem and demands.

Face threat sensitivity (FTS) is defined as reactive sensitivity to threats to one's social self-worth. In negotiations, such threats may come from a counterpart's competitive behavior. We developed and tested the argument that individuals high in face threat sensitivity, when negotiating with a competitive (vs. cooperative) counterpart, exhibit psychological responses that inhibit them from claiming value in distributive negotiations. Employing a face-to-face interaction paradigm, Study 1 revealed that higher counterpart competitiveness was negatively associated with high (but not low) FTS negotiators' global self-esteem, which in turn led them to be less demanding and obtain worse negotiation outcomes. In Study 2, employing a simulated on-line interaction paradigm, we manipulated counterpart's behavior (cooperative vs. competitive) to establish causality and examined specific aspects of negotiator global self-esteem that may account for the effect. We found that the effect of counterpart's competitiveness on high FTS negotiators' demand levels was mediated by their performance self-esteem, but not by their social self-esteem. In Study 3, we manipulated performance self-esteem to establish it as a causal underlying psychological mechanism. For high FTS negotiators, when performance self-esteem was low, demand levels were significantly lower with a competitive (vs. cooperative) counterpart. However, when performance self-esteem was high, there was no significant difference in demand levels depending on counterpart's behavior. This finding suggests that negotiating with a competitive (vs. cooperative) counterpart reduces high FTS negotiators' performance self-esteem, which in turn leads them to make lower demands. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Power as an emotional liability: Implications for perceived authenticity and trust after a transgression.

People may express a variety of emotions after committing a transgression. Through 6 empirical studies and a meta-analysis, we investigate how the perceived authenticity of such emotional displays and resulting levels of trust are shaped by the transgressor's power. Past findings suggest that individuals with power tend to be more authentic because they have more freedom to act on the basis of their own personal inclinations. Yet, our findings reveal that (a) a transgressor's display of emotion is perceived to be less authentic when that party's power is high rather than low; (b) this perception of emotional authenticity, in turn, directly influences (and mediates) the level of trust in that party; and (c) perceivers ultimately exert less effort when asked to make a case for leniency toward high rather than low-power transgressors. This tendency to discount the emotional authenticity of the powerful was found to arise from power increasing the transgressor's perceived level of emotional control and strategic motivation, rather than a host of alternative mechanisms. These results were also found across different types of emotions (sadness, anger, fear, happiness, and neutral), expressive modalities, operationalizations of the transgression, and participant populations. Altogether, our findings demonstrate that besides the wealth of benefits power can afford, it also comes with a notable downside. The findings, furthermore, extend past research on perceived emotional authenticity, which has focused on how and when specific emotions are expressed, by revealing how this perception can depend on considerations that have nothing to do with the expression itself. (PsycINFO Database Record

Agreement Attraction and Impasse Aversion: Reasons for Selecting a Poor Deal Over No Deal at All.

In the present studies, we examined the positive value of agreement and the negative value of impasse. Participants chose to give up real value and sacrifice economic efficiency in order to attain an agreement outcome and avoid an impasse outcome. A personally disadvantageous option was selected significantly more often when it was labeled "Agreement" rather than "Option A," and a personally advantageous option was avoided significantly more often when it was labeled "Impasse" rather than "Option B." In a face-to-face negotiation, a substantial proportion of individuals reached an agreement that was inferior to their best alternative to agreement. We showed that the appeal of agreement and the aversion to impasse both contribute to this effect, yet the aversion to impasse is the stronger of the two motivations. These findings have important implications for negotiators.