MÜZAKEREDE ÖZNEL DEĞER ENVANTER ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇE’YE UYARLAMA ÇALIŞMALARI

Öz

Bu araştırmada, Curhan, Elfenbein ve Xu (2006) tarafından geliştirilen Müzakerede Öznel Değer Envanteri (MÖDE) ölçeğinin Türkçe diline uyarlanması için güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin Türkçe çevirisi uzmanların desteği ile tamamlandıktan sonra kapsam ve dil geçerliği için işlemler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Türkçe ölçek formuyla toplanan veriler, güvenirlik ve geçerlilik analizleri için kullanılmıştır. Analizlerde, İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi ve Üsküdar Üniversitesi öğrencileri ile Türkiye’de uluslararası firmalarda çalışan katılımcıdan elde edilen veriler kullanılmıştır. 207 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirilen Keşfedici Faktör Analizi (KFA) ölçeğin orijinal formundakine paralel üç ana faktör ve 16 maddelik yapı ortaya çıkardı. Türk kültüründe müzakerenin algılanma biçimi sebebi ile iki maddenin orijinal ölçekten farklı faktörlere yüklendikleri gözlemlendi. Yeni madde yapısı 338 ek örneklem ile gerçekleştirilen Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile incelenmiş ve modelin orijinal üç ana faktör ve iki alt boyutlu yapısını doğrulanmıştır. MÖDE’nin Türkçe formunun alt boyutları araçsal, bireysel, süreçsel ve ilişkisel olarak orijinal forma uygun şekilde adlandırılmıştır ve araştırma sonucunda MÖDE ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerliliği ve güvenirliği konusunda yeterli kanıt sunulmuştur. Ölçeğin “benliksel” faktörünün sınır değerlerdeki yakınsak geçerliliğiyle ilgili bulgular önceki çalışmalar ile benzerlik göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Müzakere
• öznel değer envanteri
• sosyal psikolojik sonuçlar
• tatmin
• güven
• benlik
• adalet

TURKISH ADAPTATION OF SUBJECTIVE VALUE INVENTORY

Abstract

In this study, reliability and validity studies were conducted for the Turkish language adaptation of the Subjective Value Inventory (SVI) in negotiation scale developed by Curhan, Elfenbein, and Xu (2006). With the support of experts the Turkish translation of the scale was completed and procedures were carried out for content and language validity. The data for analysis was obtained from the students of Istanbul Kultur University, Istanbul Technical University and Üsküdar University and the participants working in international companies in Türkiye. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), conducted with 207 participants, revealed three main factors and a 16-item structure parallel to the original form of the scale. Likely due to the perception of negotiation in Turkish culture, two items were loaded on factors different from the original scale. The new item structure was examined by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with 338 additional samples, and the original three main factors and two sub-dimensions of the model were confirmed. The sub-dimensions of the Turkish version of the SVI were named in accordance with the original scale, and findings provided sufficient evidence about the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the SVI. Findings regarding the borderline convergent validity of the scale's "self" factor were similar to previous studies.

Keywords

• Negotiation
• subjective value inventory (SVI)
• social psychological outcomes
• satisfaction
• trust
• self
• justice

References

1. 1. Aiken, L. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 955-959. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419
2. 2. Allport, G.W. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. Yale University Press.
3. 3. Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S. ve Yıldırım, E. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri Spss Uygulamalı. (Geliştirilmiş 6. Baskı) İstanbul: Sakarya Yayıncılık.
4. 4. Becker, W. J., & Curhan, J. R. (2018). The dark side of subjective value in sequential negotiations: The mediating role of pride and anger. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 74-87. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000253
5. 5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., (2010). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. (Onikinci Baskı) Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
6. 6. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295-336.
7. 7. Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Eisenkraft, N. (2010). The objective value of subjective value: A multi-round negotiation study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(3), 690-709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00593.x
8. 8. Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 493-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.493

9. 9. Cronbach, L.J. (1990). Essentials of Psychological Testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
10. 10. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş., (2010). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Spss ve Lisrel Uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
11. 11. De Dreu, C.K.W. (1997). Productive confl ict: The importance of confl ict management and confl ict issue. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using confl ict in organizations (pp. 9-22). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446217016.n2
12. 12. Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in confl ict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 26-50. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1395
13. 13. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From Alpha to Omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
14. 14. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books.
15. 15. Fornell, C., & Lacker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. http://doi.org/10.2307/3150980
16. 16. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.).
17. 17. Galinsky, A. D., Mussweiler, T., & Medvec, V. H. (2002). Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations in negotiations: The role of negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1131–1140.
18. 18. Galinsky, A. D., Seiden, V., Kim, P. H., & Medvec, V. H. (2002). The dissatisfaction of having your first offer accepted: The role of counterfactual thinking in negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 271–283.
19. 19. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
20. 20. Hair, Jr., JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE, Tatham, RL. Multivariate data analysis (6th Ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall; 2006.
21. 21. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
22. 22. Kaplan, D. (2009). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226576
23. 23. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. Free Press.
24. 24. Lewicki, R., Saunders, D. M., Barry, B., & Minton, J. W. (2004). Essentials of negotiation (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
25. 25. Lewis, B., Olekalns, M., Smith, P., & Caza, B. (2018). See the benefit: Adversity appraisal and subjective value in negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 34(4), 379-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12243
26. 26. Lindner, E. (2006). Making enemies: Humiliation and international conflict. Praeger Security International. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433070440020710
27. 27. Lorenzo Lago, E., Morales Domínguez, J. F., Sabucedo Cameselle, J. M., & Seoane Pesqueira, G. (2020). Spanish adaptation of the subjective value inventory. Psicothema.
28. 28. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
29. 29. Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Psychological influence in negotiation: An introduction long overdue. Journal of Management, 34(3), 509-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316060
30. 30. Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P. A., Stuhlmacher, A., Bilke, L., & Hertel, G. (2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038184
31. 31. Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martínez, I., & Guerra, J. M. (2005). Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3-4), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510589019
32. 32. Nash, J. (1953). Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 21(1), 128-140. https://doi.org/10.2307/1906951
33. 33. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
34. 34. Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Achieving integrative agreements. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 35-49). Sage Publications.
35. 35. Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1992). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.549-599). Sage Publications.
36. 36. Robbıns, P. S. (2001). Organizational Behavior, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
37. 37. Sakhrani, V. A. (2016). The Objective Value of Subjective Value in project design negotiations. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 6(2-4), 78-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2016.1268123
38. 38. Schermeller-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of signifi cance and descriptive goodness-of-fi t measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74.
39. 39. Şeker, H ve Gençdoğan, B. (2014). Psikolojide Ve Eğitimde Ölçme Aracı Geliştirme. Nobel yayınevi. 2. Basım. Ankara.
40. 40. Şimşek, Ö.F., (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellenmesine Giriş Temel İlkeler ve Lisrel Uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayıncılık.
41. 41. Thompson, L. L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 515-532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.515
42. 42. Thompson, L. L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 98-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90048-E
43. 43. Thompson, L. L. (2005). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
44. 44. Thompson, L. L., Wang, J., & Gunia, B. C. (2010) Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 491-515. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.093008.100458
45. 45. Turetsky, K. M., Curley, J. P., Carter, A. B., & Purdie‐Greenaway, V. (2023). Explaining the gender gap in negotiation performance: Social network ties outweigh internal barriers. Journal of Social Issues, 79(1), 50-78.
46. 46. Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behaviour: Theoretical Frontiers. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203776049
47. 47. Venkiteswaran, S., & Sundarraj, R. P. (2021). How angry are you? Anger intensity, demand and subjective value in multi-round distributive electronic negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 30, 143-170.
48. 48. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (2011). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. WW Norton & Company.