Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40564557›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Cogito, Ergo Contraho: Think Big or Think Small? How Construal Level Theory Shapes Creative Agreements.

Hyeran Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hyeran ChoiSchool of Business Administration, College of Business and Economics, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1372-3315

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Creativity is a vital element for successful negotiation and positive business outcomes. However, a complete understanding of how different thinking styles shape creative agreements is still developing in research. This study examines how broad and detailed thinking affects the ability to create inventive deals, with a particular focus on construal level theory. While past research has often highlighted abstract thinking as the main way to be creative, this study shows that both abstract and concrete thinking contribute to making creative deals but in different ways. For example, Study 1 looks at how concrete thinking helps in forming creative agreements, tested with 114 undergraduate students in a laboratory experiment. This challenges the common idea that concrete thinking limits new ideas. Study 2 then explores the benefits of thinking that combines different viewpoints, where negotiators can skillfully switch between abstract and concrete ways of thinking, tested with 96 students in another laboratory experiment. Across two experiments, mediation analyses were conducted to examine the hypothesized relationships. Findings indicate that cognitive flexibility-the ability to switch thinking styles-benefits both idea generation and specific problem-solving. This study's implications span negotiation strategies, fostering organizational creativity, and developing flexible thinking approaches for problem-solving.

Indexed as

cognitive flexibilityconstrual level theorycreative agreementsdecision-makingintegrative negotiation

Identifiers

PMID40564557
PMCPMC12189516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.