Dr. Kenneth Tai is a faculty member at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at Singapore Management University. This episode focused on his research on gender and workplace mistreatment. He discussed how men and women receive mistreatment in the workplace. The article referenced in the episode:Tai, K., Lee, K., Kim, E., Johnson, T. D., Wang, W., Duffy, M. K., & Kim, S. (2022). Gender, bottom-line mentality, and workplace mistreatment: The roles of gender norm violation and team gender composition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(5), 854–865. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000936

Dr. Amira Schiff is a professor and the Director of the Conflict Management, Resolution, and Negotiation Graduate Program at Bar-Ilan University. As a researcher in international conflict resolution, she specializes in the intricacies of conflict management and the dynamics of peace processes. Her influential work, particularly the article 'Reaching a Mutual Agreement: Readiness Theory and Coalition Building in the Aceh Peace Process,' earned the prestigious NCMR award for the best paper in 2014. Dr. Schiff has a prolific publication record, contributing to key journals in the field such as NCMR, the International Journal of Conflict Management and the International Negotiation journal. Her book, 'Negotiating Intractable Conflicts: Readiness Theory Revisited,' published by Routledge in 2021, further cements her status as a leading voice in conflict resolution studies.Schiff, A., (2021) “Readiness Theory: A New Approach to Understanding Mediated Prenegotiation and Negotiation Processes Leading to Peace Agreements”, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 14(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.34891/z3t9-9d49

Deborah A. Cai (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is professor and senior associate dean in the Klein College of Media and Communication at Temple University, and she is a faculty member in the Media and Communication doctoral program. Dr. Cai is an international researcher with scholarly and professional expertise in intercultural communication, persuasion, negotiation and conflict management. She has conducted research in China, Japan, and the U.S., and she has trained political and business leaders from Afghanistan, China, Kazakhstan, and developing nations from Asian Pacific Economic Commission (APEC) and the State Department’s leadership program. Deborah is a Fellow in the International Academy of Intercultural Researchers and a Fellow and past president of the International Association for Conflict Management (IACM). She is Past-Chair of the Conflict Management division of the Academy of Management. Deborah served as editor of the journal, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, and is editor of the four-volume collection of research, Intercultural Communication (Sage, Benchmark in Communication). Her research has published in outlets such as Communication Monographs, Communication Research, International Journal of Conflict Management, Human Communication Research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, as well as The Handbook of Intercultural Communication and the SAGE Handbook of Communication and Conflict.Cai, D. A., (2022) “From Theory to Practice and Back Again: Lessons from Hostage Negotiation for Conflict Management”, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 15(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.34891/20220406-433 

Dr. Hunsaker is a Global Network Assistant Professor of Management and Organizations at the Stern School of Business, New York University.  He has a joint appointment at NYU Shanghai.  His research interests include negotiation, emotion, culture, and subjective value.  He teaches courses on negotiation, conflict management, and organizational behavior and has presented research all over the world.  His greatest achievement—which requires his best negotiation, communication, and organizational skills—is raising a beautiful family of 8 children with his wife and best friend, Melissa.Dr. Teng is Assistant Professor of Management at Penn State Harrisburg. He received his Ph.D. in Business Administration from David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. His research examines behavioral ethics & morality, conflict management & negotiation, and social hierarchy in organizations. In 2023 David and Teng received the Best Article award for an article published in 2022.  Congratulations on your scholarly recognition and award-winning article!Getting off to a "Hot" Start: How the Timing of Expressed Anger Influences Relational Outcomes in Negotiation", Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 15(4). doi: https://doi.org/10.34891/2022.0467 

 Tim Stevens is an interdisciplinary scientist with expertise on the role of social media and ICT in social interactions. For his PhD research he studied social media dynamics in agro-food governance: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Ftimstevensphd%2Fhome&data=05%7C01%7CMichael.Gross%40colostate.edu%7Ced69a171c64a458e552f08db29fb18a6%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C638149930672519013%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jp8Y0szUNjpPVv4sf8F%2F5%2FXBl14RdJ53r1C0kaPAy5M%3D&reserved=0 He enjoys bringing together disciplines to develop new conceptual and methodological frameworks. He currently investigates the interplay between educational innovations and teacher professional development in higher education.Stevens, T. M. & Aarts, N. & Dewulf, A., (2020) “Using Emotions to Frame Issues and Identities in Conflict: Farmer Movements on Social Media”, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 14(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.34891/9mmd-q341

Philosophers, psychologists, and economists have long asserted that deception harms trust. We challenge this claim. Across four studies, we demonstrate that deception can increase trust. Specifically, prosocial lies increase the willingness to pass money in the trust game, a behavioral measure of benevolence-based trust. In Studies 1a and 1b, we find that altruistic lies increase trust when deception is directly experienced and when it is merely observed. In Study 2, we demonstrate that mutually beneficial lies also increase trust. In Study 3, we disentangle the effects of intentions and deception; intentions are far more important than deception for building benevolence-based trust. In Study 4, we examine how prosocial lies influence integrity-based trust. We introduce a new economic game, the Rely-or-Verify game, to measure integrity-based trust. Prosocial lies increase benevolence-based trust, but harm integrity-based trust. Our findings expand our understanding of deception and deepen our insight into the mechanics of trust.

Emerging evidence suggests that competitiveness and empathy explain men's greater willingness to use unethical tactics in negotiations. We tested whether and how robustly they do with three distinct studies, run with three distinct populations. Simultaneous mediation analyses generally, but not completely, confirmed our expectations. In Study 1, only competitiveness mediated sex differences in unethical negotiation tactics among Chilean business students. Although empathy also explained willingness to use unethical negotiation tactics, the Chilean men and women did not differ in this regard. In Study 2, competitiveness and empathy both mediated sex differences in American business students’ intentions to lie to a client, but competitiveness explained greater variance. In Study 3, both factors explained sex differences in lying to bargaining partners for real stakes by working-age Americans. Our findings suggest that competitiveness and empathy each explain sex differences in willingness to use unethical tactics, but the former does so more consistently.

Emerging evidence suggests that competitiveness and empathy explain men's greater willingness to use unethical tactics in negotiations. We tested whether and how robustly they do with three distinct studies, run with three distinct populations. Simultaneous mediation analyses generally, but not completely, confirmed our expectations. In Study 1, only competitiveness mediated sex differences in unethical negotiation tactics among Chilean business students. Although empathy also explained willingness to use unethical negotiation tactics, the Chilean men and women did not differ in this regard. In Study 2, competitiveness and empathy both mediated sex differences in American business students’ intentions to lie to a client, but competitiveness explained greater variance. In Study 3, both factors explained sex differences in lying to bargaining partners for real stakes by working-age Americans. Our findings suggest that competitiveness and empathy each explain sex differences in willingness to use unethical tactics, but the former does so more consistently.

In the substantial body of research on gender differences in the initiation of negotiation, the findings consistently favor men. In this episode we propose that this research itself is gendered because negotiation research has traditionally focused on masculine negotiation contexts. In this Article to Audio, we discuss the gender effect in initiating negotiations (favoring men) and the selection of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neutral” negotiation contexts, which can be used for future negotiation research. We talk about how negotiation context shapes gender differences such that in specific social contexts, women tend to have even higher initiation intentions compared to men. Negotiation contexts generally seem to differ regarding their affordance to negotiate. The authors offer a possible explanation for gender effects on initiation intentions by uncovering the mediating role of expectancy considerations across all negotiation contexts, especially in masculine contexts, and instrumentality considerations in specific masculine and feminine contexts.

Episode 2 article abstract: When people avoid conflict, there is no “away.” Where do they go physically or mentally? Both engaging and avoiding have a push and a pull. If we knew where avoiders go, we could study the pull of avoidance. This is a descriptive study (N = 446) of interpersonal conflict. We found that physical and mental avoidance appeared with similar frequency, and that they could occur in combination. People often recognized their need for avoidance early, based on the topic being familiar or various signals of trouble. Avoidance during the conflict could be physical or mental, but notably involved false agreement or topic manipulation. The possibility of violence (physical, verbal, or emotional) was often relevant. Relationship worries frequently motivated the avoidance. After the avoidance rumination was common, often centering on what we called “festering anger.”