Article to Audio M.-H. Tsai, L. Rees, J. Parlamis, M. A. Gross, D. A. Cai

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.