3730 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Jeremy Yip is an Assistant Professor of Management at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and a Visiting Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.
His research program explores the psychology of conflict and negotiations. His first stream of research explores the consequences of emotions. In particular, his research demonstrates that anger influences unethical behavior, perspective-taking, negotiation impasses, and decision-making. His work also considers the consequences of anxiety and gratitude, and the role of individual differences in emotional intelligence.
A second stream of his research explores competition. In this stream, his work introduces a new conceptualization of competitive communication called trash-talking. His research shows that trash-talking is commonly encountered in organizations. His findings reveal that trash-talking triggers perceptions of rivalry and boosts effort-based performance. However, trash-talking can have destructive consequences such as increasing unethical behavior or diminishing creativity.
His research has been published in leading journals such as Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Psychological Science, and Social Psychological & Personality Science.
He earned his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the University of Toronto and a postdoctoral fellowship in psychology at Yale University. Prior to joining the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University in 2017, he was a Lecturer & Research Scholar at the Wharton School where he conducted research and taught three sections of the Wharton Negotiations course.
Jeremy Yip’s research investigates the nature and consequences of conflict and negotiations.
Specifically, his research investigates emotions, trash-talking and ethics.
For Jeremy Yip’s latest research, you can visit www.jeremyyip.org
Julia Minson, Eric VanEpps, Jeremy Yip, Maurice Schweitzer (2018), Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The effect of question type on deception, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 147, pp. 76-93.
Jeremy Yip, Daniel Stein, Stéphane Côté, Dana Carney (2018), Follow your gut? Emotional intelligence moderates the association between physiologically measured somatic markers and risk-taking, Emotion, Forthcoming.
Abstract: Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a set of adaptive abilities that pertain to emotions and emotional information. Prior research suggests that lower EI individuals behave maladaptively in social situations compared to higher EI individuals. However, there is a paucity of research on whether EI promotes adaptive decision-making. Leveraging the somatic marker hypothesis (SMH), we explore whether EI moderates the relationship between skin conductance responses (SCRs) and risky decision-making. In a multi-visit assessment over two weeks, participants (N = 52) completed tests of emotional intelligence and made a total of 5,145 decisions. At Time 1, participants completed an ability test of EI and cognitive intelligence. At Time 2, participants completed 100 decision trials of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). Consistent with prior research using the IGT, participants played a computerized card game with real monetary rewards in which two “safe” decks led to higher average monetary rewards and two “risky” decks to higher average losses. We found that EI moderates the relationship between physiological arousal (SCR) and risk-taking such that lower EI individuals exhibited a maladaptive, positive association between SCRs and risk-taking, whereas higher EI individuals did not exhibit a relationship between SCRs and risk-taking. Our findings suggest one important way in which lower EI may lead to maladaptive decision-making is through appraising physiological arousal incorrectly.
Jeremy Yip, Maurice Schweitzer, Samir Nurmohamed (2018), Trash-Talking: Competitive Incivility Motivates Rivalry, Performance, and Unethical Behavior, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes.
Jeremy Yip, Kelly Lee, Cindy Chan, Alison Wood Brooks (Under Review), Thanks for nothing: Expressing gratitude invites exploitation by competitors.
Jeremy Yip and Martin Schweinsberg (2017), Infuriating impasses: Angry expressions promote exiting behavior in negotiations, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8 (6), pp. 706-714.
Abstract: Prior research has focused on the influence of emotional expressions on the value of negotiated outcomes. Across three studies, we demonstrate that people interacting with angry counterparts become more likely to walk away from a negotiation, resulting in an impasse. In Study 1, participants who encountered counterparts expressing anger were more likely to choose an impasse, relative to those with neutral counterparts. In Study 2, building on the emotion-as-social-information (EASI) model, we found that inferences of selfishness mediate the effect of angry expressions on impasses. In Study 3, we found that timing moderates the relationship between angry expressions and impasses. Furthermore, we demonstrated that perceptions of inappropriateness mediate the interactive effect of timing and angry expressions on impasses. Taken together, our work reveals that expressing anger is risky in negotiations because people infer that angry counterparts are selfish, and become more likely to exit negotiations.
Jeremy Yip and Maurice Schweitzer (2016), Mad and misleading: Incidental anger promotes deception, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 137, pp. 207-217.
Abstract: Emotions influence ethical behavior. Across four studies, we demonstrate that incidental anger, anger triggered by an unrelated situation, promotes the use of deception. In Study 1, participants who felt incidental anger were more likely to deceive their counterpart than those who felt neutral emotion. In Study 2, we demonstrate that empathy mediates the relationship between anger and deception. In Study 3, we contrast anger with another negative-valence emotion, sadness. We find that participants who felt incidental anger were more likely to use deception than were participants who felt incidental sadness or neutral emotion. In Study 4, we show that incentives moderate the relationship between anger and deception. Collectively, our work reveals that incidental anger promotes unethical behavior because angry people become less empathetic when pursuing their self-interest.
Jeremy Yip and Maurice Schweitzer (2015), Trust promotes unethical behavior: Excessive trust, opportunistic exploitation, and strategic exploitation, Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, pp. 216-220.
Abstract: Trust is critical for our cooperation and effective working relationships, but trust also enables exploitation and unethical behavior. Prior trust research has disproportionately focused on the benefits of trust, even though some of the most egregious unethical behaviors occur because of misplaced trust. Targets of exploitation misplace their trust, because they rely on the wrong cues and are exploited by people who either opportunistically or strategically take advantage of their trust. We call for future work to explore the critical link between trust and unethical behavior.
Jeremy Yip and Stéphane Côté (2013), The emotionally intelligent decision-maker: Emotion understanding ability reduces the effect of incidental anxiety on risk-taking, Psychological Science, 24 (1), pp. 48-55.
Abstract: In two experiments, we examined how a core dimension of emotional intelligence, emotion-understanding ability, facilitates decision making. Individuals with higher levels of emotion-understanding ability can correctly identify which events caused their emotions and, in particular, whether their emotions stem from events that are unrelated to current decisions. We predicted that incidental feelings of anxiety, which are unrelated to current decisions, would reduce risk taking more strongly among individuals with lower rather than higher levels of emotion-understanding ability. The results of Experiment 1 confirmed this prediction. In Experiment 2, the effect of incidental anxiety on risk taking among participants with lower emotion-understanding ability, relative to participants with higher emotion-understanding ability, was eliminated when we informed participants about the source of their anxiety. This finding reveals that emotion-understanding ability guards against the biasing effects of incidental anxiety by helping individuals determine that such anxiety is irrelevant to current decisions.
S. Stein, P. Papadogiannis, Jeremy Yip, G. Sitarenios (2009), Emotional intelligence of leaders: a profile of top executives, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30, pp. 87-101.
Jeremy Yip teaches three sections of the OIDD291 Negotiations course each academic year at the Wharton School. This course meets 2 times per week and there are 16 weeks in the semester.
This course examines the art and science of negotiation, with additional emphasis on conflict resolution. Students will engage in a number of simulated negotiations ranging from simple one-issue transactions to multi-party joint ventures. Through these exercises and associated readings, students explore the basic theoretical models of bargaining and have an opportunity to test and improve their negotiation skills.
This course includes not only conflict resolution but techniques which help manage and even encourage the valuable aspects of conflict. The central issues of this course deal with understanding the behavior of individuals, groups, and organizations in conflict management situations. The purpose of this course is to understand the theory and processes of negotiations as it is practiced in a variety of settings. The course is designed to be relevant to the broad spectrum of problems that are faced by the manager and professional including management of multinationals, ethical issues, and alternative dispute resolutions. Cross listed w/ LGST 206 and OIDD 291.
Negotiation is the art and the science of creating good agreements between two or more parties. This course develops managerial negotiation skills by mixing lectures and practice, using cases and exercises in which students negotiate with each other. The cases cover a wide range of problems and settings: one-shot deals between individuals, repeated negotiations, negotiations over several issues, and negotiations among several parties (both within and between organizations). Class participation and case studies account for half the course grade. Students will also write about a negotiation experience outside of class.
The way a question is phrased can determine whether one gets the truth or a deceitful answer, according to Wharton's Maurice Schweitzer.Knowledge @ Wharton - 2018/07/27