Jeremy A. Yip

Jeremy A. Yip
  • Assistant Professor of Management, Georgetown University
  • Research Scholar, The Wharton School

Contact Information

  • office Address:

    3730 Walnut Street
    5th floor, JMHH
    Philadelphia, PA 19104

Research Interests: emotions, ethics, incivility, negotiations, trash-talking

Links: Personal Website, Google Scholar


Jeremy A. Yip is an Assistant Professor of Management at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and a Research Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

​Professor Yip’s research program explores the psychology of emotions and incivility in negotiations and organizations.

His primary stream of research explores how emotions predictably influence behavior. In particular, his research demonstrates that anger promotes deception and negotiation impasses, but diminishes empathy and perspective-taking. His work also considers the ethical consequences of anxiety and gratitude, and the role of individual differences in emotional intelligence. Most recently, his work investigates the relationship between organizational cultural norms and emotion.

​A second stream of his research focuses on incivility. He introduces a new conceptualization of communication called competitive incivility or “trash-talking”. His research shows that competitive incivility is commonly encountered in organizations. His findings reveal that competitive incivility triggers perceptions of rivalry, boosts effort-based performance, diminishes creativity, and promotes unethical behavior.

​His research has been published in leading journals such as Organizational Behavior & Human Decision ProcessesResearch in Organizational BehaviorPsychological ScienceCurrent Opinion in PsychologySocial Psychological & Personality Science, and Emotion.

Professor Yip earned his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and completed his postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Psychology at Yale University. He was a Lecturer & Research Scholar at the Wharton School where he conducted research and taught three sections of the Wharton Negotiations course each year. Professor Yip joined the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University in 2017 as a tenure-track professor.

Continue Reading


Jeremy Yip’s research investigates the nature and consequences of conflict and negotiations.

Specifically, his research investigates emotions, ethics, incivility, and organizational culture.

For Jeremy Yip’s latest research, you can visit

  • Jeremy Yip and Maurice Schweitzer (2022), Norms for Behavioral Change (NBC) model: How injunctive norms and enforcement shift descriptive norms in science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 168 (104109).

    Abstract: In this article, we introduce the Norms for Behavior Change model (NBC) to explain how injunctive norms coupled with enforcement promote community-level behavior change. We examine the NBC model in the context of open science. We conceptualize journal submission requirements as injunctive norms, and the shift towards open science as a profound change in descriptive norms of publishing for communities of scholars. We conducted two pilot studies and three main studies to examine the uneven adoption of open science practices across different behavioral sciences, which include Organizational Behavior (OB), Judgment and Decision Making (JDM), and psychology. In our first pilot study, we identify how actual injunctive norms about open science are particularly weak in OB because the majority of OB journals do not have explicit requirements for open science. In our second pilot study, we find that a substantial proportion of OB faculty view open science to be unhelpful for advancing the field. In Study 1, we survey OB faculty and JDM faculty, and find that OB faculty perceive injunctive and descriptive norms of publishing as less likely to include open science practices compared to JDM faculty. In Study 2, we code open science practices across OB and psychology journals in an archival data set, and demonstrate that the actual descriptive norms of publishing are less likely to adhere to open science practices in OB journals than psychology journals (where JDM researchers publish). In Study 3, we analyze an archival data set of preregistrations on, and find that actual descriptive norms of open science are more likely to be adopted by experimentalists than non-experimentalists. Taken together, our work establishes the link between norms and behavioral change, and provides prescriptive advice on how to leverage injunctive norms to shift descriptive norms towards constructive community-level behaviors.

  • Jeremy Yip and Kelly Lee (2022), Emotions and ethics: How emotions sensitize perceptions of the consequences for self and others to motivate unethical behavior, Current Opinion in Psychology, 48 (101464).

    Abstract: In this work, we suggest that emotions differentiated by cognitive appraisals may promote self-concern or other-concern that alter the utilitarian calculus of weighing the harm and benefits associated with moral decision-making. We introduce the Emotions and Ethics Framework to elucidate the intrapsychic effect of emotion on deception. When emotions promote self-concern, individuals are more likely engage in selfish deception. By contrast, when emotions promote other-concern, individuals are more likely to exhibit honesty. Furthermore, we extrapolate our theoretical model to consider how felt emotions influence different types of deception: selfish lies, prosocial lies, spiteful lies, and pareto lies. Finally, we theorize about the interpersonal effect of emotional expressions on deception, suggesting that the ethical consequences of emotion contagion and reverse–appraisal processes are distinct.

  • Jeremy Yip, Emma E. Levine, Alison Wood Brooks, Maurice Schweitzer (2021), Worry at work: How organizational culture promotes anxiety, Research in Organizational Behavior, 40 (100124).

    Abstract: Organizational culture profoundly influences how employees think and behave. Established research suggests that the content, intensity, consensus, and fit of cultural norms act as a social control system for attitudes and behavior. We adopt the norms model of organizational culture to elucidate whether organizational culture can influence how employees experience emotions. We focus on a pervasive emotion, anxiety. We propose four important pathways that link organizational culture with anxiety. First, we propose that when norm content is result-oriented, employees must strive for challenging goals with specific targets under time pressure, and are more likely to experience anxiety. Second, when norm intensity is weak, employees do not internalize norms and they engage in deviant behaviors that increase uncertainty and promote anxiety. Third, a lack of consensus about norms commonly creates conflict between factions within an organization and increases anxiety. Fourth, when there is a mismatch between employees’ values and organizational norms and values, the misfit engenders anxiety. Taken together, different features of organizational cultural norms can independently and multiplicatively influence the magnitude of anxiety, which has constructive or destructive effects on performance.

  • Jeremy Yip, Daniel Stein, Stéphane Côté, Dana Carney (2020), Follow your gut? Emotional intelligence moderates the association between physiologically measured somatic markers and risk-taking, Emotion, 20 (3), pp. 462-472.

    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 and Maurice Schweitzer (2019), Losing your temper and your perspective: Anger reduces perspective-taking, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150 (), pp. 28-45.

    Abstract: Across six studies, we find that both incidental anger and integral anger reduce perspective-taking. In Study 1, participants who felt incidental anger were less likely to take others’ perspectives than those who felt neutral emotion. In Study 2, we demonstrate that arousal mediates the relationship between anger and diminished perspective-taking. In Studies 3 and 4, we show that anger reduces perspective-taking compared to neutral emotion, sadness, and disgust. In Study 5, we find that integral anger impairs perspective-taking compared to neutral emotion. In Study 6, prompting individuals to correctly attribute their feelings of incidental anger moderates the relationship between anger and perspective-taking. Taken together, across different anger inductions and perspective taking measures, we identify a robust relationship between anger and diminished perspective-taking. Our findings have particularly important implications for conflict, which is often characterized by feelings of anger and exacerbated by poor perspective-taking.

  • 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.

    Abstract: In strategic information exchanges (such as negotiations and job interviews), different question formulations communicate information about the question asker, and systematically influence the veracity of responses. We demonstrate this function of questions by contrasting Negative Assumption questions that presuppose a problem, Positive Assumption questions that presuppose the absence of a problem, and General questions that do not reference a problem. In Study 1, Negative Assumption questions promoted greater disclosure of undesirable work-related behaviors than Positive Assumption or General questions did. In Study 2, Negative Assumption questions increased disclosure of undesirable information in face-to-face job recruitment meetings, relative to Positive Assumption questions and General questions. Study 3 demonstrated that the relationship we identify between question type and the veracity of responses is driven by inferences of assertiveness and knowledgeability about the question asker. Finally, in Study 4, asking assertive questions with regard to uncommon behaviors led the question asker to be evaluated more negatively.

  • Jeremy Yip, Maurice Schweitzer, Samir Nurmohamed (2018), Trash-Talking: Competitive Incivility Motivates Rivalry, Performance, and Unethical Behavior, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes.

    Abstract: Trash-talking increases the psychological stakes of competition and motivates targets to outperform their opponents. In Studies 1 and 2, participants in a competition who were targets of trash-talking outperformed participants who faced the same economic incentives, but were not targets of trash-talking. Perceptions of rivalry mediate the relationship between trash-talking and effort-based performance. In Study 3, we find that targets of trash-talking were particularly motivated to punish their opponents and see them lose. In Study 4, we identify a boundary condition, and show that trash-talking increases effort in competitive interactions, but incivility decreases effort in cooperative interactions. In Study 5, we find that targets of trash-talking were more likely to cheat in a competition than were participants who received neutral messages. In Study 6, we demonstrate that trash-talking harms performance when the performance task involves creativity. Taken together, our findings reveal that trash-talking is a common workplace behavior that can foster rivalry and motivate both constructive and destructive behavior.

  • 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.


Professor Yip taught 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.

All Courses

  • OIDD3990 - Supervised Study

    This course number is currently used for several course types including independent studies, experimental courses and Management & Technology Freshman Seminar. Instructor permission required to enroll in any independent study. Wharton Undergraduate students must also receive approval from the Undergraduate Division to register for independent studies. Section 002 is the Management and Technology Freshman Seminar; instruction permission is not required for this section and is only open to M&T students. For Fall 2020, Section 004 is a new course titled AI, Business, and Society. The course provides a overview of AI and its role in business transformation. The purpose of this course is to improve understanding of AI, discuss the many ways in which AI is being used in the industry, and provide a strategic framework for how to bring AI to the center of digital transformation efforts. In terms of AI overview, we will go over a brief technical overview for students who are not actively immersed in AI (topic covered include Big Data, data warehousing, data-mining, different forms of machine learning, etc). In terms of business applications, we will consider applications of AI in media, Finance, retail, and other industries. Finally, we will consider how AI can be used as a source of competitive advantage. We will conclude with a discussion of ethical challenges and a governance framework for AI. No prior technical background is assumed but some interest in (and exposure to) technology is helpful. Every effort is made to build most of the lectures from the basics.

In the News

Knowledge at Wharton


In the News

Truth or Lies? How a Question Is Phrased Can Make a Big Difference

The way a question is phrased can determine whether one gets the truth or a deceitful answer, according to Wharton's Maurice Schweitzer.Read More

Knowledge at Wharton - 7/27/2018
All News