Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

KODIS: A Multicultural Dispute Resolution Dialogue Corpus

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A new dialogue corpus spanning over 75 countries aims to show that expressed anger drives disputes into escalation and impasse.

desk verdict KODIS is a genuinely useful new corpus for dispute-resolution research; the initial analysis, however, overclaims what the GPT-4o emotion labels can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12723 v1 pith:BQF5ML5P submitted 2025-04-17 cs.CL

James Hale , Sushrita Rakshit , Kushal Chawla , Jeanne M. Brett , Jonathan Gratch This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords disputeresolutiondialoguecorpuscross-culturalemotionconflictescalationangerexpressionDignityFaceHonorcustomerserviceLLMannotation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces KODIS, a large dyadic dispute-resolution corpus built around a buyer-seller customer-service conflict, with thousands of dialogues from participants in over 75 countries. It argues that this resource fills a gap left by existing deal-making negotiation corpora, because disputes are backward-looking, emotionally intense conflicts rather than forward-looking opportunities. The initial analysis claims to support conflict-spiral theory: dialogues ending in impasse show reciprocal anger escalating across turns, while dialogues ending in agreement show one side refusing to reciprocate. The corpus also reveals cultural differences in emotional expression and is released openly for the NLP and social-science communities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a designed dispute task: a buyer and seller argue over a misdelivered basketball jersey, each with a different version of the facts, with four issues (refund, reviews, and apology) and monetary bonuses tied to self-elicited preference points. Surrounding this task, the corpus collects Dignity, Face, and Honor cultural-norm measures, risk propensity, pre-dispute preference vectors from which integrative potential is computed, post-dispute tactics, and the Subjective Value Inventory. The escalation analysis works by comparing GPT-4o-annotated anger trajectories across dialogue turns for impasse versus agreement dialogues, and the cultural analysis works by clustering countries on the cultural measures and testing how well an emotion-to-outcome regression trained on US dialogues predicts outcomes in other countries.

What would settle it

Collect independent human annotations of perceived anger and compassion for a stratified sample of KODIS turns from each of the five most common countries, then re-run the escalation and cross-cultural transfer analyses using those labels; if the reciprocal-anger pattern and the country transfer gaps disappear or reverse, the paper's central empirical claims would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that KODIS provides the first large-scale multicultural dialogue corpus specifically for dispute resolution, distinct from deal-making corpora, and that the corpus's initial results confirm dispute theory's prediction that anger expressions provoke escalation rather than concession. In dialogues that end in impasse, the buyer's early anger is reciprocated by the seller and then grows further; in dialogues that end in agreement, sellers avoid reciprocating and buyer anger declines. The paper also claims that emotional expressions alone explain nearly half the variance in participants' subjective feelings about the process and their partner, and that models trained on United States dialogues transfer well to culturally similar countries but worse to culturally distant ones, evidence of cultural differences in emotional expression.

Load-bearing premise

The initial empirical findings assume GPT-4o's emotion scores measure the emotions a human listener would perceive across every culture studied, but the paper validates them only against participants' self-reported frustration and concedes it has no independent human annotations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the escalating-anger finding is right, automated dispute-intervention systems could target the moment one side reciprocates the other's anger as the earliest detectable signal that an impasse is forming.
  • If emotional expression predicts subjective outcomes as strongly as reported, dialogue systems can estimate user dissatisfaction from affective tone alone, without parsing the substantive content of the dispute.
  • If the cross-cultural transfer results are right, emotion models trained on one culture will systematically misread disputes elsewhere, so culture-specific calibration will be needed for any AI that mediates or evaluates conflict.
  • If the deal-making versus dispute-resolution contrast holds, NLP benchmarks for negotiation should treat concession-making and conflict-escalation as separate capabilities rather than assuming one dialogue skill covers both.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the paper's empirical core would replace GPT-4o emotion labels with human annotations drawn from each of the five most common countries; if the reciprocal-anger pattern and the country transfer gaps disappear under those labels, the reported cultural differences would reflect the annotator model's biases rather than disputants' behavior.
  • Because one-minute-unmatched participants were paired with an AI partner without being told, the corpus also enables studies of how the mere suspicion of an AI counterpart changes emotional expression and dispute tactics; the paper leaves these comparisons largely unanalyzed.
  • The per-dyad integrative-potential measure means the corpus can support a direct test of whether cultural distance predicts failure to realize joint gains, an outcome analysis that goes beyond the paper's emotion-focused study.
  • The country-transfer results could be turned into a practical benchmark: the performance gap when an emotion-to-outcome model trained in one culture is applied to another is a quantitative measure of cultural bias in emotion classifiers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents KODIS, a dyadic dispute resolution dialogue corpus collected from over 4,000 participants across 75+ countries, using an online role-play scenario about a buyer-seller dispute. The corpus includes pre-dispute dispositional and preference measures, dialogue data (human-human and human-AI), and post-dispute outcomes such as subjective value, objective utility, and perspective-taking. The authors describe the collection framework, the task design, the culture clustering (Dignity/Face/Honor), and then report an initial analysis in which GPT-4o emotion scores on dialogue turns are used to study escalation, to predict subjective outcomes, and to examine cultural transfer. The abstract claims that this analysis supports theories of anger-driven escalatory spirals and reveals cultural differences in emotional expression. The paper also includes a limitations section acknowledging the absence of independent human annotation and the cross-cultural risks of LLM-based emotion measurement.

Significance. If the corpus is released as described, it is a genuinely useful community resource: it extends the study of negotiation dialogues to dispute resolution, includes both within- and cross-country dyads, integrates a rich set of self-report and outcome measures, and provides a detailed, reproducible collection framework. The comparison with the CaSiNo corpus and the replication of a higher impasse rate in disputes than in deal-making are valuable 'face validity' checks. However, the initial analysis that motivates the corpus is exploratory and currently rests on emotion labels from a single LLM model without independent human validation, and some of the reported results are internally inconsistent. The resource contribution is solid; the empirical claims about escalation and cultural variation need to be either strengthened with proper validation and statistical testing or scaled back.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 4] The central escalation claim is not statistically supported as presented. Figure 4 plots mean anger scores by role, dialogue turn, and outcome (impasse vs. agreement) but provides no confidence intervals, error bars, or significance tests. The reader cannot rule out that the apparent divergence between impasse and agreement dialogues reflects sampling noise. Please add appropriate inferential statistics, such as a mixed-effects model with random intercepts for dyad (and possibly for role), or per-turn comparisons with multiple-comparison correction, and report effect sizes.
  2. [Section 3.3, Table 2] The claim that a US-trained regression explains subjective outcomes 'better for the countries similar and worse for dissimilar ones' is contradicted by the numbers in Table 2. For South Africa, the cross-culture R² (0.157) is higher than the within-culture R² (0.047), and for Mexico the cross-culture value (0.170) is also higher than the within-culture value (0.137). This pattern actually suggests the transferred model often outperforms the within-culture baseline for non-US countries. The text needs to be corrected, or the analysis re-run with clearly specified baselines (e.g., a no-information baseline or a within-culture model trained on the same sample size) and with appropriate comparison metrics.
  3. [Section 3.1, Appendix A.1, Section 5] The only validation of the GPT-4o emotion labels is a correlation between utterance-level emotion scores and a single self-reported frustration measure collected after the dispute and aggregated across all participants. This does not establish per-turn validity, nor does it provide any evidence of cross-cultural measurement invariance. Section 5 explicitly concedes that there are no independent human annotations and that LLM-based emotion recognition in a cross-cultural setting is 'particularly fraught.' Because both the escalation findings and the cultural-difference findings in Section 3 rely entirely on these labels, the authors should either collect human annotations on a stratified sample (by culture and role) and report agreement, or substantially weaken the abstract's and Section 3's causal and comparative claims.
  4. [Section 3.3, Figure 5] The cultural-emotion comparison in Figure 5 is presented as raw mean emotion scores without any statistical tests for differences across countries or between within-culture and cross-culture dyads. As a result, the claim that emotional expression varies by culture in a meaningful way is not established. Please provide inferential tests (e.g., an ANOVA or mixed-effects model with country and dyad type as factors) and report effect sizes and confidence intervals, or explicitly label this as a purely descriptive visualization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.5.2] The Dignity, Face, and Honor scale is described as an 18-item instrument, but no reliability statistics (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) are reported for the current sample. At least the scale reliability for each of the three subscales should be provided.
  2. [Section 2.5.3, Figure 3] The k-means clustering uses k=5 determined by the elbow method, but no stability analysis or silhouette-type validation is reported. The resulting clusters are interpreted as Dignity/Face/Honor clusters, but this mapping is an inference; consider reporting the cluster centroids on the three subscales to support the interpretation.
  3. [Section 2.4.2, Appendix A.3] The GPT-4o prompt instructs that all emotion scores should sum to one, but the paper does not state whether this constraint was satisfied in the model output and how it was handled in the regression analyses. Please clarify the post-processing steps.
  4. [Section 3.3] The text says a random subset of 406 dialogues was used for the regression, but the corpus statistics in Table 1 suggest far more human-human dyads; please clarify whether 406 is the number of dialogues, dyads, or participants, and how this subset was selected.
  5. [References] The reference list is extensive and generally appropriate, but a few entries are missing DOIs or page ranges (e.g., the GPT-4 technical report); consider completing bibliographic details for consistency with journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: emotion labels and outcome measures are independent, and the corpus's use of prior work is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivations—that anger expression escalates in disputes, that emotion predicts subjective value, and that culture shapes these patterns—rest on GPT-4o emotion annotations of dialogue turns and independently measured outcomes (impasse/agreement, SVI, self-reported frustration). No equation in the paper defines emotion labels in terms of outcomes, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the regression models in Section 3.3 fit emotion scores to SVI, which is standard predictive modeling of one measured variable by another. The corpus framework adapts CaSiNo (Chawla et al. 2021), but the later comparison of impasse rates across corpora is empirical, not definitional. The choice of GPT-4o cites prior work by overlapping authors (Kwon et al. 2024), but that citation supports model selection rather than the paper's theoretical conclusions; those conclusions stand or fall on the external validity of the GPT-4o annotations, which the paper explicitly acknowledges as a limitation in Section 5 and partially checks against self-reported frustration in Appendix A.1. There is no self-citation invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem, and no central claim reduces to its own inputs by construction. The paper is therefore self-contained in its derivation chain, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its central contributions are a dataset and an initial correlational analysis. The main assumptions are the validity of the Dignity/Face/Honor model, the realism of the role-play scenario, and the cross-cultural validity of GPT-4o emotion labels, the last of which is explicitly flagged as a limitation.

free parameters (1)
  • Number of culture clusters k = 5
    Chosen by the elbow method in Section 2.5.3; affects the interpretation of cultural clusters but is not part of the corpus itself.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Dignity, Face, and Honor framework (Leung and Cohen, 2011; Aslani et al., 2016) correctly characterizes cultural differences that matter for dispute behavior.
    The corpus design and cultural analyses are motivated by this theory; if the framework is wrong, the cultural conclusions lose meaning.
  • domain assumption The role-play dispute scenario elicits dispute processes representative of real conflicts.
    Section 2.3 describes a single expert-designed jersey dispute; participants role-play rather than experience real consequences. The authors note this limits generalizability in Section 5.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o emotion annotations are valid proxies for human-perceived emotion across all cultures in the sample.
    Appendix A.1 validates against self-reported frustration only, and Section 5 concedes there is no independent human annotation. The cross-cultural emotion claims in Section 3 depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Self-reported cultural values and personality are accurate.
    All dispositional measures are self-reported, as acknowledged in Section 5; there is no external verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KODIS: A Multicultural Dispute Resolution Dialogue Corpus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQF5ML5P

@misc{pith2026250412723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KODIS: A Multicultural Dispute Resolution Dialogue Corpus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQF5ML5P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12723}
}
read the original abstract

We present KODIS, a dyadic dispute resolution corpus containing thousands of dialogues from over 75 countries. Motivated by a theoretical model of culture and conflict, participants engage in a typical customer service dispute designed by experts to evoke strong emotions and conflict. The corpus contains a rich set of dispositional, process, and outcome measures. The initial analysis supports theories of how anger expressions lead to escalatory spirals and highlights cultural differences in emotional expression. We make this corpus and data collection framework available to the community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Participants did pre / post-dispute questionnaires and interacted with their counterpart. We first try to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This illustrates an example of a contentious dialogue from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. K-means clusters of countries (N ≥ 10). the preference-elicitation phase. These points are also used to determine the bonus. Specifically, the objective value of the outcome is derived using the following linear additive utility function: Ua = X i∈I wi,a ∗ ℓi,a (2) Where Ua denotes the points participant a earns; I represents the set of all issues; wi,a holds the value participant a gave to issue i ∈ I; and ℓi,a ∈ [… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Anger by role, outcome and dialogue turn. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average GPT emotion scores for the five most common countries broken by within or cross-culture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: R2 using GPT emotion to predict outcome. 3.3 Predicting Subjective Outcome We next examine if emotions expressed during the dialogue can predict participants’ subjective feelings about the result. We used multiple linear regression on a random subset of 406 dialogs to …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: R2 predicting the four subjective value inven￾tory (SVI) sub-scales using GPT or T5 emotion labels . A.3 GPT Prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: This outlines the prompt GPT used in the emotion annotation task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Depiction of the Prolific recruitment page for crowdworkers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This depicts the interface participants used in the data collection from Lioness Labs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: This illustrates the role-play instructions for the buyer and seller, which participants read before engaging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mechanisms for participants to input pre-dispute responses – their preferences and aspirations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can LLMs Generate Behaviors for Embodied Virtual Agents Based on Personality Traits?

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLM prompting can steer both speech and nonverbal cues of virtual agents toward intended extraversion levels, with human observers detecting the difference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Suhaib Abdurahman, Mohammad Atari, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Mona J Xue, Jackson Trager, Peter S Park, Preni Golazizian, Ali Omrani, and Morteza Dehghani. 2024. Perils and opportunities in using large language models in psychological research. PNAS nexus, 3(7):245

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Hajo Adam and Jeanne M Brett. 2015. Context matters: The social effects of anger in cooperative, balanced, and competitive negotiation situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61:44--58

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Hajo Adam and Jeanne M Brett. 2018. Everything in moderation: The social effects of anger depend on its perceived intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76:12--18

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Hajo Adam, Aiwa Shirako, and William W Maddux. 2010. Cultural variance in the interpersonal effects of anger in negotiations. Psychological Science, 21(6):882--889

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Allred, John S

    Keith G. Allred, John S. Mallozzi, Fusako Matsui, and Christopher P. Raia. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2705 The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3):175--187

    work page arXiv 1997

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Soroush Aslani, Jimena Ramirez-Marin, Jeanne Brett, Jingjing Yao, Zhaleh Semnani-Azad, Zhi-Xue Zhang, Catherine Tinsley, Laurie Weingart, and Wendi Adair. 2016. Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures. Journal of Organi...

    2016

  2. [10]

    Jeanne M Brett. 2007. Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries. John Wiley & Sons

    2007

  3. [11]

    Jeanne M Brett, Debra L Shapiro, and Anne L Lytle. 1998. Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4):410--424

    1998

  4. [12]

    Ashley D Brown and Jared R Curhan. 2012. The utility of relationships in negotiation. The Oxford handbook of economic conflict resolution, pages 137--154

    2012

  5. [13]

    Kushal Chawla, Rene Clever, Jaysa Ramirez, Gale M Lucas, and Jonathan Gratch. 2023 a . Towards emotion-aware agents for improved user satisfaction and partner perception in negotiation dialogues. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing

    2023

  6. [14]

    Kushal Chawla, Gale Lucas, Jonathan May, and Jonathan Gratch. 2022. Opponent modeling in negotiation dialogues by related data adaptation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 661--674

    2022

  7. [15]

    Kushal Chawla, Jaysa Ramirez, Rene Clever, Gale Lucas, Jonathan May, and Jonathan Gratch. 2021. Casino: A corpus of campsite negotiation dialogues for automatic negotiation systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Comp...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Kushal Chawla, Weiyan Shi, Jingwen Zhang, Gale Lucas, Zhou Yu, and Jonathan Gratch. 2023 b . Social influence dialogue systems: A survey of datasets and models for social influence tasks. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Comp...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Kushal Chawla, Ian Wu, Yu Rong, Gale Lucas, and Jonathan Gratch. 2023 c . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.808 Be selfish, but wisely: Investigating the impact of agent personality in mixed-motive human-agent interactions . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on E...

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Minhao Cheng, Wei Wei, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1336 Evaluating and enhancing the robustness of dialogue systems: A case study on a negotiation agent . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for C...

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Hyundong Cho, Shuai Liu, Taiwei Shi, Darpan Jain, Basem Rizk, Yuyang Huang, Zixun Lu, Nuan Wen, Jonathan Gratch, Emilio Ferrara, and Jonathan May. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.415 Can language model moderators improve the health of online discourse? In Pro...

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Jared R Curhan, Hillary Anger Elfenbein, and Heng Xu. 2006. What do people value when they negotiate? mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(3):493

    2006

  13. [21]

    Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Mohammad Atari, Brendan Kennedy, and Morteza Dehghani. 2023. Hate speech classifiers learn normative social stereotypes. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:300--319

    2023

  14. [22]

    Martin Ebers. 2022. Automating due process-the promise and challenges of ai-based techniques in consumer online dispute resolution. In Frontiers in Civil Justice, pages 142--168. Edward Elgar Publishing

    2022

  15. [23]

    Ray Friedman, Cameron Anderson, Jeanne Brett, Mara Olekalns, Nathan Goates, and Cara Cherry Lisco. 2004. The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: evidence from electronically mediated disputes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2):369

    2004

  16. [24]

    Adam D Galinsky, Debra Gilin, and William W Maddux. 2011. Using both your head and your heart: The role of perspective taking and empathy in resolving social conflict, volume 13. Psychology Press New York

    2011

  17. [25]

    Emily Geisen. 2022. https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/attention-checks-and-data-quality/ Improve data quality by using a commitment request instead of attention checks . Accessed on Oct 13, 2024

    2022

  18. [26]

    Michele J Gelfand, Lisa H Nishii, Karen M Holcombe, Naomi Dyer, Ken-Ichi Ohbuchi, and Mitsuteru Fukuno. 2001. Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict episodes in the united states and japan. Journal of applied psychology, 86(6):1059

    2001

  19. [27]

    Marcus Giamattei, Kyanoush Seyed Yahosseini, Simon G \"a chter, and Lucas Molleman. 2020. Lioness lab: a free web-based platform for conducting interactive experiments online. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 6(1):95--111

    2020

  20. [28]

    Jonathan Gratch, David DeVault, Gale M Lucas, and Stacy Marsella. 2015. Negotiation as a challenge problem for virtual humans. In Intelligent Virtual Agents: 15th International Conference, IVA 2015, Delft, The Netherlands, August 26-28, 2015, Proceedings 15, pages 201--215. Springer

    2015

  21. [29]

    Eran Halperin. 2008. Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in israel. Journal of Conflict resolution, 52(5):713--736

    2008

  22. [30]

    Shreya Havaldar, Bhumika Singhal, Sunny Rai, Langchen Liu, Sharath Chandra Guntuku, and Lyle Ungar. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.wassa-1.19 Multilingual language models are not multicultural: A case study in emotion . In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Computatio...

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    He He, Derek Chen, Anusha Balakrishnan, and Percy Liang. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1256 Decoupling strategy and generation in negotiation dialogues . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2333--2343, Brusse...

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Institute for Economics and Peace . 2024. https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GPI-2024-briefing-web.pdf Global peace index briefing 2024 . Accessed on Oct 13, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Olga M Klimecki. 2019. The role of empathy and compassion in conflict resolution. Emotion Review, 11(4):310--325

    2019

  26. [34]

    Lucas, and Jonathan Gratch

    Deuksin Kwon, Emily Weiss, Tara Kulshrestha, Kushal Chawla, Gale M. Lucas, and Jonathan Gratch. 2024. Are llms effective negotiators? systematic evaluation of the multifaceted capabilities of llms in negotiation dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Met...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Angela K-Y Leung and Dov Cohen. 2011. Within-and between-culture variation: individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(3):507

    2011

  28. [36]

    Mike Lewis, Denis Yarats, Yann Dauphin, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1259 Deal or no deal? end-to-end learning of negotiation dialogues . In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 244...

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Ting-An Lin and Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen. 2022. Artificial intelligence in a structurally unjust society. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 8(3/4)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Marsella

    Anthony J. Marsella. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.012 Culture and conflict: Understanding, negotiating, and reconciling conflicting constructions of reality . International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6):651--673. Special Issue: Conflict, negotia...

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    Meertens and René Lion

    Ree M. Meertens and René Lion. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00357.x Measuring an individual's tendency to take risks: The risk propensity scale1 . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6):1506--1520

    2008

  32. [40]

    Lisa Messeri and MJ Crockett. 2024. Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature, 627(8002):49--58

    2024

  33. [41]

    Alaine Murawski, Vanessa Ramirez-Zohfeld, Johnathan Mell, Marianne Tschoe, Allison Schierer, Charles Olvera, Jeanne Brett, Jonathan Gratch, and Lee A Lindquist. 2024. Negotiage: Development and pilot testing of an artificial intelligence-based family caregiver negotiation prog...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Dean G Pruitt. 2007. Conflict escalation in organizations. In The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations, pages 261--282. Psychology Press

    2007

  35. [43]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research, 21(140):1--67

    2020

  36. [44]

    Rousu, Gregory Colson, Jay R

    Matthew C. Rousu, Gregory Colson, Jay R. Corrigan, Carola Grebitus, and Maria L. Loureiro. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppv002 Deception in experiments: Towards guidelines on use in applied economics research . Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 37(3):524--536

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    Bernstein

    Omar Shaikh, Valentino Emil Chai, Michele Gelfand, Diyi Yang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642159 Rehearsal: Simulating conflict to teach conflict resolution . In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Catherine H Tinsley. 2004. Culture and conflict: Enlarging our dispute resolution framework. The handbook of negotiation and culture, pages 193--210

    2004

  39. [47]

    Gerben A Van Kleef, Carsten KW De Dreu, and Antony SR Manstead. 2004. The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(1):57

    2004

  40. [48]

    Atsuki Yamaguchi, Kosui Iwasa, and Katsuhide Fujita. 2021. Dialogue act-based breakdown detection in negotiation dialogues. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 745--757

    2021

  41. [49]

    Jingjing Yao, Jimena Ramirez-Marin, Jeanne Brett, Soroush Aslani, and Zhaleh Semnani-Azad. 2017. A measurement model for dignity, face, and honor cultural norms. Management and Organization Review, 13(4):713--738

    2017

  42. [50]

    Nutchanon Yongsatianchot, Tobias Thejll-Madsen, and Stacy Marsella. 2024. Exploring theory of mind in large language models through multimodal negotiation. In Proceedings of 24th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Glascow Scottland. Association for Com...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Qin Zhang, Stella Ting-Toomey, and John G. Oetzel. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12029 Linking Emotion to the Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory: A U.S.-China Investigation of the Mediating Effects of Anger, Compassion, and Guilt in Interpersonal Conflict . Human Communicat...

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.