Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The third-person effect sheds light on understanding the self-other discrepancy in perceived media effects and potential behavioral consequences of the perceptual component. Despite the practical impetus and growing theoretical interest in the third-person effect, very little attention has been given to assess its efficacy and value for a more rigorous theory construction. This paper embraces a holistic approach to assess the value of the third-person effect in theory building by using the criteria for the evaluation of theory: explanatory power, predictive power, organizing power, heuristic value, parsimony, testability, and internal consistency. Based on the discussion of its theoretical merits and limitations, new agendas for the third-person effect research will be proposed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper provides a cursory look at the implications of hiring ‘third culture’ employees within a transnational organization. A theoretical background in culture and management serves as a foundation to exploring the emergence of “third culture” people in the transnational workplace. In turn, the paper illustrates how these cultural and management theories then give rise to the past, present, and future study of “third culture” people. The benefits and challenges of hiring “third culture” employees are discussed, as well as what the trend of the increasing presence of “third culture” people could mean for business and job-seeking individuals. A special section looks at the affect of “third culture” practitioners on international public relations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In contrast to the existing literature that makes no distinction between military interventions undertaken by democracies and autocracies, I show that democracies and autocracies are likely to intervene in different types of civil conflict.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: There is little agreement among federal courts on the appropriate standard by which to analyze the attorney-client privilege as it relates to communications with public relations consultants. While there are fourteen federal cases addressing whether the attorney-client privilege protects communications with public relations consultants, precedent has yet to bring clarity. Moreover, some judges and scholars believe communications between lawyers and public relations consultants should be excluded from attorney-client privilege protection altogether. They contend that protection does not serve the purpose of the privilege because communication with public relations consultants is not for legal advice, and information that might otherwise be discoverable would be secret. While these arguments might be valid if courts protected all communications between lawyers and media consultants, they do not hold up to scrutiny when the privilege is tendered more particularly. This article presents original data from a study of General Counsels, law firm partners, and public relations experts. The findings suggest that (1) there are certain situations where open communication between public relations consultants and attorneys is essential for attorneys to provide clients with fully informed legal – as opposed to business – advice or services; (2) protecting such communications is consistent with the purposes of the attorney-client privilege; and, (3) denying protection may lead to perverse results.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Why do third-party states militarily intervene in civil conflicts even though it is quite difficult to terminate a civil conflict in a short period and thus a military intervention is very costly? While there is a vast literature examining the effectiveness of third-party interventions on civil conflicts, the factor influencing the probability of third-party intervention itself has been overlooked. I apply Bueno de Mesquita et al's (2003) selectorate theory in the context of civil conflicts and military interventions and provide answers for the question why and where third-party states intervene. By using the dataset of civil conflicts and military interventions from 1944 to 1999, I find that democratic third-party states are likely to intervene when the probability of successful intervention or victory is high and when they are ethnically tied to a conflict state, however, I find that there is no significant effect of those public goods on the autocratic third-party states' military intervention. I also find strong evidences that an existence of diamonds in conflict state increases the probability of military interventions by autocratic third-party states, but has no significant effect for democratic third-party states.