The influence of experience on negotiation performance

"When" Versus "Whether" Gender/Sex Differences: Insights From Psychological Research on Negotiation, Risk-Taking, and Leadership

We present a conceptual framework of situational moderators of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership-three masculine-stereotypic domains associated with gender/sex gaps in pay and authority. We propose that greater situational ambiguity and higher relevance and salience of gender/sex increase the likelihood of gender/sex-linked behaviors in these domains. We argue that greater ambiguity increases the extent to which actors and audiences must search inwardly (e.g., mental schema, past experience) or outwardly (e.g., social norms) for cues on how to behave or evaluate a situation and thereby widens the door for gender/sex-linked influences. Correspondingly, we propose that gender/sex effects on behavior and evaluations in these domains will be more likely when gender/sex is more relevant and salient to the setting or task. We propose further that these two situational moderators may work jointly or interactively to influence the likelihood of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership. We conclude by discussing applications of our conceptual framework to psychological science and its translation to practice, including directions for future research.

Pharmaceutical Pricing in Germany: How Is Value Determined within the Scope of AMNOG?

OBJECTIVES

To analyze how value is determined within the scope of the German Pharmaceutical Restructuring Act, which came into effect in 2011.

METHODS

Using data from all pharmaceuticals that had undergone assessment, appraisal, and price negotiations in Germany before June 30, 2016, we applied generalized linear model regression to analyze the impact of added benefit on the difference between negotiated prices and the prices of comparators. Data were extracted from the Federal Joint Committee's appraisals and price databases. We specified added benefit in various ways. In all models, we controlled for additional criteria such as size of patient population, European price levels, and whether the comparators were generic.

RESULTS

Our regression results confirmed the descriptive results, with price premiums reflecting the extent of added benefit as appraised by the Federal Joint Committee. On the substance level, an added benefit was associated with an increase in price premium of 227.2% (P < 0.001) compared with no added benefit. Moreover, we saw increases in price premium of 377.5% (P < 0.001), 90.0% (P < 0.001), and 336.8% (P < 0.001) for added benefits that were "considerable," "minor," and "not quantifiable," respectively. Beneficial effects on mortality were associated with the greatest price premium (624.3%; P < 0.001), followed by such effects on morbidity (174.7%; P < 0.001) and adverse events (93.1%; P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Price premiums, or "value," are driven by health gain, the share of patients benefiting from a pharmaceutical, European price levels, and whether comparators are generic. No statement can be made, however, about the appropriateness of the level of price premiums.

Effects of Experience and Advice on Process and Performance in Negotiations

This experiment ( N = 68 dyads) tested the influence of experience and advice on behavior and joint outcomes in integrative two-party negotiations. Dyads in an advice condition received short tactical advice to question fixed-pie assumptions and to exchange information. Afterward, they negotiated once. Dyads in an experience condition negotiated twice in successive rounds. Finally, dyads in an experience-and-advice condition negotiated twice and received advice prior to the second negotiation. Dependent measures were negotiation behavior, negotiation duration, joint outcome, and judgmental accuracy. Results showed that the combination of advice and experience led dyads to apply more problem solving and fewer contentious strategies, which mediated the higher joint outcomes that these dyads reached in shorter times. Experience or advice alone was not sufficient to make negotiators use different strategies or to exploit the integrative potential of the negotiations better than they did before they received advice and/or gained experience.

High construal level can help negotiators to reach integrative agreements: The role of information exchange and judgement accuracy

In negotiations, a focus on interests (why negotiators want something) is key to integrative agreements. Yet, many negotiators spontaneously focus on positions (what they want), with suboptimal outcomes. Our research applies construal-level theory to negotiations and proposes that a high construal level instigates a focus on interests during negotiations which, in turn, positively affects outcomes. In particular, we tested the notion that the effect of construal level on outcomes was mediated by information exchange and judgement accuracy. Finally, we expected the mere mode of presentation of task material to affect construal levels and manipulated construal levels using concrete versus abstract negotiation tasks. In two experiments, participants negotiated in dyads in either a high- or low-construal-level condition. In Study 1, high-construal-level dyads outperformed dyads in the low-construal-level condition; this main effect was mediated by information exchange. Study 2 replicated both the main and mediation effects using judgement accuracy as mediator and additionally yielded a positive effect of a high construal level on a second, more complex negotiation task. These results not only provide empirical evidence for the theoretically proposed link between construal levels and negotiation outcomes but also shed light on the processes underlying this effect.

Erreichen vorbereitete Verhandlungsführer mehr?

Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, ein wissenschaftlich evaluiertes Training zur Verbesserung der strategischen Verhandlungsplanung vorzustellen. Die Entwicklung des Trainings basierte inhaltlich auf dem theoretischen Selbstregulationsmodell von Zimmerman (2000) , wobei vornehmlich auf die Planungsphase fokussiert wurde. In dem eintägigen Trainingsprogramm wurden die Planungsschritte Zielsetzung, Interessenanalyse, Entwicklung von realistischen Einigungsmöglichkeiten und Strategiewahl erarbeitet. Die Stichprobe setzte sich aus 60 Teilnehmern zusammen, die in Großunternehmen rekrutiert wurden und mindestens wöchentlich Verhandlungen im Rahmen der Berufstätigkeit führten. Die Evaluation erfolgte durch ein Vortest-Nachtest-Kontrollgruppendesign. Anhand von Fragebogendaten und einer Verhandlungssimulation wurde der Trainingserfolg überprüft. Erfasst wurden Parameter der Kooperationsbereitschaft, die Ausprägung kognitiver Fehlurteile und die Ergebnisfokussierung. Anhand der Verhandlungssimulation wurden zudem die erzielten Verhandlungsergebnisse erfasst. Die Ergebnisse belegen die Effektivität des Trainingsprogramms. Die Teilnehmer der Experimentalgruppe zeigten nach dem Training eine kooperativere Haltung und konnten durch den Abbau kognitiver Fehlurteile die Interessenlage einer anstehenden Verhandlung realistischer einschätzen. Ebenfalls fokussierten die Teilnehmer nach dem Training stärker Gewinne und erzielten in der Verhandlungssimulation deutlich bessere Verhandlungsergebnisse.