Purpose -The purpose of this article is to outline ways in which the large body of empirical work on creativity can meaningfully inform negotiation. In doing so, two general streams of creativity research and their implications for negotiation theory and empirical analysis are considered. Negotiation pundits advise that negotiators should engage in creative problem-solving to craft integrative agreements, and it is widely believed by both negotiation theorists and practitioners that "out-of-the-box" thinking and creative idea generation are necessary for win-win negotiation. Although practitioners have strongly encouraged parties to engage in creative problem-solving, there are remarkably few empirical investigations of creative thinking, brainstorming and other idea-generation methods in negotiation. Design/methodology/approach -First, creativity as a trait is considered and the relationship between individual differences in creativity and negotiation performance is examined. Then, creative thinking as a causal factor is examined and how it may influence the negotiation process and outcomes is suggested. Finally, three considerations for further integrating creativity and negotiation research are suggested: communication media, idea-generation strategies and morality and social motivation. Findings -A literature review revealed four studies that have empirically tested the influence of trait creativity on negotiation performance. Even less research has manipulated creative thinking or training to analyze creativity as a causal factor of negotiation outcomes. Originality/value -This research will benefit both creativity and negotiation scholars by suggesting the limited amount of work at their intersection yet the opportunities that exist for further research.

Objective: Evidence-based obesity treatments, such as bariatric surgery, are not considered essential health benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Employer-sponsored wellness programs with incentives based on biometric outcomes are allowed and often used despite mixed evidence regarding their effectiveness. This study examines consumers’ perceptions of their coverage for obesity treatments and exposure to workplace wellness programs. Methods: A total of 7,378 participants completed an online survey during 2015–2016. Respondents answered questions regarding their health coverage for seven medical services and exposure to employer wellness programs that target weight or body mass index (BMI). Using χ2 tests, associations between perceptions of exposure to employer wellness programs and coverage for medical services were examined. Differences between survey years were also assessed. Results: Most respondents reported they did not have health coverage for obesity treatments, but more of the respondents with employer wellness programs reported having coverage. Neither the perception of coverage for obesity treatments nor exposure to wellness programs increased between 2015 and 2016. Conclusions: Even when consumers have exposure to employer wellness programs that target BMI, their health insurance often excludes obesity treatments. Given the clinical and cost-effectiveness of such treatments, reducing that coverage gap may mitigate obesity’s individual- and population-level effects.

No abstract