This study focuses on 230 male arbitrators' decisions in a hypothetical discharge grievance case. An analysis of the responses supports the central proposition of attribution theory that a decision-maker's response to an individual's action largely depends on the decision-maker's attributions of causality or responsibility for the action. The analysis also shows that, all else equal, the arbitrators tended to specify a more lenient penalty when the grievant was female than when the grievant was male; and more experienced arbitrators tended to decide either completely in favor of the grievant or completely in favor of the employer, whereas less experienced arbitrators tended to make compromise decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BemmelsBrian. 1988a. “The Effect of Grievants' Gender on Arbitrators' Decisions.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 41, No. 2 (January), pp. 251–62.
2.
BemmelsBrian. 1988b. “Gender Effects in Discipline Arbitration: Evidence from British Columbia.”Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3 (September), pp. 699–706.
3.
BemmelsBrian. 1988c. “Gender Effects in Discharge Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 42, No. 1 (October), pp. 63–76.
4.
BemmelsBrian. 1990a. “Arbitrator Characteristics and Arbitrator Decisions.”Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Spring), pp. 181–92.
5.
BemmelsBrian. 1990b. “Gender Effects in Grievance Arbitration.”Industrial Relations, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Fall), pp. 513–25.
6.
BemmelsBrian. 1991. “Research on Gender Effects in Arbitration.” In KaplanWilliamSackJeffery, and GundersonMorley, eds., Labour Arbitration Yearbook. Toronto: Butterworths, in press.
7.
BlockRichard N., and StieberJack. 1987. “The Impact of Attorneys and Arbitrators on Arbitration Awards.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 40, No. 4 (July), pp. 543–55.
8.
CampbellDonald T., and StanleyJulian C.. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
9.
DeauxK., and EmswillerT.. 1974. “Explanations of Successful Performance on Sex-Linked Tasks: What Is Skill for the Male Is Luck for the Female.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 29, Pp. 80–85.
10.
DobbinsGregory H.1985. “Effects of Gender on Leaders' Responses to Poor Performers: An Attributional Interpretation.”Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3 (September), pp. 587–98.
11.
Feldman-SummersS., and KieslerS.. 1974. “Those Who Are Number Two Try Harder: The Effect of Sex on Attributions of Causality.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 846–55.
12.
FlemingRobin W.1965. The Labor Arbitration Process. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
13.
GarlandH., and PriceK.. 1977. “Attitudes Toward Women in Management and Attributions for Their Success and Failure in a Managerial Position.”Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 29–33.
14.
GreenStephen G., and MitchellTerence R.. 1979. “Attribution Processes of Leaders in Leader-Member Interactions.”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 23, pp. 429–58.
15.
GreenbergMartin S., and RubackBarry R.. 1982. Social Psychology of the Criminal Justice System. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
16.
HeilmanMadeline E., and GuzzoRichard A.. 1978. “The Perceived Cause of Work Success as a Mediator of Sex Discrimination in Organizations.”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 21, No. 3 (June), pp. 346–57.
17.
HenemanHerbert G.III, and SandverMarcus H.. 1983. “Arbitrators' Backgrounds and Behavior.”Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Spring), pp. 115–24.
18.
KellyHarold H.1967. “Attribution Theory in Social Psychology.” In LevineD., ed., Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 15. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 192–238.
19.
KellyHarold H.1972. “Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process.” In JonesE., eds. Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, pp. 1–26.
20.
KellyHarold H., and MichelaJohn L.. 1980. “Attribution Theory and Research.” In RosenzweigM. and PorterL., eds., Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews Inc., pp. 457–501.
21.
LordRobert G., and SmithJonathan E.. 1983. “Theoretical, Information Processing, and Situational Factors Affecting Attribution Theory Models of Organizational Behavior.”Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 50–60.
22.
MitchellTerence R.1982. “Attributions and Actions: A Note of Caution.”Journal of Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 65–74.
23.
NelsonNels E., and CurryEarl M.Jr.1981. “Arbitrator Characteristics and Arbitral Decisions.”Industrial Relations, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Fall), pp. 312–17.
24.
NievaVeronica F., and GutekBarbara A.. 1980. “Sex Effects on Evaluation.”Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 267–76.
25.
OswaldSharon L., and CaudillSteven B.. 1988. “Gender and the Arbitral Decision.” Working Paper, Department of Management, Auburn University.
26.
PonakAllen. 1987. “Discharge Arbitration and Reinstatement in the Province of Alberta.”Arbitration Journal, Vol. 42, No. 2 (June), pp. 39–46.
27.
RodgersRobert C., and HelburnI. B.. 1985. “The Arbitrariness of Arbitrators' Decisions.” Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting (New York, Dec. 28–30). Madison, Wis.: Industrial Relations Research Association, pp. 234–41.
28.
RoseGerald L.1978. “Sex Effects on Effort Attributions in Managerial Performance Evaluation.”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 21, No. 3 (June), pp. 367–78.
29.
ScottClyde, and ShadoanElizabeth. 1989. “The Effect of Gender on Arbitration Decisions.”Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Fall), pp. 429–36.
30.
ThorntonRobert J., and ZirkelPerry A.. 1990. “The Consistency and Predictability of Grievance Arbitration Awards.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43, No. 2 (January), pp. 294–307.
