Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recent studies have investigated arbitrator decision rules in both experimental and field settings. The authors of this paper evaluate the external validity of experimental studies by comparing the decisions made in an experiment with those made in actual cases by the same arbitrators. The results show that when the single-issue decisions made in the experiment are compared with the multi-issue decisions made in many field cases, the arbitrators' decision models in the two settings (as indicated by the weights they attached to various facts of the case and their level of uncertainty about which offer to choose) appear to differ; but when the experimental data are compared to the decisions in the sample of field cases in which the wage was the only issue, the decision models are substantially the same.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

John C.

1981. “The Impact of Arbitration: A Methodological Assessment.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 129–47.

Ashenfelter

Orley

Bloom

David E.

, 1984. “Models of Arbitration Behavior.” American Economic Review, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 111–24.

Babcock

Linda

. 1987. “The Role of Incomplete Information in Bargaining Under the Threat of Final Offer Arbitration: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.” Unpublished paper, University of Wisconsin.

Bazerman

Max H.

1985. “Norms of Distributive Justice in Interest Arbitration.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 558–69.

Bazerman

Max H.

Farber

Henry S.

, 1985. “Arbitrator Decision Making: When Are Final Offers Important?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 76–89.

Bloom

David E.

1986. “Empirical Models of Arbitrator Behavior Under Conventional Arbitration.” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 578–85.

Bloom

David E.

Cavanaugh

Christopher L.

, 1986. “An Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators.” American Economic Review, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 408–22.

Dell'Omo

Gregory G.

1987. “Arbitration Application of Wage Criteria Under the Wisconsin Police and Firefighter Arbitration Act: An Empirical Analysis.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin.

Dell'Omo

Gregory G.

1989. “Wage Disputes in Interest Arbitration: Arbitrators Weigh the Criteria.” Arbitration Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 4–13.

10.

Farber

Henry S.

Bazerman

Max H.

, 1986. “The General Basis of Arbitrator Behavior: An Empirical Analysis of Conventional and Final-Offer Arbitration.” Econometrica, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 1503–28.

11.

Farber

Henry S.

Katz

Harry C.

, 1979. “Interest Arbitration, Outcomes and the Incentive to Bargain.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 55–63.

12.

Gordon

Michael

Schmitt

Neal

Schneider

Walter G.

, 1984. “Laboratory Research on Bargaining and Negotiations: An Evaluation.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 218–33.

13.

Halm

Francis P.

1985. “Athletic Conference: The Question of Comparability.” Wisconsin Public Employer Relations Association.

14.

Locke

Edwin A.

1986. “Generalizing from Laboratory to Field: Ecological Validity to Abstraction of Essential Elements?” Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Health, pp. 1–10.

15.

Olson

Craig A.

1988. “Dispute Resolution in the Public Sector.” In Aaron

Najita

Stern

, eds., Public Sector Bargaining. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.

16.

Olson

Craig A.

Jarley

Paul

. 1991. “Arbitrator Decisions in Wisconsin Teacher Wage Disputes.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 536–47.

17.

Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Undated. “Digest and Report of Arbitration Awards Issued Under the Municipal Arbitration Law and the Municipal Interest Arbitration Law and Section 111.70(4)(jm) During Fiscal Year 1988–89.” Madison, Wis.

18.

Wisconsin Legislative Council. 1985. “Analyses of Employer and Employee Experience Under Wisconsin's Mediation-Arbitration Law.” Madison, Wis., Oct. 15.

A Comparison of Interest Arbitrator Decisionmaking in Experimental and Field Settings

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References