IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v45y1992i4p711-723.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Interest Arbitrator Decisionmaking in Experimental and Field Settings

Author

Listed:
  • Craig A. Olson
  • Gregory G. Dell'omo
  • Paul Jarley

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig A. Olson & Gregory G. Dell'omo & Paul Jarley, 1992. "A Comparison of Interest Arbitrator Decisionmaking in Experimental and Field Settings," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 45(4), pages 711-723, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:45:y:1992:i:4:p:711-723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ilr.sagepub.com/content/45/4/711.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nathalie Chappe, 2001. "L'analyse économique d'un mode de résolution des litiges : l'arbitrage," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 15(4), pages 187-208.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:45:y:1992:i:4:p:711-723. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.