IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/usu/wpaper/2003-01.html

The Chilling Effect Of Optimism: The Case of Final-Offer Arbitration

Author

Listed:
  • David Dickinson

Abstract

This article examines the incentive effects of final-offer arbitration (FOA) in the presence of optimistic disputants. Common disputant expectations about the likely arbitrator settlement preferences are not a necessary condition for equilibrium final offers. It is shown that equilibrium final offers can exist under at least two forms of disputant optimism, naïve optimism and more sophisticated beliefs. Additionally, equilibrium final offers diverge more when disputants are optimistic than when they are not, and even more when optimism is naïve as opposed to sophisticated. The implication is that FOA rules, though instituted to lessen the chilling effect of arbitration on negotiations, interact with optimistic beliefs in a way that worsens the chilling effect. Data from controlled laboratory experiments confirm that optimistic expectations increase the distance between the disputants final bargaining positions as well as the probability of dispute. These results highlight the importance of improving disputant expectations as an effective way of improving bargaining outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • David Dickinson, 2003. "The Chilling Effect Of Optimism: The Case of Final-Offer Arbitration," Working Papers 2003-01, Utah State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:usu:wpaper:2003-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.bus.usu.edu/RePEc/usu/pdf/ERI2003-01.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2003
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. David L. Dickinson, 2023. "Alternative dispute resolution," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 1-71, March.
    3. Dickinson, David L. & McEvoy, David M. & Bruner, David M., 2022. "The impact of sleep restriction on interpersonal conflict resolution and the narcotic effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 71-90.
    4. Deck, Cary A. & Farmer, Amy, 2009. "Strategic bidding and investments in final offer arbitration: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 361-373, May.
    5. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    6. Dickinson, David L. & Oxoby, Robert J., 2011. "Cognitive dissonance, pessimism, and behavioral spillover effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 295-306, June.
    7. Jeremy Clark & Lana Friesen, 2009. "Overconfidence in Forecasts of Own Performance: An Experimental Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 229-251, January.
    8. Eric Guerci & Sylvie Thoron, 2011. "Experimental comparison of compulsory and non compulsory arbitration mechanisms," Working Papers halshs-00584328, HAL.
    9. David Dickinson, 2009. "The Effects of Beliefs Versus Risk Attitude on Bargaining Outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 69-101, January.
    10. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    11. Weinstock, Eyal & Sonsino, Doron, 2014. "Are risk-seekers more optimistic? Non-parametric approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 236-251.
    12. Brian R. Powers, 2019. "An analysis of dual-issue final-offer arbitration," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(1), pages 81-108, March.
    13. David Dickinson & Lynn Hunnicutt, 2010. "Nonbinding recommendations: the relative effects of focal points versus uncertainty reduction on bargaining outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 615-634, October.
    14. Daniel M. Nedelescu, 2019. "Alpha-Final Offer Arbitration: The Best Way to Avoid Negotiation Failure," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1109-1128, December.
    15. repec:clg:wpaper:2007-09 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Ivana Vitanova, 2011. "Debt renegotiation and entrepreneurial optimism," Post-Print halshs-00591059, HAL.
    17. Emily Tanimura & Sylvie Thoron, 2016. "How Best to Disagree in Order to Agree?," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-17, September.

    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:usu:wpaper:2003-01. 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: John Gilbert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edusuus.html .

    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.