A comparison of interest arbitrator decision-making in experimental and field settings.

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. (Abstract courtesy JSTOR.)