The Impact of Alternative Impasse Procedures on Bargaining: A Laboratory Experiment

John M. Magenau

ILR Review, 1983, vol. 36, issue 3, 361-377

Abstract: This laboratory experiment compares the effects of two variations of conventional arbitration, two variations of final-offer arbitration, and a no-intervention or strike condition across two sets of negotiations. The results of the experiment suggest that the strike condition is more effective than arbitration in producing voluntary agreements, and that final-offer arbitration is more effective than conventional arbitration in encouraging the parties to narrow their differences. The latter result occurred, though, only after an impasse had been declared and when conventional arbitration involved the clear expectation that the arbitrator would split the difference in the parties' positions. The effectiveness of final-offer arbitration was also reduced when the parties expected the arbitrator to choose between last offers made before instead of after the close of negotiation.

Date: 1983
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979398303600303 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:36:y:1983:i:3:p:361-377

DOI: 10.1177/001979398303600303

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in ILR Review from Cornell University, ILR School
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().