The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Self-Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining
Abstract
A persistently troubling question in the legal-economic literature is why cases proceed to trial. Litigation is a negative-sum proposition for the litigants-the longer the process continues, the lower their aggregate wealth. Although civil litigation is resolved by settlement in an estimated 95 percent of all disputes, what accounts for the failure of the remaining 5 percent to settle prior to trial?
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Our first experiment with this framework found strong evidence that the negotiators formed self-serving assessments of the judge's award and that the discrepancy between the plaintiffs' and defendants' assessments was correlated with the parties' ability to reach voluntary settlements (Loewenstein, Issacharoff, Camerer Table 1 Probability of Impasse by Discrepancy Between Plaintiffs' and Defendant”
From Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases (1997) · cites this paper as Loewenstein, Issacharoff, Camerer and Babcock, 1993
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rabin, M. (1997) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2,463
Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases
Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.11.1.109 · Cited by 1,071
Self-citationFair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions
Konow, J. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.1072 · Cited by 870
Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice
Institute of Medicine (2009) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/12598 · Cited by 835
Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. (2000) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.279 · Cited by 674
Metadata
- Authors
- Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., Camerer, C., & Babcock, L.
- Venue
- The Journal of Legal Studies
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 135-159
- ISSN
- 0047-2530 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5366
- OpenAlex
- W1986732801
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 7.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Legal Studies (publishedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal principles and applications
- Keywords
- settlement, litigation, fairness, self-serving bias, civil litigation, settlement behavior, dispute resolution
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review