IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/qjecon/v111y1996i1p1-19..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing the Wrong Pond: Social Comparisons in Negotiations That Reflect a Self-Serving Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Linda Babcock
  • Xianghong Wang
  • George Loewenstein

Abstract

We explore the role that choice of comparison groups plays in explaining impasse in teacher contract negotiations. We hypothesize that the negotiators select "comparable" districts in a biased fashion such that teachers' salaries in districts that unions view as comparable are higher than teachers' salaries in districts that school boards view as comparable. We also predict that strike activity is positively related to the difference in the salary levels of the unions' and boards' lists of comparables. We test these predictions using a unique combination of subjective survey and field data on teacher contract negotiations in Pennsylvania. Both hypotheses are supported by the data.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda Babcock & Xianghong Wang & George Loewenstein, 1996. "Choosing the Wrong Pond: Social Comparisons in Negotiations That Reflect a Self-Serving Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 111(1), pages 1-19.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:111:y:1996:i:1:p:1-19.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/2946655
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:qjecon:v:111:y:1996:i:1:p:1-19.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/qje .

    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.