Recent studies have investigated arbitrator decision rules in both
experimental and field settings. The external validity of experimental
studies is evaluated by comparing the decisions made in an experiment with
those made in actual cases for a common group of arbitrators. The results
show the decision models used in the two settings are very similar when the
decision problem in the two settings is carefully controlled to be the same.

Implementing the ultimatum game experimentally in Indonesia makes it possible to raise the stakes to three times the
monthly expenditure of the average participant. Contrary to predictions in the literature, the results show no evidence
of approaching the sub-game perfect, selfish outcomes. Responders seem to be just as willing to reject a given percentage
offer at high stakes as at low stakes, and Proposers make slightly less selfish offers as the stakes increase.