240 expert family lawyers in Australia, acting as arbitrators, wrote judgments/awards on an identical set of facts. These decisions varied dramatically in outcomes. This paper describes the process and varied outcomes. It then discusses why the consistently diverse range of outcomes caused such grief for these experts; what are the possible explanations for these diverse outcomes; and what are some possible implications if expert decision-makers consistently reach such diverse decisions?
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/john_wade/38/