Modeling pretrial bargaining reveals how spiteful motivations lead to conflict escalations, impacting settlement outcomes.
Why do disputes go to trial when parties agree about expected judgments? We model bargaining with private information about motives: plaintiffs may be spiteful, defendants may retaliate against spite. In the separating equilibrium, trials occur when spiteful plaintiffs meet retaliatory defendants, so observed trials are endogenously selected toward high-conflict pairings. In pooling equilibria, settlement is certain. Both types of equilibria can coexist for intermediate parameter values, suggesting small institutional changes can discontinuously affect trial rates. • Private information about motives (spite, retaliation) distorts pretrial bargaining. • Separating equilibrium: high demand signals spite; trials only with retaliators. • Pooling equilibria: common demand acceptable to retaliators; settlement is certain. • Trials are endogenously selected toward high-conflict plaintiff-defendant pairs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ayouni et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: