Accuracy versus Falsification Costs: The optimal Amount of Evidence under different Procedures

Emons, Winand; Fluet, Claude (January 2007). Accuracy versus Falsification Costs: The optimal Amount of Evidence under different Procedures (Discussion Papers 07-02). Bern: Department of Economics

Preview

Text dp0702.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (620kB) | Preview

An arbiter can decide a case on the basis of his priors or he can ask for further evidence from the two parties to the conflict. The parties may misrepresent evidence in their favor at a cost. The arbiter is concerned about accuracy and low procedural costs. When both parties testify,
each of them distorts the evidence less than when they testify alone. When the fixed cost of testifying is low, the arbiter hears both, for intermediate values one, and for high values no party at all. The arbiter’s ability to remain uninformed as well as sequential testifying
makes it more likely that the arbiter requires evidence.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

109 since deposited on 02 Oct 2020
25 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item