Adversarial Persuasion with Cross-Examination

Abstract

Two parties with opposed interests invest in acquiring evidence which they may only partially disclose. The decision maker then adjudicates. This set-up is compared with one permitting cross-examination of the other party's report. Now the decision maker can better assess whether a report was deceitful through withholding of evidence. Nevertheless, decision-making need not be improved. The parties invest less in gathering evidence because they are less able to success fully manipulate information and because cross-examination is a substitute in potentially counte-ring the other party. From the decision maker’s standpoint, there is too much cross-examination at the expense of too little direct evidence.