Some Experimental Evidence on Decision Making in the Absence of Successful Fact Finding


In this paper we report on our experimental findings concerning the differences in decisional treatment between adversarial and inquisitorial systems where the proceedings fail to achieve explicit revelation of decisive facts. In particular, we use our data both: (1) to test the interesting hypothesis put forth by Shin (1998) that adversarial versus inquisitorial decision systems will differ in their reaction to the case of non-revelation in a predictably systematic manner; and (2) to shed some light on the purely distributional consequences of both procedures. While we find that our decision makers do not follow the inferential process postulated by Shin, it does appear that adversarial decision makers have a stronger tendency than inquisitorial decision makers to favor equal division of the amount at stake.