Conflicting evidence and decisions by agency professionals: an experimental test in the context of merger regulationBruce Lyons (), Gordon Menzies and Daniel Zizzo Theory and Decision, 2012, vol. 73, issue 3, 465-499 Abstract: Many important regulatory decisions are taken by professionals employing limited and conflicting evidence. We conduct an experiment in a merger regulation setting, identifying the role of different standards of proof, volumes of evidence, cost of error and professional or lay decision making. The experiment was conducted on current practitioners from 11 different jurisdictions, in addition to student subjects. Legal standards of proof significantly affect decisions. There are specific differences because of professional judgment, including in how error costs and volume of evidence are taken into account. We narrow the range of explanations for why professional decision making matters. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012 Keywords: Belief conservatism; Experiment; Merger control; Professionalism; Standard of proof; L33; L40; L50; C91 (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:theord:v:73:y:2012:i:3:p:465-499 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1007/s11238-011-9258-3 Access Statistics for this article Theory and Decision is currently edited by Mohammed Abdellaoui More articles in Theory and Decision from Springer |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.