When mandatory disclosure hurts: Expert advice and conflicting interests
AbstractWe study the quality of advice that an informed and biased expert gives to an uninformed decision maker. We compare two scenarios: mandatory disclosure of the bias and nondisclosure, where information about the bias can only be revealed through cheap-talk. We find that in many scenarios nondisclosure allows for higher welfare for both parties. Hiding the bias allows for more precise communication for the more biased type and, if different types are biased in different directions, may allow for the same for the less biased type. We identify contexts where equilibrium revelation allows but mandatory disclosure prevents meaningful communication.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Theory.
Volume (Year): 139 (2008)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Mechtenberg, Lydia & Münster, Johannes, 2012.
"A strategic mediator who is biased in the same direction as the expert can improve information transmission,"
Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 490-492.
- Mechtenberg, Lydia & Münster, Johannes, 2010. "A strategic mediator who is biased into the same direction as the expert can improve information transmission," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2010-19, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
- Lydia Mechtenberg & Johannes Münster, 2011. "A strategic mediator who is biased into the same direction as the expert can improve information transmission," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2011-012, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
- Goltsman, Maria & Pavlov, Gregory, 2011.
"How to talk to multiple audiences,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 100-122, May.
- Sascha Behnk & Iván Barreda-Tarrazona & Aurora García-Gallego, 2012. "Reducing deception through subsequent transparency - An experimental investigation," Working Papers 2012/14, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
- Wonsuk Chung & Rick Harbaugh, 2012. "Biased Recommendations," Working Papers 2012-02, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
- Daniel Stone, 2011. "A signal-jamming model of persuasion: interest group funded policy research," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 397-424, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.