IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/oropre/v72y2024i1p151-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Persuading Risk-Conscious Agents: A Geometric Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jerry Anunrojwong

    (Graduate School of Business, Columbia Business School, New York, New York 10027)

  • Krishnamurthy Iyer

    (Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455)

  • David Lingenbrink

    (School of Operations Research and Information Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853)

Abstract

We consider a persuasion problem between a sender and a receiver where utility may be nonlinear in the latter’s belief; we call such receivers risk conscious . Such utility models arise when the receiver exhibits systematic biases away from expected utility maximization, such as uncertainty aversion (e.g., from sensitivity to the variance of the waiting time for a service). Because of this nonlinearity, the standard approach to finding the optimal persuasion mechanism using revelation principle fails. To overcome this difficulty, we use the underlying geometry of the problem to develop a convex optimization framework to find the optimal persuasion mechanism. We define the notion of full persuasion and use our framework to characterize conditions under which full persuasion can be achieved. We use our approach to study binary persuasion , where the receiver has two actions and the sender strictly prefers one of them at every state. Under a convexity assumption, we show that the binary persuasion problem reduces to a linear program and establish a canonical set of signals where each signal either reveals the state or induces in the receiver uncertainty between two states. Finally, we discuss the broader applicability of our methods to more general contexts, and we illustrate our methodology by studying information sharing of waiting times in service systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerry Anunrojwong & Krishnamurthy Iyer & David Lingenbrink, 2024. "Persuading Risk-Conscious Agents: A Geometric Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 72(1), pages 151-166, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:72:y:2024:i:1:p:151-166
    DOI: 10.1287/opre.2023.2438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.2023.2438
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/opre.2023.2438?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dirk Bergemann & Alessandro Bonatti & Alex Smolin, 2018. "The Design and Price of Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(1), pages 1-48, January.
    2. Bergemann, Dirk & Morris, Stephen, 2016. "Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(2), May.
    3. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2019. "Information Design: A Unified Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 57(1), pages 44-95, March.
    4. Erjie Ang & Sara Kwasnick & Mohsen Bayati & Erica L. Plambeck & Michael Aratow, 2016. "Accurate Emergency Department Wait Time Prediction," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 141-156, February.
    5. Emir Kamenica, 2019. "Bayesian Persuasion and Information Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 249-272, August.
    6. Jian Hu & Sanjay Mehrotra, 2015. "Robust decision making over a set of random targets or risk-averse utilities with an application to portfolio optimization," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 358-372, April.
    7. David Lingenbrink & Krishnamurthy Iyer, 2019. "Optimal Signaling Mechanisms in Unobservable Queues," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 1397-1416, September.
    8. Elliot Lipnowski & Laurent Mathevet, 2018. "Disclosure to a Psychological Audience," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 67-93, November.
    9. Thanasis Lianeas & Evdokia Nikolova & Nicolas E. Stier-Moses, 2019. "Risk-Averse Selfish Routing," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 38-57, February.
    10. Thierry Post & Miloš Kopa, 2017. "Portfolio Choice Based on Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3381-3392, October.
    11. Saed Alizamir & Francis de Véricourt & Shouqiang Wang, 2020. "Warning Against Recurring Risks: An Information Design Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4612-4629, October.
    12. Anton Kolotilin & Tymofiy Mylovanov & Andriy Zapechelnyuk & Ming Li, 2017. "Persuasion of a Privately Informed Receiver," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1949-1964, November.
    13. Arieli, Itai & Babichenko, Yakov, 2019. "Private Bayesian persuasion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 185-217.
    14. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Shuran Zheng & Yiling Chen, 2020. "Optimal Advertising for Information Products," Papers 2002.10045, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    16. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    17. Ozan Candogan & Kimon Drakopoulos, 2020. "Optimal Signaling of Content Accuracy: Engagement vs. Misinformation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 497-515, March.
    18. Hu, Jian & Bansal, Manish & Mehrotra, Sanjay, 2018. "Robust decision making using a general utility set," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 699-714.
    19. Benjamin Armbruster & Erick Delage, 2015. "Decision Making Under Uncertainty When Preference Information Is Incomplete," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 111-128, January.
    20. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    21. Ju Hu & Xi Weng, 2021. "Robust persuasion of a privately informed receiver," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(3), pages 909-953, October.
    22. Luis Rayo & Ilya Segal, 2010. "Optimal Information Disclosure," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(5), pages 949-987.
    23. Yiangos Papanastasiou & Kostas Bimpikis & Nicos Savva, 2018. "Crowdsourcing Exploration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1727-1746, April.
    24. Carlo Acerbi & Dirk Tasche, 2002. "Expected Shortfall: A Natural Coherent Alternative to Value at Risk," Economic Notes, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, vol. 31(2), pages 379-388, July.
    25. A. Ahmadi-Javid, 2012. "Entropic Value-at-Risk: A New Coherent Risk Measure," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 1105-1123, December.
    26. Gleb Romanyuk & Alex Smolin, 2019. "Cream Skimming and Information Design in Matching Markets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 250-276, May.
    27. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    28. Kimon Drakopoulos & Shobhit Jain & Ramandeep Randhawa, 2021. "Persuading Customers to Buy Early: The Value of Personalized Information Provisioning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 828-853, February.
    29. Roberto Cominetti & Alfredo Torrico, 2016. "Additive Consistency of Risk Measures and Its Application to Risk-Averse Routing in Networks," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 1510-1521, November.
    30. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    31. Mark J. Machina, 1995. "Non-Expected Utility and The Robustness of the Classical Insurance Paradigm," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 20(1), pages 9-50, June.
    32. Kostas Bimpikis & Shayan Ehsani & Mohamed Mostagir, 2019. "Designing Dynamic Contests," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 339-356, March.
    33. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jerry Anunrojwong & Krishnamurthy Iyer & Vahideh Manshadi, 2023. "Information Design for Congested Social Services: Optimal Need-Based Persuasion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3778-3796, July.
    2. You Zu & Krishnamurthy Iyer & Haifeng Xu, 2021. "Learning to Persuade on the Fly: Robustness Against Ignorance," Papers 2102.10156, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Mariotti & Nikolaus Schweizer & Nora Szech & Jonas von Wangenheim, 2023. "Information Nudges and Self-Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2182-2197, April.
    2. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Ted O'Donoghue & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2013. "The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2499-2529, October.
    3. Chan, Jimmy & Gupta, Seher & Li, Fei & Wang, Yun, 2019. "Pivotal persuasion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 178-202.
      • Jimmy Chan & Seher Gupta & Fei Li & Yun Wang, 2018. "Pivotal Persuasion," Working Papers 2018-11-03, Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics (WISE), Xiamen University.
    4. Francis de Véricourt, & Huseyin Gurkan, & Shouqiang Wang,, 2020. "Informing the public about a pandemic," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-20-03, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 11 Feb 2021.
    5. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton, 2006. "De l'aversion à l'ambiguïté aux attitudes face à l'ambiguïté. Les apports d'une perspective psychologique en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 259-280.
    6. Kimon Drakopoulos & Shobhit Jain & Ramandeep Randhawa, 2021. "Persuading Customers to Buy Early: The Value of Personalized Information Provisioning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 828-853, February.
    7. Ozan Candogan & Philipp Strack, 2021. "Optimal Disclosure of Information to a Privately Informed Receiver," Papers 2101.10431, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    8. Jonas Hedlund & T. Florian Kauffeldt & Malte Lammert, 2021. "Persuasion under ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 455-482, May.
    9. Jerry Anunrojwong & Krishnamurthy Iyer & Vahideh Manshadi, 2023. "Information Design for Congested Social Services: Optimal Need-Based Persuasion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3778-3796, July.
    10. Farzaneh Farhadi & Demosthenis Teneketzis, 2022. "Dynamic Information Design: A Simple Problem on Optimal Sequential Information Disclosure," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 443-484, June.
    11. Babichenko, Yakov & Talgam-Cohen, Inbal & Xu, Haifeng & Zabarnyi, Konstantin, 2022. "Regret-minimizing Bayesian persuasion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 226-248.
    12. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    13. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    14. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    15. Eduardo Perez‐Richet & Vasiliki Skreta, 2022. "Test Design Under Falsification," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(3), pages 1109-1142, May.
    16. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    17. Brian Hill, 2009. "Confidence and ambiguity," Working Papers hal-00489870, HAL.
    18. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.
    19. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    20. Richard J. Arend, 2020. "Strategic decision-making under ambiguity: a new problem space and a proposed optimization approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1231-1251, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:72:y:2024:i:1:p:151-166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.