IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v27y2015i3p380-400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The overvaluing of expertise in discussion partner choice

Author

Listed:
  • T.K. Ahn

    (Department of Political Science and International Relations, Seoul National University, Korea)

  • John Barry Ryan

    (Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, USA)

Abstract

Since the introduction of economic theory to political science, theorists have argued that discussion could serve as an effective information shortcut if individuals communicate with experts who have similar preferences. Previous experimental and survey studies have found mixed results for the efficacy of social communication, but they have not observed the process of discussion partner selection which is so central to the previous models. This paper presents the results of a group-based experiment that allows for discussion partner selection. We fail to find aggregate enlightenment through social communication: lesser informed subjects are helped by social communication, but better informed subjects are harmed. This result is caused in part because subjects are too willing to seek out more expert discussion partners who have different ex ante preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • T.K. Ahn & John Barry Ryan, 2015. "The overvaluing of expertise in discussion partner choice," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(3), pages 380-400, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:27:y:2015:i:3:p:380-400
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629814531672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629814531672
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629814531672?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    2. Joseph Farrell & Matthew Rabin, 1996. "Cheap Talk," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 103-118, Summer.
    3. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    4. T. K. Ahn & Robert Huckfeldt & Alexander K. Mayer & John Barry Ryan, 2013. "Expertise and Bias in Political Communication Networks," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(2), pages 357-373, April.
    5. Nickerson, David W., 2008. "Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 49-57, February.
    6. Richey, Sean, 2008. "The Autoregressive Influence of Social Network Political Knowledge on Voting Behaviour," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 527-542, July.
    7. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    8. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    9. Robert Huckfeldt & Ken'ichi Ikeda & Franz Urban Pappi, 2005. "Patterns of Disagreement in Democratic Politics: Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 497-514, July.
    10. Lupia, Arthur, 2006. "How Elitism Undermines the Study of Voter Competence," MPRA Paper 349, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. David A. Siegel, 2009. "Social Networks and Collective Action," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 122-138, January.
    12. John Barry Ryan, 2011. "Social Networks as a Shortcut to Correct Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(4), pages 753-766, October.
    13. Brady, Henry E. & Sniderman, Paul M., 1985. "Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1061-1078, December.
    14. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. James E. Alt & Amalie Jensen & Horacio Larreguy & David D. Lassen & John Marshall, 2022. "Diffusing Political Concerns: How Unemployment Information Passed between Social Ties Influences Danish Voters," Post-Print hal-03566206, HAL.
    2. Barreda-Tarrazona, Iván & García-Gallego, Aurora & Georgantzís, Nikolaos & Ziros, Nicholas, 2018. "Market games as social dilemmas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 435-444.
    3. David Glick & C Daniel Myers, 2015. "Learning from others: an experimental test of Brownian motion uncertainty models," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(4), pages 588-612, October.
    4. Vera Popva, 2010. "What renders financial advisors less treacherous? - On commissions and reciprocity -," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-036, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    5. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    6. Tetsuo Yamamori & Kazuyuki Iwata, 2023. "Wage claim detracts reciprocity in labor relations: experimental study of gift exchange games," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 18(3), pages 573-597, July.
    7. Caleb A. Cox & Brock Stoddard, 2021. "Common-Value Public Goods and Informational Social Dilemmas," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 343-369, May.
    8. Yoichi Hizen & Kengo Kurosaka, 2021. "Monetary Costs Versus Opportunity Costs in a Voting Experiment," Working Papers SDES-2021-1, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2021.
    9. Lee, Natalie, 2023. "Feigning ignorance for long-term gains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 42-71.
    10. Caldieraro, Fabio & Cunha, Marcus, 2022. "Consumers’ response to weak unique selling propositions: Implications for optimal product recommendation strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 724-744.
    11. Moellers, Claudia & Normann, Hans-Theo & Snyder, Christopher M., 2017. "Communication in vertical markets: Experimental evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 214-258.
    12. Hoffmann, Robert & Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Kock, Florian & Larner, Jeremy, 2020. "Demonstrability, difficulty and persuasion: An experimental study of advice taking," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    13. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2018. "Coordination with communication under oath," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(3), pages 627-649, September.
    14. Feltovich, Nick & Swierzbinski, Joe, 2011. "The role of strategic uncertainty in games: An experimental study of cheap talk and contracts in the Nash demand game," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 554-574, May.
    15. Guererk, Oezguer & Rockenbach, Bettina & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2010. "The effects of punishment in dynamic public-good games," MPRA Paper 22097, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Tjaša Bjedov & Thierry Madiès & Marie Claire Villeval, 2016. "Communication And Coordination In A Two-Stage Game," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1519-1540, July.
    17. Miettinen, Topi, 2013. "Promises and conventions – An approach to pre-play agreements," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 68-84.
    18. McGinn, Kathleen L. & Milkman, Katherine L. & Nöth, Markus, 2012. "Walking the talk in multiparty bargaining: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 278-291.
    19. Hu, Youxin & Kagel, John & Yang, Huanxing & Zhang, Lan, 2020. "The effects of pre-play communication in a coordination game with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 403-415.
    20. Duffy, John & Feltovich, Nick, 2002. "Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words? An Experimental Comparison of Observation and Cheap Talk," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-27, April.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:27:y:2015:i:3:p:380-400. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.