IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/trr/qfrawp/202002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pre-Decisional Information Acquisition: Do We Pay TooMuch for Information?

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Oliver Rieger
  • Mei Wang
  • Daniel Hausmann

Abstract

It is a common phenomenon that people tend to acquire more information in a decision task than a rational benchmark would predict. What is the reason behind this? To answer this question we conducted an information acquisition experiment that has been carefully designed to disentangle several plausible reasons for information overpurchasing before decision-making. A within-subject experiment with a simple basic information acquisition task on an investment project, equivalent formulated lotteries, estimations of probability, and an additional option to satisfy one’s curiosity was used to test five different potential reasons. The results show that overpurchasing of information can be explained nearly entirely by systematic information-processing errors (misestimationor incorrect Bayesean updating). Other factors, such as overoptimism on the validity of new information, risk aversion, ambiguity aversion, and curiosity for (irrelevant) information, play at most a minor role. Our results imply that overinvestment in information acquisition can be mostly avoided if more detailed informationis given to decision makers on how much (or little) further information can improve the decision quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Oliver Rieger & Mei Wang & Daniel Hausmann, 2020. "Pre-Decisional Information Acquisition: Do We Pay TooMuch for Information?," Working Paper Series 2020-02, University of Trier, Research Group Quantitative Finance and Risk Analysis.
    • Handle: RePEc:trr:qfrawp:202002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/prof/BWL/FIN/QFRA_Working_Papers/QFRA_20_02_2.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moore, Don A. & Cain, Daylian M., 2007. "Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 197-213, July.
    2. Gilliland, Stephen W. & Schmitt, Neal & Wood, Lisa, 1993. "Cost-Benefit Determinants of Decision Process and Accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 308-330, November.
    3. Klayman, Joshua & Soll, Jack B. & Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Barlas, Sema, 1999. "Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask, , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 216-247, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Warren J. McIsaac & Cheryl L. Hunchak, 2011. "Overestimation Error and Unnecessary Antibiotic Prescriptions for Acute Cystitis in Adult Women," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 405-411, May.
    6. Benjamin Enke & Florian Zimmermann, 2019. "Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 313-332.
    7. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    8. Saad, Gad & Russo, J. Edward, 1996. "Stopping Criteria in Sequential Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 258-270, September.
    9. Bruce A. Weinberg, 2009. "A Model Of Overconfidence," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 502-515, October.
    10. David M. Grether, 1980. "Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 95(3), pages 537-557.
    11. 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..
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:229-243 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. Maner, Jon K. & Gerend, Mary A., 2007. "Motivationally selective risk judgments: Do fear and curiosity boost the boons or the banes?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 256-267, July.
    15. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Betting on own knowledge: Experimental test of overconfidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 39-49, February.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:447-460 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Grieco, Daniela & Hogarth, Robin M., 2009. "Overconfidence in absolute and relative performance: The regression hypothesis and Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 756-771, October.
    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. Rieger, Marc Oliver & Wang, Mei & Hausmann, Daniel, 2021. "Pre-decisional information acquisition: Why do we pay too much for information? Brief report," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    2. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    4. Brian Hill, 2009. "Confidence and ambiguity," Working Papers hal-00489870, HAL.
    5. Danková, Katarína & Servátka, Maroš, 2019. "Gender robustness of overconfidence and excess entry," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 179-199.
    6. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    7. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    8. Ambuehl, Sandro & Li, Shengwu, 2018. "Belief updating and the demand for information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 21-39.
    9. Martin Koudstaal & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2016. "Risk, Uncertainty, and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2897-2915, October.
    10. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    11. David Hirshleife, 2015. "Behavioral Finance," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 133-159, December.
    12. Andreas Friedl & Katharina Lima de Miranda & Ulrich Schmidt, 2014. "Insurance demand and social comparison: An experimental analysis," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 97-109, April.
    13. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009. "A simple model of cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3-4), pages 308-319, March.
    14. Michał Lewandowski, 2017. "Prospect Theory Versus Expected Utility Theory: Assumptions, Predictions, Intuition and Modelling of Risk Attitudes," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 9(4), pages 275-321, December.
    15. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Kiel Working Papers 1874, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    17. André Palma & Mohammed Abdellaoui & Giuseppe Attanasi & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Ido Erev & Helga Fehr-Duda & Dennis Fok & Craig Fox & Ralph Hertwig & Nathalie Picard & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker & Martin We, 2014. "Beware of black swans: Taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 269-280, September.
    18. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    19. Olivier L'Haridon & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2021. "An Effective and Simple Tool for Measuring Loss Aversion," Economics Discussion Paper Series 2107, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    20. Lewandowski, Michal, 2006. "Is Cumulative Prospect Theory a Serious Alternative for the Expected Utility Paradigm?," MPRA Paper 43271, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    sequential information acquisition; ambiguity; Bayesian updating; financial decision-making;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates
    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:trr:qfrawp:202002. 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: Artem Dyachenko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/petride.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.