IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v14y2018i3p43n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility Misperception in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly

Author

Listed:
  • Bienenstock Sophie

    (Economics, CRED, Paris, France)

Abstract

When choosing between two goods, consumers anticipate the utility they expect to derive from each product. However, such anticipations are subject to several sources of error, such as quality or price misperception and overoptimism about one’s capacity to use a product. The present paper studies the effect of inaccurate utility anticipations on consumer choice and ultimately on the market outcome in a vertically differentiated duopoly. I come to the conclusion that utility misperception can lead consumers to make suboptimal decisions ex post, although the choice seemed rational at the time of purchase. I show that in a vertically differentiated duopoly, firms are subject to two opposite incentives regarding consumer education. Moreover, the firms’ incentives to educate consumers are not necessarily aligned with the socially efficient outcome. Therefore, this paper also explores several policies aimed at mitigating the negative consequences of consumer misperception.

Suggested Citation

  • Bienenstock Sophie, 2018. "Utility Misperception in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1-43, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:14:y:2018:i:3:p:43:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/rle-2015-0047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2015-0047
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/rle-2015-0047?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Sugden, 2004. "The Opportunity Criterion: Consumer Sovereignty Without the Assumption of Coherent Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1014-1033, September.
    2. Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "A perspective on psychology and economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 657-685, May.
    3. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler, 2006. "Contracting with Diversely Naive Agents," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(3), pages 689-714.
    4. Spiegler, Ran, 2014. "Bounded Rationality and Industrial Organization," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199334261.
    5. Stefano DellaVigna & Ulrike Malmendier, 2004. "Contract Design and Self-Control: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 353-402.
    6. Christine Jolls & Cass R. Sunstein, 2006. "Debiasing through Law," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 199-242, January.
    7. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2023. "Libertarian paternalism," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 1, pages 10-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Deighton, John, 1984. "The Interaction of Advertising and Evidence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(3), pages 763-770, December.
    9. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Robert Sugden, 2008. "Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 226-248, September.
    11. Michael D. Grubb, 2009. "Selling to Overconfident Consumers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1770-1807, December.
    12. Gilles Saint-Paul, 2011. "The Tyranny of Utility: Behavioral Social Science and the Rise of Paternalism," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9480.
    13. Hossain Tanjim & Morgan John, 2006. "...Plus Shipping and Handling: Revenue (Non) Equivalence in Field Experiments on eBay," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-30, January.
    14. Michele Piccione & Ran Spiegler, 2012. "Price Competition Under Limited Comparability," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 97-135.
    15. Braun, Kathryn A, 1999. "Postexperience Advertising Effects on Consumer Memory," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(4), pages 319-334, March.
    16. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    17. Alexia Gaudeul & Robert Sugden, 2012. "Spurious Complexity and Common Standards in Markets for Consumer Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 79(314), pages 209-225, April.
    18. James W. Friedman, 1983. "Advertising and Oligopolistic Equilibrium," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 464-473, Autumn.
    19. Emir Kamenica & Sendhil Mullainathan & Richard Thaler, 2011. "Helping Consumers Know Themselves," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 417-422, May.
    20. Stefano DellaVigna & Ulrike Malmendier, 2006. "Paying Not to Go to the Gym," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 694-719, June.
    21. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    22. Hoch, Stephen J & Ha, Young-Won, 1986. "Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(2), pages 221-233, September.
    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. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.
    2. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Behavioral Consumers in Industrial Organization: An Overview," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 247-258, November.
    3. Wenner, Lukas M., 2018. "Do sellers exploit biased beliefs of buyers? An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 194-215.
    4. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    5. Samuel Ferey & Yannick Gabuthy & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2013. "L'apport de l'économie expérimentale dans l'élaboration des politiques publiques," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 155-194.
    6. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2011. "Do consumers prefer offers that are easy to compare? An experimental investigation," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    7. Michael D. Grubb, 2015. "Overconfident Consumers in the Marketplace," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(4), pages 9-36, Fall.
    8. Ran Spiegler, 2019. "Behavioral Economics and the Atheoretical Style," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 173-194, May.
    9. Arno Apffelstaedt & Lydia Mechtenberg, 2021. "Competition for Context-Sensitive Consumers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2828-2844, May.
    10. Yu, Pei Cheng, 2020. "Seemingly exploitative contracts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 299-320.
    11. Ran Spiegler, 2015. "On the Equilibrium Effects of Nudging," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 389-416.
    12. Crosetto, Paolo & Gaudeul, Alexia, 2012. "Do consumers prefer offers that are easy to compare? An experimental investigation," MPRA Paper 41462, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Markus Haavio & Kaisa Kotakorpi, 2012. "Sin Licenses Revisited," CESifo Working Paper Series 4010, CESifo.
    14. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    15. Koji Ishibashi, 2024. "Biased Beliefs of Consumers and Two-Part Tariff Competition," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2024-009, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    16. Sophie Bienenstock, 2016. "Consumer education: why the market doesn’t work," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 237-262, October.
    17. Mark Armstrong, 2016. "Nonlinear Pricing," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 583-614, October.
    18. Roberto Fumagalli, 2016. "Decision sciences and the new case for paternalism: three welfare-related justificatory challenges," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 459-480, August.
    19. Ioana Chioveanu & Jidong Zhou, 2013. "Price Competition with Consumer Confusion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2450-2469, November.
    20. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00879205 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Bruce Lyons & Robert Sugden, 2021. "Transactional fairness and pricing practices in consumer markets," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2021-03, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..

    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:bpj:rlecon:v:14:y:2018:i:3:p:43:n:2. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.