IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v11y2020i3p29-d392216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Signalling, Information and Consumer Fraud

Author

Listed:
  • Silvia Martinez-Gorricho

    (Department of Economics, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Alonso de Ribera, Concepción 2850, Chile)

Abstract

In a two-sided asymmetric information market, the role of the accuracy of consumers’ imperfect and private information on the level of fraud, incidence of fraud and trade under price rigidity is examined. Consumers receive a costless but noisy private signal of quality. The product offered in the market can be of two exogenously given qualities and it is common knowledge that the consumer is not willing to pay a high price for a low quality product. A low quality seller chooses to be either honest (by charging the lower market price) or dishonest (by charging the higher price). We show that equilibria involving fraud exist for all parameter values. Furthermore, for some parameter values, we find that -in equilibrium- a higher precision of consumers’ private information leads to higher levels of fraud and incidence of fraud, reducing consumers’ welfare. We provide conditions for the public revelation of consumers’ private information to be a Pareto improvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Silvia Martinez-Gorricho, 2020. "Signalling, Information and Consumer Fraud," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:11:y:2020:i:3:p:29-:d:392216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/11/3/29/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/11/3/29/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carolyn Pitchik & Andrew Schotter, 1993. "Information Transmission in Regulated Markets," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(4), pages 815-829, November.
    2. Hyndman, Kyle & Ozerturk, Saltuk, 2011. "Consumer information in a market for expert services," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 628-640.
    3. Yuk-fai Fong, 2005. "When Do Experts Cheat and Whom Do They Target?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    4. Kenneth L. Judd & Michael H. Riordan, 1994. "Price and Quality in a New Product Monopoly," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 61(4), pages 773-789.
    5. Levin, Jonathan, 2001. "Information and the Market for Lemons," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(4), pages 657-666, Winter.
    6. Lewis, Tracy R & Sappington, David E M, 1994. "Supplying Information to Facilitate Price Discrimination," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 35(2), pages 309-327, May.
    7. Marco Ottaviani & Andrea Prat, 2001. "The Value of Public Information in Monopoly," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1673-1683, November.
    8. Bester, Helmut & Ritzberger, Klaus, 2001. "Strategic pricing, signalling, and costly information acquisition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(9), pages 1347-1361, November.
    9. Moscarini, Giuseppe & Ottaviani, Marco, 2001. "Price Competition for an Informed Buyer," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 457-493, December.
    10. Edward E. Schlee, 1996. "The Value of Information About Product Quality," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(4), pages 803-815, Winter.
    11. Asher Wolinsky, 1983. "Prices as Signals of Product Quality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 50(4), pages 647-658.
    12. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    13. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    14. Pitchik, Carolyn & Schotter, Andrew, 1987. "Honesty in a Model of Strategic Information Transmission," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 1032-1036, December.
    15. Mark Voorneveld & Jörgen W. Weibull, 2011. "A Scent of Lemon—Seller Meets Buyer with a Noisy Quality Observation," Games, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, March.
    16. Adriani, Fabrizio & Deidda, Luca G., 2009. "Price signaling and the strategic benefits of price rigidities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 335-350, November.
    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. Silvia Martínez-Gorricho, 2014. "Information and consumer fraud in a signalling model," Working Papers. Serie AD 2014-01, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    2. Helmut Bester & Matthias Dahm, 2018. "Credence Goods, Costly Diagnosis and Subjective Evaluation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(611), pages 1367-1394, June.
    3. Bester, Helmut & Ouyang, Yaofu, 2018. "Optimal procurement of a credence good under limited liability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 96-129.
    4. Adriani, Fabrizio & Deidda, Luca G., 2009. "Price signaling and the strategic benefits of price rigidities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 335-350, November.
    5. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo, 2016. "Dynamic adverse selection and the supply size," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 233-242.
    6. Yongmin Chen & Jianpei Li & Jin Zhang, 2022. "Efficient Liability In Expert Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1717-1744, November.
    7. Asher Wolinsky, 1993. "Competition in a Market for Informed Experts' Services," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(3), pages 380-398, Autumn.
    8. Marco Ottaviani & Andrea Prat, 2001. "The Value of Public Information in Monopoly," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1673-1683, November.
    9. Fabian Herweg & Daniel Müller, 2016. "Overconfidence in the Markets for Lemons," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 118(2), pages 354-371, April.
    10. Silvia Martínez-Gorricho, 2012. "Beneficial consumer fraud," Working Papers. Serie AD 2012-13, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    11. Maarten Janssen & Alexei Parakhonyak, 2011. "Sårvice Refusal in Regulated Markets for Credence Goods," HSE Working papers WP BRP 08/EC/2011, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    12. Moscarini, Giuseppe & Ottaviani, Marco, 2001. "Price Competition for an Informed Buyer," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 457-493, December.
    13. repec:cgr:cgsser:03-07 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Saak, Alexander E., 2006. "The optimal private information in single unit monopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 267-272, May.
    15. Bing Jing, 2011. "Seller honesty and product line pricing," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 403-427, December.
    16. Schneider, Tim & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2021. "Consumer information in a market for expert services: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Dulleck, Uwe & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Konovalov, Alexander, 2014. "Too Much or Too Little? Price-Discrimination in a Market for Credence Goods," Working Papers in Economics 582, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2014.
    18. Ouyang, Yaofu, 2016. "Credence Goods, Risk Averse, and Optimal Insurance," MPRA Paper 70392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Mamada, Robert, 2022. "The market for lemons and information theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 107-112.
    20. Xiaoxiao Hu & Haoran Lei, 2023. "Information transmission in monopolistic credence goods markets," Papers 2303.13295, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    21. Jost, Peter-J. & Reik, Steffen & Ressi, Anna, 2021. "The information paradox in a monopolist’s credence goods market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).

    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:gam:jgames:v:11:y:2020:i:3:p:29-:d:392216. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.